## Bava Batra Daf 52b

###### Bava Batra 52b:1
[Bava Batra 52b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/52b:1)

כְּדִשְׁלַח רַב הוּנָא בַּר אָבִין: דְּבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִן לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר, וְאָמַר ״לְקוּחִין הֵן בְּיָדִי״, אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rav Huna bar Avin sent** a ruling: If one other than the one previously established to be the owner is in possession of **items that are typically lent or rented, and says: They are purchased,** and that is why they are **in my possession, he is not deemed credible.** In this case as well, as the father of the orphans could not be awarded these documents without bringing proof, the same should be true of his orphans. Why, then, would Rav concede to Shmuel? The Gemara concedes: This is **difficult.**


###### Bava Batra 52b:2
[Bava Batra 52b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/52b:2)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא דְּאֵין חֲלוּקִין בְּעִיסָּתָן, אֲבָל חֲלוּקִים בְּעִיסָּתָן – אֵימוֹר מֵעִיסָּתוֹ קִימֵּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda says: They,** i.e., Rav, **taught** his ruling, that the brother must bring proof that he owns the property listed in the documents that appear under his name, **only when they do not divide** any of their property, even **with regard to their dough,** i.e., they share everything, even their food. **But** if **they divide with regard to their dough, say** that this brother **removed** money **from his dough,** i.e., reduced his expenses for food, thereby amassing his own property.


###### Bava Batra 52b:3
[Bava Batra 52b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/52b:3)

רְאָיָה בְּמַאי? רַבָּה אָמַר: רְאָיָה בְּעֵדִים, רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: רְאָיָה בְּקִיּוּם הַשְּׁטָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the requirement that proof be brought, the Gemara asks: **With what** is one considered to have brought **proof? Rabba says: Proof** is brought **with** the testimony of **witnesses** that he purchased the property listed in the document or granted the loan with his own money or that he inherited it from his mother’s family. **Rav Sheshet says: Proof** is brought **with** the court’s **ratification of the document** in which his name appears.


###### Bava Batra 52b:4
[Bava Batra 52b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/52b:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: הָא רַב וְהָא שְׁמוּאֵל, הָא רַבָּה וְהָא רַב שֵׁשֶׁת; מָר –, כְּמַאן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא מַתְנִיתָא יָדַעְנָא, דְּתַנְיָא: אֶחָד מִן הָאַחִין שֶׁהָיָה נוֹתֵן וְנוֹשֵׂא בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, וְהָיוּ אוֹנוֹת וּשְׁטָרוֹת יוֹצְאִין עַל שְׁמוֹ, וְאָמַר: שֶׁלִּי הֵן, שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לִי מִבֵּית אֲבִי אִמָּא – עָלָיו לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to Rav Naḥman: This** is the opinion of **Rav and this** is the opinion of **Shmuel; this** is the opinion of **Rabba and this** is the opinion of **Rav Sheshet. In accordance with whose** opinion **does** the **Master hold?** Rav Naḥman **said to him: I know a *baraita*,** which is the source of my opinion, **as it is taught** (*Tosefta* 9:2): In a case where there was **one of the brothers who was engaging in commerce in the house,** managing the family finances, **and there were bills of sale and** other **documents circulating with his name** appearing as the owner of the property or as a lender, **and** that brother **said:** The money and property **are mine, as they fell to me as an inheritance from the house of** the **father of** my **mother,** who is not the mother of the other brothers, it is **upon him to bring proof** of ownership.


###### Bava Batra 52b:5
[Bava Batra 52b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/52b:5)

וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא נוֹשֵׂאת וְנוֹתֶנֶת בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, וְהָיוּ אוֹנוֹת וּשְׁטָרוֹת יוֹצְאִין עַל שְׁמָהּ, וְאָמְרָה: שֶׁלִּי הֵן, שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לִי מִבֵּית אֲבִי אַבָּא אוֹ מִבֵּית אֲבִי אִמָּא – עָלֶיהָ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And similarly,** in the case of **a woman,** i.e., a widow, if her husband’s heirs see **that she is engaging in commerce in the house** with the property that had belonged to her husband, **and there were bills of sale and** other **documents circulating with her name** appearing on them as the owner, **and she said:** The money and property **are mine** alone, **as they fell to me as an inheritance from the house of** the **father of** my **father or from** the **house of** the **father of** my **mother,** and did not belong to my husband, it is **upon her to bring proof.** Rav Naḥman consequently holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav.


###### Bava Batra 52b:6
[Bava Batra 52b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/52b:6)

מַאי ״וְכֵן״? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אִשָּׁה, כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁבִיחָא לַהּ מִילְּתָא – דְּאָמְרִי קָא טָרְחָא קַמֵּי יַתְמֵי, לָא גָּזְלָה מִיַּתְמֵי; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן:.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Having quoted the *baraita*, the Gemara seeks to clarify it, and asks: **What** is the purpose of the clause of the *baraita* that begins: **And similarly,** where the *halakha* appears to be identical to that of the first clause? **Lest you say** that in the case of the **woman, since the matter is laudable for her,** in **that** people **say: She is toiling on behalf of orphans; she** would **not steal from** the **orphans,** and is therefore deemed credible if she says that the property in the documents that bear her name is her own, the *baraita* **teaches us** that this assumption cannot be relied upon, and she must bring proof of ownership.


###### Bava Batra 52b:7
[Bava Batra 52b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/52b:7)

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּמַחְזִיק, אֲבָל בְּנוֹתֵן מַתָּנָה וְהָאַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ וְכוּ׳. אַטּוּ כֹּל הָנֵי דְּאָמְרִינַן, לָאו בְּנֵי חֲזָקָה נִינְהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **In what** case **is this statement,** that one establishes the presumption of ownership after profiting from the property for a certain duration, **said?** It is said **in** a case of one who **has** mere **possession** of the property, which does in some cases serve as proof of ownership. **But in** a case of one who **gives a gift, or brothers who divided** their inheritance, or one who takes possession of the property of a convert who died without heirs and his property is now ownerless, as soon as one locked the door of the property, or fenced it or breached its fence even a bit, this is considered taking possession of the property, and effects acquisition. The Gemara asks: **Is that to say** that **all of these whom we** previously **said** possessed the field for three years **are not subject to** the *halakhot* of **taking possession** of property in this manner?


###### Bava Batra 52b:8
[Bava Batra 52b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/52b:8)

חַסּוֹרֵי מְחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בַּחֲזָקָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהּ טַעֲנָה, כְּגוֹן מוֹכֵר אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא מָכַרְתִּי״, וְלוֹקֵחַ אוֹמֵר: ״לָקַחְתִּי״;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds that the mishna **is incomplete and this** is what **it is teaching: In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said **with regard to possession that is accompanied by a claim,** i.e., when the possessor has a claim to counter that of the claimant, **such as** where the **seller,** i.e., the claimant, **says: I did not sell, and the buyer,** i.e., the possessor, **says: I purchased.** In that case, working and profiting from the land for three years establishes the presumption of ownership.


###### Bava Batra 52b:9
[Bava Batra 52b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/52b:9)

אֲבָל חֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ טַעֲנָה – כְּגוֹן נוֹתֵן מַתָּנָה, וְהָאַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ, וְהַמַּחְזִיק בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר – דִּלְמִקְנֵי בְּעָלְמָא הוּא; נָעַל, גָּדַר, פָּרַץ כׇּל שֶׁהוּא – הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** with regard to **possession that** does **not** need to be **accompanied by a claim,** as the prior owner concedes that the one in possession is the owner, **such as** a case where another person **gives** one **a gift, or** there are **brothers who divided** their property, **or** there is **one who takes possession of** the **property of a convert** who died without heirs, **where** the function of possessing the item is **only to acquire** it and not to establish the presumption of ownership, if one **locked** the door of the property, or **fenced** it or **breached** its fence even **a bit, this is** considered **taking possession** of the property.


###### Bava Batra 52b:10
[Bava Batra 52b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/52b:10)

תָּנֵי רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא בְּקִדּוּשִׁין דְּבֵי לֵוִי: נָעַל, גָּדַר, פָּרַץ כׇּל שֶׁהוּא בְּפָנָיו – הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה. בְּפָנָיו – אִין, שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו – לָא? אָמַר רָבָא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: בְּפָנָיו – לָא צְרִיךְ לְמֵימַר לֵיהּ: ״לֵךְ חֲזֵק וּקְנִי״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Hoshaya teaches in** the *baraita* of tractate ***Kiddushin*** that was taught in the **school of Levi:** If one **locked** the door of the property, or **fenced** it or **breached** its fence even **a bit,** if this was done **in** the **presence** of the seller, **this is** considered **taking possession** of the property. The Gemara asks: One could infer that **in his presence, yes,** he acquires it; but **not in his presence, no,** he does not acquire it. Why not? In any event he has taken possession. **Rava said** that **this** is what Rav Hoshaya **is saying:** If the act was performed **in** the seller’s **presence,** the seller **need not say to him: Go, take possession, and** thereby **acquire** the property. Since the buyer is performing the act in the seller’s presence, there is no need for the seller to specify that he consents to the buyer’s acquiring it.