## Bava Batra Daf 55a

###### Bava Batra 55a:1
[Bava Batra 55a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/55a:1)

לֶיעְבַּד לִי מָר כְּאִידַּךְ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא קָנָה אֶלָּא מְקוֹם מַכּוֹשׁוֹ בִּלְבַד! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּהַאי, אֲנָא כִּשְׁמַעְתִּין סְבִירָא לִי – דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּיכֵּשׁ בָּהּ מַכּוֹשׁ אֶחָד – קָנָה כּוּלָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, **the Master should do for me in accordance with another** statement **of Shmuel, as Shmuel says** that one who hoes ownerless property **has acquired only the place that he struck** with the hoe. Rav Naḥman **said to him: In this** matter **I hold in accordance with our *halakha*, as Rav Huna says** that **Rav says: Once he struck** the land with a hoe **one** time, he **acquired the entire** property.


###### Bava Batra 55a:2
[Bava Batra 55a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/55a:2)

שְׁלַח רַב הוּנָא בַּר אָבִין: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלָּקַח שָׂדֶה מִגּוֹי, וּבָא יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר וְהֶחֱזִיק בָּהּ – אֵין מוֹצִיאִים אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדוֹ. וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי אָבִין וְרַבִּי אִילְעָא וְכׇל רַבּוֹתֵינוּ שָׁוִין בַּדָּבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **Rav Huna bar Avin sent** a ruling: In the case of **a Jew who purchased a field from a gentile, and** then **another Jew came and took possession of it, it is not removed from** the **possession of** the second Jew. **And so too, Rabbi Avin, and Rabbi Ile’a, and all of our Rabbis agree with regard to** this **matter.**


###### Bava Batra 55a:3
[Bava Batra 55a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/55a:3)

אָמַר רַבָּה: הָנֵי תְּלָת מִילֵּי, אִישְׁתַּעִי לִי עוּקְבָן בַּר נְחֶמְיָה רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא, מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: דִּינָא דְמַלְכוּתָא דִּינָא, וַאֲרִיסוּתָא דְפָרְסָאֵי – עַד אַרְבְּעִין שְׁנִין, וְהָנֵי זַהֲרוּרֵי דְּזָבֵין אַרְעָא לְטַסְקָא – זְבִינַיְהוּ זְבִינֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabba said: These three statements were told to me** by **Ukvan bar Neḥemya the Exilarch in the name of Shmuel: The law of the kingdom is the law; and** the term of **Persian sharecropping [*arisuta*]** is for **up to forty years,** since according to Persian laws the presumption of ownership is established after forty years of use; **and** in the case of **these tax officials [*zaharurei*] who sold land** in order **to** pay the **land tax, the sale is valid,** as the tax officials were justified in seizing it, and one may purchase the land from them.


###### Bava Batra 55a:4
[Bava Batra 55a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/55a:4)

וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי לְטַסְקָא, אֲבָל לִכְרָגָא – לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? כְּרָגָא – אַקַּרְקַף דְּגַבְרֵי מַנַּח. רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ שְׂעָרֵי דְכַדָּא מִשְׁתַּעְבְּדִי לִכְרָגָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And this statement** applies to land seized **to** pay the **land tax, but not** to land seized **to** pay the **head tax. What is the reason** for this? The **head tax is placed on a man’s head,** i.e., the obligation of this tax is on the individual and is unrelated to his property. It is therefore theft for the tax officials to sell land for this purpose. **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:** Everything, **even** the **barley in the pitcher, is mortgaged for** the payment of the **head tax.**


###### Bava Batra 55a:5
[Bava Batra 55a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/55a:5)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲמַר לִי הוּנָא בַּר נָתָן, קָשֵׁי בַּהּ אַמֵּימָר: אִם כֵּן, בִּטַּלְתָּ יְרוּשַּׁת בְּנוֹ הַבְּכוֹר – דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ רָאוּי, וְאֵין הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל בָּרָאוּי כְּבַמּוּחְזָק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: Huna bar Natan said to me** that **Ameimar raised a difficulty with regard to this** statement of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: **If so, you have abolished the inheritance of the firstborn son** of one who owes taxes to the kingdom. If everything can be seized by the tax collectors to pay the father’s debt, any property that he left behind **is** only **a potential** inheritance, not actually property of the heirs, **and** the *halakha* is that **the firstborn does not take** a double share **in a potential** inheritance **as** he does **in** property that the deceased **possessed.**


###### Bava Batra 55a:6
[Bava Batra 55a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/55a:6)

אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ טַסְקָא נָמֵי! אֶלָּא מָה אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר – דִּיהַיב טַסְקָא וּמִית; הָכָא נָמֵי – דִּיהַיב כְּרָגָא וּמִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues the statement of Huna bar Natan: And **I said to** Ameimar: **If** it is **so** that this presents a difficulty, then **even** if the property can be seized as payment for the **land tax** this difficulty would present itself **as well,** as the sons would not inherit their father’s estate in the event that it is seized to pay the land tax. **Rather, what have you to say** to deflect this question? That the firstborn son’s right is not negated in a case **where** the father **gave** the **land tax and** then **died,** so that he is no longer indebted to the government and the field is completely his. **Here too,** the firstborn son maintains his rights in a case **where** the father **gave** the **head tax and** then **died.**


###### Bava Batra 55a:7
[Bava Batra 55a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/55a:7)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, אָמַר לִי הוּנָא בַּר נָתָן: שְׁאֵילְתִּינְהוּ לְסָפְרֵי דְרָבָא, וַאֲמַרוּ לִי: הִלְכְתָא כְּרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. וְלָא הִיא, הָתָם – לְאוֹקוֹמֵי מִילְּתֵיהּ הוּא דְּאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: Huna bar Natan said to me: I asked** the **scribes** who wrote documents and recorded halakhic rulings in the court **of Rava, and they said to me** that **the *halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua,** who states that one’s possessions are all mortgaged for the payment of the head tax. The Gemara notes: **But** that **is not so,** as **there,** Huna bar Natan **said** that in order **to buttress his** previous **statement.**


###### Bava Batra 55a:8
[Bava Batra 55a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/55a:8)

וְאָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: פַּרְדָּכְתְּ – מְסַיַּיע מָתָא. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּאַצֵּילְתֵּיהּ מָתָא, אֲבָל אַנְדִּיסְקֵי – סִיַּעְתָּא דִשְׁמַיָּא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Ashi said: An idler [*pardakht*]** must **assist the town** by paying taxes even though he has no income in that town. **And this matter** applies in a case **where the town saved him** from his obligation by asking for a reduction on his behalf. **But** if the **tax collectors [*andisekei*]** do not seek to collect his debt this **is** regarded as **heavenly assistance,** and he is not obligated to volunteer to pay his share.


###### Bava Batra 55a:9
[Bava Batra 55a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/55a:9)

אָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמֶּצֶר וְהֶחָצָב מַפְסִיקִין בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן פֵּאָה וְטוּמְאָה – לָא. כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲפִילּוּ לְפֵאָה וְטוּמְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Asi says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The boundary** between fields **and the sea squill** that was planted to demarcate the border between fields **serve as a barrier** between fields **with regard to the property of a convert** who died without heirs, so that one who takes possession of the property acquires land only until the boundary or the sea squill, but not other land the convert had possessed beyond that point. **But** they do **not** serve as a barrier between fields **with regard to the matter of produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [*pe’a*], and ritual impurity,** and even the area beyond it is considered to be part of the same field. **When Ravin came** to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael, he **said** in the name of **Rabbi Yoḥanan:** They serve as a barrier between the fields **even with regard to** the *halakhot* of ***pe’a* and ritual impurity.**


###### Bava Batra 55a:10
[Bava Batra 55a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/55a:10)

פֵּאָה – מַאי הִיא? דִּתְנַן: וְאֵלּוּ מַפְסִיקִין לַפֵּאָה – הַנַּחַל, וְהַשְּׁלוּלִית,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What is** the *halakha* of ***pe’a*** that is affected by determining whether it is one or two fields? **As we learned** in a mishna (*Pe’a* 2:1): **And these serve as a barrier for** the purpose of ***pe’a*,** i.e., the presence of any of these divides a field so that each section constitutes a distinct field from which *pe’a* must be given independently: **A stream** that passes through the field; **and a canal;**