## Bava Batra Daf 56a

###### Bava Batra 56a:1
[Bava Batra 56a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/56a:1)

בִּרְשׁוּת אַחַת – חַיָּיב, בִּשְׁתֵּי רְשׁוּיוֹת – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
and **in one domain,** i.e., he carried half the dried fig into the same public domain each time, he is **liable,** but if it was **in two domains,** i.e., he carried the item into two separate public domains, he is **exempt.**


###### Bava Batra 56a:2
[Bava Batra 56a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/56a:2)

וְאָמַר רַבָּה: וְהוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ חִיּוּב חַטָּאת בֵּינֵיהֶם, אֲבָל כַּרְמְלִית – לֹא. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ כַּרְמְלִית, אֲבָל פִּיסְלָא – לֹא. רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ פִּיסְלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabba says** in explanation of Rabbi Yosei’s opinion: **And this** division of the public domain applies only **where there is** a property where one would incur **liability** to bring **a sin-offering** if one unintentionally carried out of it or into it, i.e., a private domain, **between** the two sections. **But** if there was only **a *karmelit*,** i.e., an area that is not defined as either a private domain or public domain and to and from which the prohibition against carrying is only of rabbinic origin, it does **not** divide the public domain. **Abaye says: Even a *karmelit*** divides the public domain into separate sections, **but a beam [*pisela*]** does **not. Rava says: Even a beam** divides the public domain, since it is no less than a boundary or sea squill, which do serve as a barrier between fields.


###### Bava Batra 56a:3
[Bava Batra 56a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/56a:3)

וְאַזְדָּא רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: רְשׁוּת שַׁבָּת כִּרְשׁוּת גִּיטִּין דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And Rava follows his** own line of **reasoning, as Rava says:** The definition of **a domain** for the purpose of **Shabbat is like** the definition of **a domain** for the purpose of **bills of divorce:** Just as a beam is defined as a distinct domain for the purpose of bills of divorce, so too it is considered a distinct domain for the purpose of Shabbat.


###### Bava Batra 56a:4
[Bava Batra 56a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/56a:4)

אֵין שָׁם לֹא מֶצֶר וְלֹא חָצָב, מַאי? פֵּירֵשׁ רַבִּי מָרִינוּס מִשְּׁמוֹ: כׇּל שֶׁנִּקְרֵאת עַל שְׁמוֹ. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דְּקָרוּ לֵיהּ ״בֵּי גַרְגּוּתָא דִּפְלָנְיָא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to discuss the acquisition of a field that belonged to a convert who died without heirs. The Gemara asks: If **there was no boundary and** there was **no sea squill, what** are the limits to the acquisition? **Rabbi Marinus explains in the name** of Rabbi Yoḥanan: **Any** area **that is called by his name.** The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** where it is called by his name? **Rav Pappa said: Where it is called: The place** that is irrigated by **so-and-so’s well.** The entire area referred to as such would be considered one section with regard to acquisition.


###### Bava Batra 56a:5
[Bava Batra 56a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/56a:5)

יָתֵיב רַב אַחָא בַּר עַוְיָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַסִּי, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַסִּי בַּר חֲנִינָא: חֲצוּבָא מַפְסֵיק בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa bar Avya sat before Rabbi Asi, and he sat and was saying** the following **in the name of Rabbi Asi bar Ḥanina:** A row of **sea squill serves as a barrier with regard to the property of a convert** who died without heirs, so that each section is considered a distinct field.


###### Bava Batra 56a:6
[Bava Batra 56a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/56a:6)

מַאי חֲצוּבָא? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: שֶׁבּוֹ תִּיחֵם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הָאָרֶץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is **sea squill? Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says:** It is the growth **by which Joshua established the boundaries of Eretz** Yisrael **for the Jews.**


###### Bava Batra 56a:7
[Bava Batra 56a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/56a:7)

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לֹא מָנָה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶלָּא עֲיָירוֹת הָעוֹמְדוֹת עַל הַגְּבוּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara teaches a related statement. **And Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says:** In his book, **Joshua enumerated only the towns that stand upon the borders,** but not the towns that were within the portions of each tribe.


###### Bava Batra 56a:8
[Bava Batra 56a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/56a:8)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כֹּל שֶׁהֶרְאָהוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה – חַיָּיב בְּמַעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
On the subject of the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael, **Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says: Any** area **that the Holy One, Blessed be He, showed to Moses** before his death, as it is written: “And the Lord showed him all the land, Gilead…as far as Zoar” (Deuteronomy 34:1–3), is within the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael, and therefore produce that grows there is **obligated in tithe.**


###### Bava Batra 56a:9
[Bava Batra 56a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/56a:9)

לְאַפּוֹקֵי מַאי? לְאַפּוֹקֵי קֵינִי, קְנִיזִּי וְקַדְמוֹנִי. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: נַפְתּוֹחָא, עַרְבָאָה וְשַׁלְמָאָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַר שֵׂעִיר, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: עַרְדִּיסָקִיס, אַסְיָא וְאַסְפַּמְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **To exclude what** area? The Gemara answers: **To exclude** the lands of the **Kenite, Kenizzite, and Kadmonite,** as God had promised to Abraham at the Covenant between the Pieces: “To your offspring have I given this land…to…the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite” (Genesis 15:18–19). These areas are not obligated in tithe. What are these three areas? It **is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Meir says:** They are **Naftuḥa, Arva’a, and Shalma’a. Rabbi Yehuda says:** They are **Mount Seir, Ammon, and Moab. Rabbi Shimon says:** They are **Ardisekis, Asya, and Aspamya.**


###### Bava Batra 56a:10
[Bava Batra 56a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/56a:10)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים, וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִים – מְשַׁלְּמִין לוֹ אֶת הַכֹּל. שְׁנַיִם בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, שְׁנַיִם בַּשְּׁנִיָּה, וּשְׁנַיִם בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **there were two** witnesses **testifying on his behalf that** he, the possessor of the land, worked and **profited** from a field for **three years,** and therefore has presumptive ownership, **and they were found** to be **conspiring** witnesses, as it was proven that they were not present to witness the matter about which they had testified, they must **pay** the true owner of the field **the full** value of the field that they attempted, through their testimony, to remove from his possession, as it is written in the Torah: “Then shall you do to him, as he had planned to do to his brother” (Deuteronomy 19:19). If **two** witnesses testify that he worked and profited from the field **during the first** year, another **two** testify that he worked and profited from it **during the second** year, **and** another **two** testify that he worked and profited from it **during the third,** and all were found to be conspiring witnesses,