## Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra Chapter 3 ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:1:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:1:1) **משנה:** חֶזְקַת הַבָּתִּים בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת וּמֶרְחֲצָאוֹת וְשׁוֹבָכוֹת בֵּית הַבַּדִּין בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין וְהָעֲבָדִים וְכָל שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה פֵירוֹת תָּדִיר חֶזְקָתָן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם. שְׂדֵה הַבַּעַל חֶזְקָתָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְאֵינָהּ מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** Confirmation of claim of undisturbed possession¹ 1:1, Note 30. of houses, cisterns, ditches, and caverns, and bath houses, and dove-cotes, oil presses, irrigated land, and slaves² 1:3, Notes 347–355., and everything which yields continuously is three years from day to day. The claim of undisturbed possession of an unirrigated field is three years, but not from day to day³. footnotes: ¹ A person who claims legal acquisition of real estate but has no deed can defend himself against an accusation of being an illegal squatter and must be confirmed by the court in his rights if he can prove undisturbed possession for three consecutive years by witnesses.There is a second meaning of חֲזָקָה “permanence of the status quo”, cf. Qiddušin ² Who in this respect follow the law of real estate; Qiddušin ³ But undisturbed collection of three consecutive harvests. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:1:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:1:2) **הלכה:** חֶזְקַת הַבָּתִּים בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת כול׳. מְנַיִין לַחֲזָקוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שָׁמַעְנוּ מֵהוֹלְכֵי אוּשָׁא מִשּׁוֹר הַמּוּעָד לָמְדוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מָאן אִית לֵיהּ שׁוֹר הַמּוּעָד לְג̇ יָמִים. לֹא רִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. לֹא אָמְרוּ ג̇ שָׁנִים אֶלָּא כְדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא בְאִיסְפַּמְיָא וְיַחֲזִיק שָׁנָה וְיֵלְכוּ וְיוֹדִיעוּהוּ שָׁנָה וְיָבוֹא שָׁנָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “The claim of undisturbed possession of houses, cisterns, ditches, and caverns,” etc. From where confirmation of claims of undisturbed possession? ⁴ Rebbi Joḥanan said, we heard from those who went to Usha⁵ that they learned it from the notorious bull⁶. Rebbi Yose said, who holds that a bull becomes notorious after three days? Not Rebbi Jehudah? As we stated there⁷ 2:6. Only R. Jehudah requires that the agressive behavior of the bull be confirmed by testimony for three consecutive days; R. Meïr holds that three incidents are sufficient, not necessarily on consecutive days. But nobody holds that legal possession can be claimed on the basis of 3 incidents of interrupted squatting.: “Rebbi Jehudah said, they said three years only for the case that if he⁸ is in Spain, he⁹ should be in possession for one year; they went and told him during one year, and he⁸ returns within one year.¹⁰” footnotes: ⁴ A parallel argument is in the Babli, 28a/b. ⁵ In the Babli identified as R. Ismael. In the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba war and its consequences, the Synhedrion was reconstituted at Usha under the leadership of R. Jehudah. ⁶ The rules of the notorious bull only apply to an animal which gored three times. The limit of three years is popular usage; no biblical sources are claimed. ⁷ Mishnah Bava qamma ⁸ The original owner of the land. ⁹ The squatter. ⁸ The original owner of the land. ¹⁰ This means that intrinsically R. Jehudah only requires one year of undisturbed possession. If the institution of חֲזָקָה is based on R. Jehudah’s teaching, it is only a tenuous analogy, without any claim of Biblical origin. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:1:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:1:3) שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר וָוא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַמּוֹכֵר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁמָּסַר לוֹ מַפְתֵּחַ קָנָה. רִבִּי אִמִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַמּוֹכֵר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁצָּבַר לְתוֹכוֹ פֵירוֹת קָנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. וּבִלְבַד פֵּירוֹת שֶׁרְאוּיִין לִיצָּבֵר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. הַמּוֹכֵר בּוֹר לַחֲבֵירוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁמָּסַר לוֹ דְלָיָיו קָנָה. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי בְשֵׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. הַמּוֹכֵר צֹאן לַחֲבֵירוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁמָּסַר לוֹ מַשְׁכּוֹכִית קָנָה. מַאי מַשְׁכּוֹכִית. אִית דָּמְרִין. חוּטְרָא. וְאִית דָּמְרִין. פַּנְדוּרָא. וְאִית דַּמְרִין. תַּיָישָׁא רַבָּא. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם בַּר קַפָּרָא. הַמּוֹכֵר קֶבֶר לַחֲבֵירוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁקָּבַר מֵת אֶחָד בְּכוּךְ חֲזָקָה לְכָל הַכּוּךְ. קָבַר ג̇ מֵתִים בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה כוּכִין חֲזָקָה לְכָל הַקֶּבֶר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ¹¹ Chapter 1, from which most of this paragraph is taken. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If someboldy is selling a house to another, when he delivered the key [the buyer] took possession¹² 1:4, Note 435. The text here agrees with the Babli (*Bava qamma* 51a/52b) against the Yerushalmi *Qiddušin.*. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody is selling a house to another, when [the buyer] stored produce there, he took possession¹³ 1:4, Note 435.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, only produce usually stored. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If somebody is selling a cistern to another, when he handed over its pails [the buyer] took possession¹⁴ 1:4, Note 434. There, the statement is by R. Simeon bar Abba in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi.. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish¹⁵ 1:4 (Notes 432–433), it is in the name of R. Yannai.: If somebody sold a flock to another person, when [the seller] delivered the *maškokît,* [the buyer] took possession. What is *maškokît*? Some say, the shepherd’s staff. But some say, a *pandura*¹⁶ 1:4 Note 433.. And some say, the bell-wether. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: If somebody is selling a burial chamber to another, when that one buried there one dead it is confirmation of claim for the entire chamber. When he buried three dead in three chambers, it is confirmation of claim for the entire burial cavern¹. footnotes: ¹¹ A claim of possession must be based on a claim of ownership. But transfer of ownership is only a precondition for the transfer of possession which needs a separate action. This is detailed in Qiddušin, ¹² Cf. Qiddušin ¹³ Qiddušin ¹⁴ Qiddušin ¹⁵ Obviously, this must read: R. Simeon ben Laqish in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi. In Qiddušin ¹⁶ Cf. Qiddušin ¹ For the rules of burial caverns see Halakhah 6:8. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:1:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:1:4) וַעֲבָדִים. רִבִּי סִימוֹן אַחֲוֵי דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר זַבְדִּי בְשֵׁם רַב. תִּינּוֹק כָּל זְמַן שֶׁמּוּשְׁלָךְ בַּשּׁוּק אָבִיו אוֹ אִמּוֹ מְעִידִין עָלָיו. נֶאֱסַף מִן הַשּׁוּק צָרִיךְ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים וְאָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ נַעֲשִׂין לוֹ כִשְׁנֵי עֵדִים. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. וְחָשׁוּד אָדָם לוֹמַר עַל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְנוֹ שֶׁהוּא בְנוֹ. דִּילְמָא בְנִיכְסֵי הַגֵּר אִתְאֲמָרַת. אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ. הֲרֵי כָל רַבּוֹתֵינוֹ בַגּוֹלָה מְעִידִין עָלֵינוּ שֶׁכָּךְ שֶׁמַעְנוּהָ מִפִּי רַב אָדָא בַּר אָבוּהּ. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּתִינּוֹק שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַרְגִּיעַ. אֲבָל בְּתִינּוֹק הַמַּרְגִּיעַ הָדָא הִיא דָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עֲגָלִים וְסַיָיחִים הַמְקַפְּצִין מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם אֵין לָהֶן חֲזָקָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “And slaves.” ¹⁷ 4:2, Notes 107–111. Rebbi Simon the brother of Rebbi Jehudah bar Zavdi in the name of Rav: As long as a baby lies in the public domain, his father or his mother can testify about him. Once he has been collected from the public domain, one needs two witnesses and its father and mother are like two witnesses. Rebbi Abbahu said, can a person be suspected to say about one who is not his son that he is his son¹⁸? Maybe it was said about the property of a convert¹⁹ father and mother. But once he is married in Jewish law, the Torah gives the father the sole power to recognize his child; *Deut.* 21:17.? He told him, but all our teachers in the Diaspora testify that in this form we heard it from Rav Ada bar Abuh²⁰ I §340 (end): Rabba bar Abuh. This seems to be the correct attribution.. Rav Ḥisda said: That is, if the baby is not moving. But [the case of] a baby which is moving refers to what Rebbi Joḥanan said: property rights on jumping calves and lambs which move from place to place cannot be proven by possession²¹ it parallels the conclusion reached by the Babli, 36a.. footnotes: ¹⁷ This paragraph is partially quote and partially reformulation of a paragraph in Qiddušin ¹⁸ Why should not his father alone be empowered to recognize his child? ¹⁹ If he has no Jewish children, he has no heirs in Jewish law and all Jews are potentially entitled to inherit from him. If then he recognizes an otherwise unknown person as his son, he potentially damages other people’s claim; the recognition needs two witnesses, viz., ²⁰ In E and Or zarua‘ ²¹ Therefore, such a child is a foundling; his parents cannot act as witnesses since by their testimony they declare themselves his relatives and thus disqualify themselves. This conclusion is the opposite of the one reached in the longer text in Qiddušin; ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:1:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:1:5) רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת בְּנִיכְסֵי הַגֵּר הַמֵּיצַר בֵּנְתַיִים. תָּלַשׁ מֵאַחַת מֵהֶן לִקְנוֹת חֲבֵירָתָהּ וְלֹא לִקְנוֹת הַמֵּיצַר. הִיא נִקְנֵית וַחֲבֵירָתָהּ אֵינָהּ נִקְנֵית. רִבִּי זֵירָא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. נִתְכַּוֵון לִקְנוֹת [מִן] הַמֵּיצַר. וּשְׁרַע מִינָּהּ. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. בְּנִיכְסֵי הַגֵּר תָּלַשׁ צְפוֹנָהּ שֶׁלַּשָּׂדֶה לִקְנוֹת דְּרוֹמָהּ וְלֹא אֶמְצַעִיתָהּ. צְּפוֹנָהּ נִקְנֵית דְּרוֹמָהּ לֹא נִקְנֵית תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. אִם הָיָה מְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע וְתָלַשׁ כָּל שֶׁהוּא קָנָה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. לֹא קָנָה אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁתָּלַשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶבְדַּומָא נְחוּתָה בְּנִיכְסֵי הַגֵּר אִתְאֲמַר. רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק. בְּגִין דְּלָא תֵימַר קַשְׁיָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל אַתֲּ מַר בְּנִיכְסֵי הַגֵּר אִיתְאֲמָרַת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ²² 1:5, Notes 502–513; cf. Babli 52b/53a. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If two fields of a proselyte were involved²³ as Roman citizen could not inherit from her native Egyptian mother (cf. R. Taubenschlag, *loc. cit. Bava meṣia‘* 1, Note 84, p. 142.) The fields can be acquired only by performing some agricultural work, e. g., weeding. But work on a field only acquires real estate adjacent to the place on which the work was done., with a boundary strip in between. If he cut off from one of them with the intent of taking possession also of the other but not the boundary strip in between, the one was acquired by him but not the other. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: If he intended to acquire starting [from]²⁴ the boundary strip and below? Rav Ḥisda said, property of a proselyte which he took possession of in the North by cutting off with the intent of also acquiring the one to the South, but did not have the intent of acquiring the strip in the middle, he acquired the one to the North but not the one to the South²⁵ 1:5 where the two statements refer to different situations.. There, we have stated²⁶ 1:5 Note 513.: “If it was connected to the ground and he cut off anything, he acquired.” Samuel said, he acquired only what he cut off. Rebbi Eudaimon the Emigrant said, this was said concerning the property of a proselyte²⁷. Rav Ḥisda said, Rebbi Isaac: It was reported that this was said concerning the property of a proselyte, so it should present no difficulty for Samuel²⁸. footnotes: ²² This is a reformulation of a paragraph in Qiddušin ²³ By becoming Jewish, the proselyte changed his ethnic status and severed his links with his biological family. If he failed to start a Jewish family, he died without heirs; the fields now are ownerless property. {It was characteristic of Egyption intercommunal law that inheritance across ethnic boundaries was impossible. So the daughter of a Roman missicius ²⁴ Reading of E, missing in L, confirmed by the text in Qiddušin. ²⁵ This statement is really the same as the one attributed earlier to R. Joḥanan. The genuine source is Qiddušin ²⁶ Mishnah 5:9. This refers to a standing crop on a field. After harvest, the produce is taken into possession by the buyer by moving some of the crop. The problem is, how can standing crop be acquired while the field remains the seller’s property? Cf. Qiddušin ²⁷ Since no real estate was acquired, taking some stalks can have no influence on the remainder of the ownerless crop. ²⁸ Since if the crop was paid for and the buyer was told by the seller to harvest it, Samuel must agree that by cutting the first stalk he takes possession of the entire crop. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:1:6 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:1:6) רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר. מְשֹׁךְ בְּהֵמָה זוֹ לִקְנוֹת קָנָה. לִקְנוֹת וְולָדוֹתֶיהָ [לֹא] קָנָה. לִקְנוֹת הִיא וּוְלָדוֹתֶיהָ (לֹא) קָנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי נָסָה. הָדָא דְתֵימַר. בְּשֶׁלֹּא הָיְתֵה עוֹבָרָה. אֲבָל אִם הָיְתֵה עוֹבָרָה עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ כְּאֶחָד מֵאֵיבָרֶיהָ. וְהָתַנֵּי. הַמּוֹכֵר עוֹבָרֵי בְהֶמְתּוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ לֹא עָשָׂה כְלוּם. וְולָדֵי שִׁפְחָתוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ לֹא עָשָׂה כְלוּם. מַעְשְׂרוֹת שָׂדֵהוּ לַחֲבֵירוֹ לֹא עָשָׂה כְלוּם. אַוֵּיר חוֹרֵבָתוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ לֹא עָשָׂה כְלוּם. אֶלָּא מוֹכֵר לוֹ בְהֵמָה וּמְשַׁיֵיר לוֹ עוֹבָרָהּ. מוֹכֵר לוֹ שִׁפְחָה וּמְשַׁיֵיר לוֹ וְולָדָהּ. מוֹכֵר לוֹ שָׂדֶה וּמְשַׁיֵיר לוֹ מַעְשְׂרוֹת. מוֹכֵר לוֹ חוֹרֵבָה וּמְשַׁיֵיר לוֹ אַוֵּירָהּ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ²⁹ 1:4, Notes 414–417. Rav Ḥisda said, “draw this animal close to you in order to take possession,” he took possession³⁰1:4.. “To take possession of its offspring,” he did [not]³¹ take possession. “To take possession of it together with its offspring,” he did (not)³² take possession. Rebbi Nasa³³ Yose. said, that is, if it was not pregnant. But if it was pregnant, they treated [the fetus] as one of its limbs, as we did state³⁴ 6:3, Notes 79–83, and its slightly garbled parallel in *Qiddušin* 1:4, Notes 439–441.: He who sells the fetus of his animal to another person did not do anything; the future children of his slave girl to another person, he did not do anything; the tithes of his field to another person, he did not do anything; the airspace of his dry land to another person, he did not do anything. But he may sell him an animal and reserve her fetus for himself, sell him a slave girl and reserve her children for himself, sell him a field and reserve the tithes for himself, sell him dry land and reserve the airspace for himself. footnotes: ²⁹ This is from Qiddušin ³⁰ Implied by Mishnah Qiddušin ³¹ Reading of E, missing in L, required bt the text in Qiddušin. ³² Reading of L, missing in E, to be deleted with the text in Qiddušin. ³³ In Qiddušin: ³⁴ This is a reformulation of an Amoraic text in Demay ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:1:7 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:1:7) רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב חִסְדָּא. שְׁלֹשָׁה הֵן שֶׁהֵן נֶאֱמָנִין לְאַלְתָּר. הַחַיָּה וְהַשְּׁיָירָה וְהַמְטָהֶרֶת חֲבֵרוֹתֶיהָ. הַחַיָּה בְשָׁעָה שֶׁיּוֹשֶׁבֶת עַל הַמַּשְׁבֵּר. מֵהָדָא דִכְתִיב וַתִּקַּח הַמְיַלֶּדֶת וִתִּקְשֹׁר וגו׳. שְׁיָירָא. כַּיי דָּמַר רִבִּי סִימוֹן אַחֲוֵי דִיהוּדָה בַּר זַבְדִּי בְשֵׁם רַב. [תִּינּוֹק] כָּל זְמַן שֶׁמּוּשְׁלָךְ לַשּׁוּק אוֹ אָבִיו אוֹ אִמּוֹ מְעִידִין עָלָיו. נֶאֱסַף צָרִיךְ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים וְאָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ נַעֲשִׂין לוֹ כִשְׁנֵי עֵדִים. וְהַמְטָהֶרֶת חֲבֵרוֹתֶיהָ. כַּיי דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים שֶׁהָיוּ יְשֵׁינוֹת בְּמִיטָּה וְנִמְצָא דָם תַּחַת אַחַת מֵהֶן כּוּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת. בָּדְקָה אַחַת וּמְצָתָה טָמֵא הִיא טְמֵאָה וְכוּלָּן טְהוֹרוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. וּבִלְבַד מֵעֵת לָעֵת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ³⁵ 4:2, Notes 112–117. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Three are trustworthy immediately: a midwife, a caravan, and the one who purifies her colleagues. A midwife as long as [the woman] sits on the birthing chair, from the verse: “The midwife took and wound, etc.” A caravan, as Rebbi Simon, the brother of Rebbi Jehudah bar Zavdi, said in the name of Rav: As long as [a baby]³⁶ and the context. lies in the public domain, either its father or its mother can testify about him. Once he has been collected from the public domain, one needs two witnesses; its father and mother may become its two witnesses. The one who purifies her colleagues, as we have stated there³⁷ 9:4.: “Three women sleep on one bed. If blood was found under one of them, all three are impure. If one of them checked herself out and found herself impure, she is impure and the other two are pure.” Rebbi Abba said, only within 24 hours. footnotes: ³⁵ This is a slight rewording of a paragraph in Qiddušin ³⁶ Reading of E, missing in L, required by the parallel in Qiddušin ³⁷ Mishnah Niddah ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:2:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:2:1) **משנה:** רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר ג̇ חֳדָשִׁים בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה וּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ בָּאֶמְצָע הֲרֵי שְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר חֹדֶשׁ בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וְחֹדֶשׁ בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה וּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ בָּאֶמְצָע הֲרֵי אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּשְׂדֵה הַלָּבָן אֲבָל בִּשְׂדֵה הָאִילָן כָּנַס אֶת תְּבוּאָתוֹ מָסַק אֶת זֵיתָיו כָּנַס אֶת קֵייצוֹ הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** Rebbi Ismael says, three months in the first and three months in the last with twelve months in the middle, for a total of eighteen months³⁸. Rebbi Aqiba says, one month in the first and one month in the last with twelve months in the middle, for a total of fourteen months. Rebbi Ismael said, when has this been said? A field of grain. But for an orchard, if he harvested his yield³⁹ 22:9 is called “the vineyard’s yield”., lifted his olives, and collected his cut figs it counts for three years⁴⁰. footnotes: ³⁸ The three years of undisturbed possession required in Mishnah 1 are not three calendar years but three harvests with time for preparation before the harvest and processing afterwards. ³⁹ The grape harvest, which in Deut. ⁴⁰ Depending on the trees in the orchard, three different undisturbed harvests establish a presumption of lawful possession. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:2:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:2:2) **הלכה:** רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר. שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים כול׳. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. זוֹ דִבְרֵי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. ג̇ שָׁנִים קָצִיר. ג̇ שָׁנִים בָּצִיר. ג̇ שָׁנִים מָסִיק. רַב אָמַר. זוֹ דִבְרֵי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. ג̇ שָׁנִים מֵעֵת לָעֵת. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁחֲלוּקִין כָּאן כָּךְ חֲלוּקִין בִּשְׁנֵי אֱלִיָּהוּ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “Rebbi Ismael says, the first three months,” etc. ⁴¹ Samuel said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, three years grain cutting, three years grape harvesting, three years olive harvesting. Rav said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, three years from day to day. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Just as they disagree here, so they disgree about Elijah’s years⁴² 18:1 were 14 months, 18 months, or three full years.. footnotes: ⁴¹ Babli 36b. ⁴² Whether the three years’ draught mentioned in 1K. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:3:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:3:1) **משנה:** שָׁלֹשׁ אֲרָצוֹת לַחֲזָקָה יְהוּדָה וְעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן וְהַגָּלִיל. הָיָה בִיהוּדָה וְהֶחֱזִיק בַּגָּלִיל בַּגָּלִיל וְהֶחֱזִיק בִּיהוּדָה אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא עִמּוֹ בַּמְּדִינָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה לֹא אָמְרוּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים אֶלָּא כְדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא בְאִיסְפַּמְיָא וְיַחֲזִיק שָׁנָה וְיֵלְכוּ וְיוֹדִיעוּהוּ שָׁנָה וְיָבוֹא לַשָּׁנָה הָאַחֶרֶת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** There are three regions for claims of undisturbed possession: Judea, Transjordan⁴³ 9:2, Note 39., and Galilee. If he was in Judea and somebody claimed undisturbed possession in Galilee, or in Galilee and somebody claimed undisturbed possession in Judea, it is not undisturbed possession unless he be in the same province⁴⁴. Rebbi Jehudah said, they said three years only for the case that if he⁸ is in Spain⁴⁵, he⁹ should be in possession for one year; they went and told him during one year, and he⁸ returns within one year.¹⁰ footnotes: ⁴³ According to some interpretations, the region between the Judean foothills and the Mediterranian; cf. Ševi‘it ⁴⁴ If the original owner can prove that he was not in the province during the claimant’s occupation of the land, a claim of undisturbed possession will be disallowed and the claimant evicted unless he has documentary proof of his claim. ⁸ The original owner of the land. ⁴⁵ Or Apamea in Phrygia; that would be presupposed in R. Ismael’s and R. Aqiba’s interpretations. ⁹ The squatter. ⁸ The original owner of the land. ¹⁰ This means that intrinsically R. Jehudah only requires one year of undisturbed possession. If the institution of חֲזָקָה is based on R. Jehudah’s teaching, it is only a tenuous analogy, without any claim of Biblical origin. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:3:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:3:2) **הלכה:** שָׁלֹשׁ אֲרָצוֹת לַחֲזָקָה כול׳ רַב אָמַר. בְּשָׁעַת הַחֵירוּם שָׁנוּ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “There are three regions for claims of undisturbed possession,” etc. Rav said, this was taught in emergency situations⁴⁶. footnotes: ⁴⁶ That a person being in a different province of the same country cannot claim undisturbed possession only applies in wartime or similar circumstances when there is no regular communication between the regions. In the Babli, 38a, this opinion is explained as following Rav’s opinion that the injured party may protest anywhere, not necessarily in the presence of the person in actual possession. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:3:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:3:3) אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. שְׁנֵי עָרְלָה בֵּינֵיהוֹן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Ḥanina said, the years of *‘orlah* are in dispute between them⁴⁷. footnotes: ⁴⁷ This refers to Mishnah and Halakhah 2. For Samuel, a new orchard which may not be harvested can never be acquired by a claim of undisturbed possession; for Rav it may be acquired after three full years. It also is possible that the statement refers to the dispute between R. Aqiba and R. Ismael. Since R. Aqiba only requires minimal preparation for a harvest, he will recognize years in which the trees cannot be harvested as included in the time required for a claim of undisturbed possession. R. Ismael, who requires extensive preparations, will not recognize those years. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:3:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:3:4) רַב אָמַר. אֵין חֲזָקָה לַבּוֹרֵחַ וְלֹא מֵאֶרֶץ לְאֶרֶץ. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. יֵשׁ חֲזָקָה לַבּוֹרֵחַ וְיֵשׁ חֲזָקָה מֵאֶרֶץ לְאֶרֶץ. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. קַרְיָיא מְסַיֵיעַ לְמַה דָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל. וַיִּתֵּן לָהּ הַמֶּלֶךְ סְרִיס אֶחָד וגו׳. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rav said, there can be no claim of undisturbed possession from a fugitive, nor one made from one country to another. Samuel said, there can be a claim of undisturbed possession from a fugitive, and a claim of undisturbed possession made from one country to another⁴⁸. Rav Naḥman bar Rav Isaac¹ Isaac. said, a verse supports what Samuel said: “The king gave her an adjutant,⁴⁹ 8:6. Since the Ṣhunamite woman needed the king’s intervention after an absence of 7 years in the Land of the Philistines it follows that she could get no relief in the regular courts since a claim of undisturbed possession could be made against a proprietor living in another country.” etc. footnotes: ⁴⁸ As the Babli points out, 38b, this statement by Rav contradicts the earlier one that the rule of the Mishnah only applies to emergency situations. Samuel’s position is clear; he holds that a protest can be made before any court which will sign a dated statement which may be used before the court at the place of the disputed real estate without time limit. For the position of Rav, two explanations are given there. One is that he holds that a protest must be made in person and that his statement about the Mishnah was to explain the thinking of the Tanna, not his own. Another is that he also holds that a protest can be submitted in any court but that such an appearance in a distant court can be expected only from a fugitive because of nonpayment of taxes or other debt but not from a person accused of a capital crime. Also, the choice of the word “country” instead of “province” refers to a country outside the Roman Empire, such as Persia or India, from where any communication might be difficult or impossible. ¹ The identity of this Amora is not clear. The fourth generation Amora Rav Naḥman bar Isaac never is quoted as Rav Naḥman bar Rav ⁴⁹ 2K. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:3:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:3:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:3:5) אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. וַאֲפִילוּ שְׁתֵּי אבטיניות כְּגוֹן שלומי ונבירו וְהַיַּרְדֵּן מַפְסִיק בֵּנְתַיִים וְעוֹמֵד שָׁם וְרוֹאֶה אֶחָד הַמַּחֲזִיק בַּשָּׂדֶה וּמַחֲזִיק בְּשֶׁלּוֹ אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה עַד שֶתְּהֵא עִמּוֹ בְּאוֹתָהּ הָעִיר וּבְאוֹתָהּ הַמְּדִינָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Eleazar said: Even two אבטיניות, e. g., שלומי and נבירו⁵⁰ Babli 55a, Tosephta 7:3) the spelling is אבטליות or אבטלאות; with a change of liquids, also אבטיניות. In E and *Megillah*1:1 l. 44: אבטוניות. In *Sefer haIṭṭur* 1–2, p. 88b (מודעא) אפסיטואות. *Meïri Bava batra ad* 38a (ed. A. Schreiber p. 213) אכסניות “hostelries”. *‘Arukh* explains “big cities”; no acceptable etymologies are known. (If the word be Greek, the Yerushalmi transliteration would be more reliable than the Babylonian. But Jastrow’s αὐτονομία is doubtful, as is Zuckermandel’s ἀποτέλειοι.) The names of the towns appear as שלומי, השולמי or נבירו, נמירי, נמורי ;נמר (גבירו, נמוכי). S. Klein-י) (עבר הירדן היהודי 1925 ם determines the places as Bet Nimra in Transjordan opposite Alexandria in Cisjordan. separated by the Jordan and a person may see another taking possession of the field, his property, there is no creation of a claim of undisturbed possession unless he was in the same locality, in the same province⁴⁴. footnotes: ⁵⁰ In Babylonian sources (Bekhorot ⁴⁴ If the original owner can prove that he was not in the province during the claimant’s occupation of the land, a claim of undisturbed possession will be disallowed and the claimant evicted unless he has documentary proof of his claim. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:3:6 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:3:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:3:6) רַב אָמַר. עִיקַּר חֲזָקָה הַכְנָסַת פֵּירוֹת. לֹא מוֹדֶה רַב בִּמְנַכֵּשׁ וּבִמְעַדֵּר. מוֹדֶה רַב בִּמְנַכֵּשׁ וּבִמְעַדֵּר. מָהוּ דְאָמַר רַב. עִיקַּר חֲזָקָה הַכְנָסַת פֵּירוֹת. אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם רָאוּ אוֹתוֹ חוֹרֵשׁ וְקוֹצֵר וּמְעַמֵּר וְדָשׁ וּבוֹרֵר וְלֹא רָאוּהוּ מַכְנִיס פֵּירוֹת אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה אֶלָּא הַכְנָסַת פֵּירוֹת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ⁵¹12:1, Note 29. Rav said, the main confirmation of a claim of possession is storing the produce. Does Rav not agree about weeding and turning the soil? Rav agrees about weeding and turning the soil. What does it mean that Rav said, the main indication of a claim of possession is storing the produce? That if they saw him ploughing, and harvesting, and binding into sheaves, and threshing, and grading, but did not see him storing the produce, there is no claim of possession without storing the produce⁵². footnotes: ⁵¹ This is a slightly more detailed exposition of a paragraph in Yebamot ⁵² Since all other work could be done by a hired hand. While taking the final produce without ever having worked the land might be an indication of theft, working the land without enjoying its yield disproves ownership. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:3:7 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:3:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:3:7) רַב אָמַר. עִיקַּר חֲלִיצָה הַתָּרַת רְצוּעוֹת. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵּׁם רַב יְהוּדָה. רִבִּי זְרִיקָן מָטֵי בָהּ בְּשֵּׁם רַב. דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. חָלְצָה וְלֹא רָקְקָה רָקְקָה וְלֹא חָלְצָה. חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה עַד שֶׁתַּחֲלוֹץ וְתָרוֹק. מוֹדֶה רַב עַד שֶׁתַּחֲלוֹץ וְתָרוֹק. מֵהָדָא דְאָמַר רַב. עִיקַּר חֲלִיצָה הַתָּרַת רְצוּעוֹת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ⁵³ 12:1, Notes 27–28, about the act of freeing the childless widow from levirate marriage. It is quoted here as an appendix to the previous paragraph. Rav said, the essence of *ḥalîṣah*²⁷ is the untying of the shoelace. Did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Zeriqan turns to it in the name of Rav: The words of the Sages: If she slips off but did not spit, or spat but did not take off, the *ḥaliṣah* is invalid unless she slips off and spits²⁸. Rav agrees “unless she slips off and spits”; it is implied by what Rav said, the essence of slipping off is untying the shoelaces. footnotes: ⁵³ This is a reformulation of a paragraph in Yebamot ²⁷ Since no real estate was acquired, taking some stalks can have no influence on the remainder of the ownerless crop. ²⁸ Since if the crop was paid for and the buyer was told by the seller to harvest it, Samuel must agree that by cutting the first stalk he takes possession of the entire crop. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:3:8 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:3:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:3:8) רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנַן. עֶרֶר מָהוּ שֶׁיַּצְרִיךְ בֵּית דִּין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עֶרֶר אֵין צָרִיךְ בֵּית דִּין. וְאִית דָּמְרִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה שָׁאַל לְתַלְמִידוֹי דְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עֶרֶר מָהוּ שֶׁצָּרִיךְ בֵּית דִּין. רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עֶרֶר צָרִיךְ בֵּית דִּין. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ עָרַר עִמּוֹ בִּפְנֵי פוֹעֲלִין עֶרֶר הוּא. וְצָרִיךְ לְעוֹרֵר עַל כַּל שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. גִּידּוּל בַּר מִינְיָימִין הֲוָה לֵיהּ עוֹבְדָא וַהֲווּ דַיָינֵיהּ חִלְקִיָּה בַּר טוֹבִי וְרַב הוּנָא וְחִיָיה בַּר רַב. אָמַר לוֹן חִיָיה בַּר רַב. כֵּן אָמַר אַבָּא. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁעָרַר עִמּוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת עוֹד אֵין צָרִיךְ לְעוֹרֵר עָלָיו. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. הָיָה אוֹכֵל שֶׁלּוֹ שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים. עָרַר שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת. אָמַר לוֹ. אַתָּה מָכַרְתָּה לִי אַתָּה נָתַתָּה לִי מַתָּנָה. אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה. מַחֲמַת טַעֲנָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה. שֶׁכָּל חֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ טַעֲנָה אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אִם כְּזוֹ אֵין אָנוּ מְנִיחִין לִגְדּוֹלֵי אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּלוּם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked Rebbi Joḥanan: Must a protest be filed before a court? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: a protest does not have to be filed before a court⁵⁴. But some say, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked Rebbi Joḥanan’s student: Must a protest be filed before a court? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: a protest must be filed before a court⁵⁵. Samuel said, even if he protested against him in front of workers, it is a protest⁵⁴, but he has to protest in each one of the three years. Giddul ben Minyamin had a case; his judges were Ḥilqiah bar Tobi, Rav Huna, and Ḥiyya bar Rav. Ḥiyya bar Rav told them, so said my father: Once he protested the first three years, he is not required to protest further⁵⁶. It was stated thus⁵⁷: “If he⁵⁸ ate it as his own for six years, he⁵⁹ protested against him the first three years; then⁶⁰ he⁵⁸ said, you sold it to me, you gave it to me as a gift, there is no claim of undisturbed possession. Because of an initial claim¹ it would have been a claim of undisturbed possession since⁶¹ any claim of undisturbed possession not accompanied by a claim of legal ownership is not a claim of undisturbed possession⁶².” Samuel said, if it is so, nothing would be left for the great people of the Land of Israel⁶³ 5:1, Note 9.. footnotes: ⁵⁴ A protest against unlawful occupation of land is a matter of testimony, rather than court action. It needs only two witnesses and does not have to be in writing; this is the position of the Babli (39b/40a). ⁵⁵ It needs three judges and a written confirmation by the clerk of court.In the Babli, 39a, R. Ḥiyya bar Abba is quoted as holding that a protest is a matter of witnessing, needing two witnesses but no court, and R. Abbahu that it is a matter of court record, needing three judges, both in the name of R. Joḥanan. ⁵⁴ A protest against unlawful occupation of land is a matter of testimony, rather than court action. It needs only two witnesses and does not have to be in writing; this is the position of the Babli (39b/40a). ⁵⁶ The Babli, 39b, disagrees and in addition holds that the protest has to be renewed at the end of each three-year period. ⁵⁷ Tosephta 2:4. ⁵⁸ The occupant. ⁵⁹ The former owner. ⁶⁰ In the Tosephta: “at the end”, implying that the occupant was silent during the first protest. ⁵⁸ The occupant. ¹ An assertion of ownership at the start would be an argument accepted by the court. ⁶¹ Mishnah 3:4. ⁶² In the Tosephta: Any claim not asserted from the start is invalid. ⁶³ Cf. Bava Meṣi‘a ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:4:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:4:1) **משנה:** כָּל חֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ טַעֲנָה אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה. כֵּיצַד אָמַר לוֹ מָה אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה בְתוֹךְ שֶׁלִּי. שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לִי אָדָם דָּבָר מֵעוֹלָם אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה. אַתָּה מָכַרְתָּה לִי אַתָּה נָתַתָּה לִי מַתָּנָה הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה. וְהַבָּא מִשּׁוּם יְרוּשָּׁה אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ טַעֲנָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** Any claim of undisturbed possession not accompanied by a claim of legal ownership is not a claim of undisturbed possession. How is this? He⁵⁹ said to him, what are you doing on my property? Nobody ever said anything to me⁵⁸ is not a claim of undisturbed possession. You sold it to me, you gave it to me as a gift, is a claim of undisturbed possession. A person entering because of inheritance does not need a claim⁶⁴. footnotes: ⁵⁹ The former owner. ⁵⁸ The occupant. ⁶⁴ The heir does not have to establish his ownership by investigating how the bequeather acquired title. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:4:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:4:2) **הלכה:** כָּל חֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ טַעֲנָה כול׳. וְצָרִיךְ חֲזָקָה. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֶירוֹ. שָׂדֶה זוֹ כול׳. כְּהָדָא. רְאוּבֵן אוֹכֵל שָׂדֶה בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלּוֹ וְהֵבִיא שִׁמְעוֹן עֵדִים שֶׁמֵּת אָבִיו מִתּוֹכָהּ. מַפְקִין לָהּ מֵרְאוּבֵן וִיהָבִין לְשִׁמְעוֹן. אֶלָּא הָלַךְ רְאוּבֵן וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁלֹּא מֵת אָבִיו מִתּוֹכָהּ. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב. אֲנָא אַפִּיקְתֵּיהּ מֵרְאוּבֵן אֲנָא מַחֲזִרֶנָּה לֵיהּ. רַב אָמַר. כְּשֶׁנָּתַתָּהּ עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין נָתַתַּה. מִיכָּן וָהֵילָךְ הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָיה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “Any claim of undisturbed possession not accompanied by a claim of legal ownership,” etc. But it needs proof of undisturbed possession⁶⁵. There⁶⁶ 2:2. If a person informs another that property which he holds did belong to his father, he must be believed without proof that he holds legal title since “the mouth which forbade is the mouth which permitted.”, we have stated: “Rebbi Joshua agrees that if somebody says to anothet, ‘this field’, etc.” ⁶⁷ 2:2, Notes 37–43. As the following. Reuben ate from a field claiming that it was his. Simeon brought witnesses that his father died in possession. One removes [the field] from Reuben and hands it over to Simeon. Reuben went and brought witnesses that [Simeon’s] father did not die in possession. Rebbi Naḥman ben Jacob said, I took it from Reuben, I am returning it to him. Rav⁶⁸: “The rabbis here” who disagree with the Babylonian decision and hold that a revision of a prior court decision has to be treated as a new case and must follow standard court procedure. said, when you gave it to him, you gave it on the basis of a court decree. From there on the burden of proof is on the claimant. footnotes: ⁶⁵ In order to be safe from actions against his title, the owner has to hold on to his deed until he has established a three years’ claim of undisturbed possession. ⁶⁶ Mishnah Ketubot ⁶⁷ A shortened reformulation of a paragraph in Ketubot ⁶⁸ Since Rav died before Rav Naḥman b. Jacob became Chief Judge, one must read with the text of Ketubot ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:4:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:4:3) מִי מוֹדִיעַ. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. עֵידֵי מִיתָה מוֹדִיעִין. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים יוֹדְעִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לְעוֹלָם הַשָּׂדֶה בְחֶזְקַת בְּעָלֶיהָ. מִיכָּן וָהֵילָךְ הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָיה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Who informs⁶⁹? Rebbi Abba said, the witnesses to the death inform. Think of it, if the witnesses did not know! Rebbi Yose said, the field always is in the possession of its owner. From there on the burden of proof is on the claimant⁷⁰ as owner and possessor. The burden of proof in an attack on his title rests on the attacker.. footnotes: ⁶⁹ This also refers to the last statement of the Mishnah, that the heir is not required to establish title. ⁷⁰ An heir is always held prima facie ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:5:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:5:1) **משנה:** הַשּׁוּתָפִין וְהָאֲרִיסִין וְהָאֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין אֵין לָהֶן חֲזָקָה. אֵין לָאִישׁ חֲזָקָה בְּנִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא לָאִשָּׁה בְּנִכְסֵי בַעְלָהּ וְלֹא לָאָב בְּנִכְסֵי הַבֵּן וְלֹא לַבֵּן בְּנִכְסֵי הָאָב. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בַּמַּחֲזִיק. אֲבָל בְּנוֹתֵן מַתָּנָה וְהָאַחִים שֶׁחָלְקוּ וְהַמַּחֲזִיק בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר נָעַל גָּדַר וּפָרַץ כָּל שֶׁהוּא הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** Partners⁷¹ and sharecroppers⁷² have no claim of undisturbed possession. A husband has no claim of undisturbed possession in his wife’s property⁷³, nor a wife in her husband’s property⁷⁴, nor a father in his son’s property⁷⁵, nor the son in his father’s property⁷⁶. When has this been said? For one who claims undisturbed possession. But if one is given a gift, or brothers distributed the estate, one takes possession of a convert’s property⁷⁷, when he locked, fenced in, or made any breach that is a legal form of taking in possession⁷⁸ Halakhah 1:5. This can be any act only the proprietor would perform, not a visitor.. footnotes: ⁷¹ If a property was bought by partners and one partner used the property for himself during three years, this still does not establish a claim of ownership. ⁷² The sharecropper is supposed to work the land. Even if he takes in the entire crop and stores it in his barn it is no proof of ownership since possibly he pays the landlord from the proceeds of the sale of some of the crop. ⁷³ Since it is his duty to take care of her property and he is entitled to its produce, his activities cannot establish a claim of ownership. ⁷⁴ Since the husband is obligated to feed his wife, it would be legal for him to give her one of his fields to work on and live off its yield; but her taking care of the property and collecting all its yield cannot establish a claim of ownership. ⁷⁵ If the son inherited property from his maternal grandfather, the father is obligated to take care of it without acquiring property rights. ⁷⁶ If he takes care of his aging father’s property. ⁷⁷ Who died without leaving a will or legal heirs. ⁷⁸ This חֲזָקָה has a completely different meaning from the one presupposed in the preceding Mishnaiot. It describes the act of taking possession after acquiring ownership, as described in Qiddušin, ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:5:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:5:2) **הלכה:** הַשּׁוּתָפִין וְהָאֲרִיסִין כול׳. שׁוּתָף. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. לֵית כָּן שׁוּתָף. שׁוּתָף אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. לֹא כֵן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל. שׁוּתָף שֶׁיָּרַד וְנָטַע כְּנוֹטֵעַ בִּרְשׁוּת. הֵן דְּתֵימַר. שׁוּתָף שֶׁיָּרַד וְנָטַע כְּנוֹטֵעַ בִּרְשׁוּת. בְּאוֹתוֹ שֶׁעוֹמֵד שָׁם. וְהֵן דְּתֵימַר. שׁוּתָף אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד שָׁם. מָהוּ מַיְיתֵי תְחוֹתֵיהּ. הָאוּמָּנִין וְהַגּוֹזָלִין אֵין לָהֶן חֲזָקָה. רָאָה עַבְדּוֹ אֶל הָאוּמָן וְכֵילָו אֶל הַכּוֹבֵס. אָמַר לוֹ. תֵּן לִי עַבְדִּי תֵּן לִי כֵילַיי. אָמַר לוֹ. אַתָּה נְתַתּוֹ לִי בְמַתָּנָה אַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי. אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה. אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ לִי לְמוֹכְרוֹ לִי אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ לִיתְנוֹ לִי מַתָּנָה. הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “Partners and sharecroppers,” etc. “A partner.” Samuel said, “partner” is not mentioned here⁷⁹. Does the partner not have a claim to undisturbed possession⁸⁰? Did not Samuel say that the partner who went and planted, planted with permission⁸¹? When you say, the partner who went and planted, planted with permission, if he⁸² was there. When you say, the partner has no claim of undisturbed possession, if he⁸³ was not there. What does he include in his stead⁸⁴ sharecroppers,” it is clear that some word must precede the statement.? Artisans⁸⁵ and robbers⁸⁶ have no claim of undisturbed possession. ⁸⁷“If somebody saw his slave at an artisan’s, or his garments at the washer’s, and told him, give me my slave, give me my garments, but he answered him, you gave him to me as a gift; you sold him to me; this is no claim of undisturbed possession⁸⁸. You told me to sell him⁸⁹; you instructed⁹⁰ to give him to me as a gift, this is a claim of undisturbed possession⁹¹.” footnotes: ⁷⁹ A different treatment of the same statement is in the Babli, 42b. Samuel deletes mention of partners from the Mishnah. ⁸⁰ This is the version of L. E: שׁוּתָף יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה The partner has a claim to undisturbed possession. ⁸¹ If a partner took possession, worked the property and reaped all its yield, one has to assume that there was an agreement between the partners to split the property. Therefore, if another partner disputes the existence of such an agreement after three years of undisturned possession, he is a claimant and the burden of proof is on him. ⁸² The other partner, who can make an appearance and take part of the yield. ⁸³ If the other partner did not live at that place, the presumption is that the partners also bought property at the other place where the other partner takes all the yield, but no presumption is created of sole proprietorship at either place. Any partner who claims dissolution of the partnership has to bring proof. ⁸⁴ Since the Mishnah states “and ⁸⁵ This is part of the Mishnah in the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss. ⁸⁶ The extortionist who claims that the former owner handed over the property to avoid being murdered may be truthful but the argument is not heard in court. Babli 47a. ⁸⁷ Tosephta 2:6, Babli 45b. ⁸⁸ The artisan, while in possession, is the claimant who has to bring proof since usually he is not the owner of what he is working on. As S. Lieberman explains, if the owner decided to sell a young slave it was customary to send him to be an apprentice in order to increase his value; also vessels and garments to be sold may be given to be refurbished to increase their value. ⁸⁹ The teacher who trained the slave then should find a buyer; this was customary. ⁹⁰ A third person who can testify to the fact. ⁹¹ The former owner is the claimant who has to bring proof. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:5:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:5:3) הָאֲרִיסִים. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר. בָּאֲרִיס לְעוֹלָם. אֲבָל בָּאֲרִיס לְשָׁעָה יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ תְּרֵיהוֹן מָרִין. אֲפִילוּ בָּאֲרִיס לְשָׁעָה אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. דְּנֵימַר. נְחַת רוּחֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ וְשָׁבְקֵיהּ. תַּמָּן אָמְרִין. אֲרִיס אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. בֶּן אֲרִיס יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמְרִין. אַף אֲרִיס וּבֶן אֲרִיס אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. דְּנֵימַר. נְחַת רוּחֵיהּ מֵאָבוֹי וּשְׁבַק בְּרֵיהּ. דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֲרִיס שֶׁהוֹרִיד אֲרִיס אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ אֲרִיס לְהוֹרִיד אֲרִיס. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “Sharecroppers.” Rav Huna said, a permanent sharecropper⁹², but a temporary sharecropper⁹³ has a claim of undisturbed possession. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both teach that even a temporary sharecropper has no claim of undisturbed possession, for we may say that he⁹⁴ is satisfied with him and let him⁹⁵ have it. There, they say that a sharecropper has no claim of undisturbed possession but a sharecropper’s son has a claim of undisturbed possession⁹⁶ 14:2, this refers only to the case that the son claims to have bought the property. But if he claims that the father bought it and he inherited, the burden of proof is on him and he cannot claim undisturbed possession since the father could not have claimed it.; Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, neither a sharecropper nor a sharecropper’s son have a claim of undisturbed possession, for we may say that he⁹⁴ was satisfied with his father and let the son have it. As Rebbi Joḥanan said, a sharecropper who engaged another sharecropper has no claim of undisturbed possession since it is common for sharecroppers to engage sub-sharecroppers⁹⁷. footnotes: ⁹² He is no sharecropper in the modern sense but rather a tenant farmer in perpetuity, usually paying his rent in kind. It was stated earlier (Note 51) that the proof of ownership of agricultural land is the storing of its yield. In this paragraph, a “claim of undisturbed possession” would be testimony that for three consecutive years the farmer collected all the harvest and stored it in his own barn without separating the landlord’s portion before storage. ⁹³ Who has a contract renewable periodically. Since in this case it is unlikely that the landlord’s share should not be delivered promptly, three years on non-delivery create a presumption of ownership; Babli 47a. ⁹⁴ The landlord. ⁹⁵ The sharecropper’s son. ⁹⁶ In the interpretation of Maimonides, Ṭo‘en weniṭ‘an ⁹⁴ The landlord. ⁹⁷ The same statement is found in the Babli, 46a. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:5:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:5:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:5:4) אֲבָל אָדָם שֶׁמְפַקֵּחַ עַל נִיכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה. שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ הַבְּעָלִים לְפַקֵּחַ עַל נִיכְסֵי נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן. אֵין לָאִישׁ חֲזָקָה בְּנִיכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ. בְּחַיֵּי אִשְׁתּוֹ. אֲבָל אַחַר מִיתָתָהּ יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה. וְלֹא לָאִשָּׁה בְּנִיכְסֵי בַעְלָהּ. בְּחַיָּיו. אֲבָל לְאַחַר מוֹתוֹ יֵשׁ לָהּ חֲזָקָה. וְלֹא לַבֵּן בְּנִיכְסֵי הָאָב. בְּחַיָּיו. אֲבָל לְאַחַר מִיתַת הָאָב יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה. וְלֹא לָאָב בְּנִיכְסֵי הַבֵּן. בְּחַיָּיו. אֲבָל לְאַחַר מִיתַת הַבֵּן יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** In truth, should a man supervising his wife’s properties have a claim of undisturbed possession, since usually husbands supervise their wife’s properties? “A husband has no claim of undisturbed possession in his wife’s property” during her lifetime. But after her death he has a claim of undisturbed possession⁹⁸. “Nor a wife in her husband’s property” during his lifetime. But after his death she has a claim of undisturbed possession⁹⁹. “Nor a son in the father’s property” during his lifetime. But after the father’s death he has a claim of undisturbed possession¹⁰⁰. “Nor the father in his son’s property” during his lifetime. But after the son’s death he has a claim of undisturbed possession¹⁰¹. footnotes: ⁹⁸ Based on his right of inheritance. ⁹⁹ If she claims the property as her ketubah. ¹⁰⁰ As his part of the father’s estate. ¹⁰¹ If the son died without children and the father is his heir. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:5:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:5:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:5:5) רַב אָמַר. בְּפוֹחֵת מֵעֲשָׂרָה אוֹ מוֹסִיף עַל עֲשָׂרָה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ פָרַץ מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִפְרוֹץ וְגָדַר מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִגְדוֹר הֲרֵי זֶה חֲזָקָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rav said, if he lowered it below ten [handbreadths] or increased above ten¹⁰². Samuel said, even if he made a breach at a place where a breach was irrelevant or a fence where a fence was irrelevant, it is legally taking possession. footnotes: ¹⁰² This refers to the last sentence of the Mishnah. A person taking possession of land he bought in the opinion of Rav must take some legally important action. A fence is legally a separation only if it is at least ten handbreadths high. Samuel holds that the kind of action is irrelevant as long as it is of the kind only a proprietor would take. In the Babli, 53a, the attributions are switched. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:5:6 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:5:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:5:6) וְהָתַנֵּי. הָמּוֹכֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְנִתְעַצֵּל לוֹקֵחַ וְלֹא הֶחֱזִיק בָּהּ וְיָרַד הַמּוֹכֵר וְהֶחֱזִיק בָּהּ. בִּיטְּלָה הַחֲזָקָה אֶת הַמֶּכֶר וְאֶת הַמַּתָּנָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ¹⁰⁶ As we have stated: If somebody sells a field to another but the buyer was lazy and did not enter into possession when the seller went and legally took possession, the taking possession invalidates the sale or the gift. footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ This refers to the last sentence of Mishnah 5 und proves that actually taking possession is necessary in addition to acquiring ownership. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:6:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:6:1) **משנה:** שְׁנַיִם מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמְין מְשַׁלְּמִין לוֹ אֶת הַכֹּל. שְׁנַיִם בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנַיִם בַּשְּׁנִיָיה וּשְׁנַיִם בַּשְׁלִישִית מְשַׁלְּמִין בֵּינֵיהֶם. שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִים וְאֶחָד מִצְטָרֵף עִמָּהֶן הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ שָׁלֹשׁ עֵדִיּוֹת וְהֵן עֵדוּת אַחַת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** Two testify for him that he ate its yield for three years; if they are found perjured they pay everything to him¹ 19:19.. Two for the first [year], two for the second, two for the third, pay together¹⁰³. Three brothers and another joins them; these are three testimonies¹⁰⁴ which count as one testimony¹⁰⁵. footnotes: ¹ Since they intended to make the owner lose his property, they have to pay the current value of the property as a fine, Deut. ¹⁰³ Each witness has to pay 1/6 of the fine. ¹⁰⁴ Two relatives cannot testify together. If each brother testifies about a different year and the outsider testifies with each of them, there is valid testimony about three years of claim of undisturbed possession. ¹⁰⁵ Since the owner of the land can lose his property only by the total of the testimonies, for the law of perjury the three testimonies are one and each person pays 1/6 of the fine for his testimony, which means that the single outsider pays 3/6 = 1/2 and each brother pays 1/6. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:6:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:6:2) **הלכה:** שְׁנַיִם מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ כול׳. אָמַר לוֹ. מָה אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה בְתוֹךְ שֶׁלִּי. שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. וְהָלַךְ וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. וְהָלַךְ זֶה וְהוּזְמוּ עֵדָיו. הֲרֵי זֶה נוֹתֵן לוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה וְאוֹכֶל פֵּירוֹת שֶׁלְּג̇ שָׁנִים. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “Two testify for him,” etc. One said to another “what are you doing in my field?” “For I have the years of undisturbed possession of it.” He went and brought witnesses that he had the years of undisturbed possession of it. The first one went and proved the witnesses of the second perjured. He has to give him the field and the yield of three years¹⁰⁵. footnotes: ¹⁰⁵ Since the owner of the land can lose his property only by the total of the testimonies, for the law of perjury the three testimonies are one and each person pays 1/6 of the fine for his testimony, which means that the single outsider pays 3/6 = 1/2 and each brother pays 1/6. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:6:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:6:3) אָמַר רִבִּי זֵירָא. הָדָא אָמְרָה. עֵד זוֹמֵם אֵין נִפְסַל בְּבֵית דִּין. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ¹⁰⁷ 7:4, Note 46. The fact of perjury, rather than conviction by the court, disqualifies the perjurer; his testimony is nonexistent even if the fact is not realized by the court at the time. Therefore, if the testimony about the first year was perjured, the true testimony about years 2 and 3 becomes void; there is no testimony about three years of undisturbed possession, and nobody has to pay. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this implies that the perjurer is not disqualified by the court. footnotes: ¹⁰⁷ This is explained in Bava qamma ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:7:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:7:1) **משנה:** אֵילּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם חֲזָקָה וְאֵילּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חֲזָקָה. הָיָה מַעֲמִיד בְּהֵמָה בֶחָצֵר תַּנּוּר וְכִירַיִם וְרֵיחַיִם וּמְגַדֵּל תַּרְנְגוֹלִין וְנוֹתֵן זִבְלוֹ בֶחָצֵר אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה. אֲבָל עָשָׂה לִבְחֶמְתּוֹ מְחִיצָה גְּבוֹהָה י̇ טְפָחִים וְכֵן לַתַּנּוּר וְכֵן לַכִּירַיִים וְכֵן לָרֵחַיִם. הִכְנִיס תַּרְנְגוֹלִין לְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת וְעָשָׂה מָקוֹם לְזִבְלוֹ עָמוֹק ג̇ אוֹ גָבוֹהַּ ג̇ הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** The following count for a claim of undisturbed possession and the following do not count for a claim of undisturbed possession¹⁰⁸. If one put his animals into a courtyard, an oven, a cooking stove, or a grindstone, or raises chickens, or puts his manure in a courtyard, it does not count for a claim of undisturbed possession¹⁰⁹. But if he made for his animals an enclosure ten [handbreadths] high, or did it for an oven, a cooking stove, or a grindstone, brought chickens into the house, or made a place for his manure three [handbreadths] low or three high: this counts for a claim of undisturbed possession¹¹⁰. footnotes: ¹⁰⁸ For non-agricultural properties where there is no direct equivalent of storing the harvest in one’s silo. ¹⁰⁹ Since each of the co-owners of the courtyard does this, nobody can be assumed to check whether the person doing this really be entitled to it. ¹¹⁰ Since people will complain if he does not have property rights to do what he is doing. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:7:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:7:2) **הלכה:** אֵילּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן חֲזָקָה כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. נָהֲגוּ הַשּׁוּתָפִין לִהְיוֹת מַתִּרִין זֶה לָזֶה בַּתַּרְנוֹגַלִּין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מַתְנִיתָא לֹא אָמְרָה כֵן. אֶלָּא שְׁנֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין לְהַעֲמִיד רֵיחַיִם וְתַנּוּר וּלְגַדֵּל תַּרְנוֹגַלִּין. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. גִּידֵּל תַּרְנָגַּלִּין בֶּחָצֶר שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְיֵאוּת. מַה נַפְשֵׁךְ. אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְגַדֵּל הֲרֵי זֶה גִידֵּל. אִם אֵין לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְגַדֵּל הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “The following count for a claim of undisturbed possession,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, co-owners usually permit chickens to one another¹¹¹. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah¹¹² 5:1 (Note 4): Co-owners who mutually made vows not to have usufruct from one another are forbidden to raise chickens in the common courtyard. says otherwise: “Both of them are forbidden to put up there a grindstone or an oven, or to raise chickens there.” Rebbi Eleazar said, if somebody raised chickens in a courtyard which is not his, it is taking in possession¹¹³. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. As you take it, if he has permission to raise chickens there, he raises them. If he does not have permission to raise, it would be legally taking in possession. footnotes: ¹¹¹ One does not have to ask for the other’s permission to raise chickens in the common courtyard. ¹¹² Nedarim ¹¹³ If the owners of the courtyard do not hinder the raising of chickens from the start, later they become claimants and bear the burden of proof to remove the chickens. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:8:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:8:1) **משנה:** הַמַּרְזֵב אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה וְיֵשׁ לִמְקוֹמוֹ חֲזָקָה. הַמַּזֲחֵילָה יֵשׁ לָהּ חֲזָקָה. סוּלָּם הַמִּצְרִי אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה וְלַצּוֹרִי יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה. חַלּוֹן הַמִּצְרִית אֵין לָהּ חֲזָקָה וְלַצּוֹרִית יֵשׁ לָהּ חֲזָקָה. אֵי זוֹ הִוּא חַלּוֹן הַמִּצְרִית כָּל שֶׁאֵין רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם יָכוֹל לִיכָּנֵס בְּתוֹכָהּ. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אִם יֵשׁ לָהּ מַלְבֵּן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם יָכוֹל לִיכָּנֵס לְתוֹכָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲֲזָקָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** The drain pipe does not represent a right of possession; its location represents a right of possession¹¹⁴ a right possessed by one property owner which restricts the property rights of another. In all cases mentioned in the Mishnah, it is presumed that the house was built in conformity with the rules and without protest by its neighbors. The מַזְחֵילָה “leader, drain pipe” is the fixed tube which brings the rainwater from the roof to the ground; מַרְזֵב is a small movable pipe which takes the water coming out of the leader away from the house into the courtyard. (In modern Hebrew, מַזְחֶלֶת is a sled, מַרְזֵב is the leader, drain pipe.) If the leader ends on another owner’s property, this owner may move the direction of the *marzeb* but may not remove it.. The leader represents a right of possession¹¹⁵. An Egyptian ladder¹¹⁶ does not represent a right of possession; a Tyrian one¹¹⁷ represents a right of possession. An Egyptian window does not represent a right of possession; a Tyrian one represents a right of possession¹¹⁸. What is an Egyptian window? Any where a man’s head cannot enter. Rebbi Jehudah says, if it has a wooden frame it represents a right of possession even if a man’s head cannot enter. footnotes: ¹¹⁴ חֲזָקָה here has a third meaning, viz., ¹¹⁵ If the leader was built on the outside of a house which is in the airspace of the adjacent courtyard, it may not be removed by this courtyard’s owners. ¹¹⁶ A small movable ladder giving access to the upper floor apartment directly from the courtyard. ¹¹⁷ A wide wooden ladder permanently attached to the house. ¹¹⁸ The owner of the adjacent lot may build a wall in front of an Egyptian window and make it useless. But he may not build within 4 cubits of a Tyrian window (Mishnah 2:4). A Tyrian window is defined in Tosephta 2:14 as being wide enough for a man’s head and having a wooden frame. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:8:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:8:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:8:2) **הלכה:** הַמַּרְזֵב אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה כול'. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. לְהַאֲרִיךְ וּלְהַרְחִיב בּוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. לְכָל אוֹתָהּ הָרוּחַ. וְהָתַנִּינָן. הַמַּזֲחֵילָה יֵשׁ לָהּ רְשׁוּת ד̇ אַמּוֹת. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר. כָּל אוֹתוֹ הָרוּחַ. וְדִכְוָותָהּ הַמַּרְזֵב אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה לְכָל אוֹתָהּ הָרוּחַ. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. מְקוֹם הַמַּרְזֵב בֶּחָצֵר יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה. מְקוֹם קִילּוּחוֹ בֶּחָצֵר אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “The drain pipe does not represent a right of possession.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, to lengthen and to widen it¹¹⁹. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in all of that direction¹²⁰, as we have stated: the leader has a domain of four cubits¹²¹. You have to say, in all this direction¹²². Similarly, the drain tube does not represent a right of possession in all of this direction. It was stated thus¹²³: “The location of the drain tube does represent a right of possession, the location of its spout does not represent a right of possession.” footnotes: ¹¹⁹ The owner of the house does not have the right to lengthen or widen his drain pipe on another’s property. In the Babli, 58b, R. Ḥanina holds that the owner of the other property has the right to shorten the drain pipe but not to remove it. ¹²⁰ While the owner of the other property has the right to move the drain pipe, he cannot move its spout away from before the wall to which it belongs. ¹²¹ If a drain pipe legally is built to drain a roof, the owner of the house has the right to put up a ladder in front of the pipe to clean and repair it. ¹²² Anywhere in front of this roof. ¹²³ Tosephta 2:13. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:8:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:8:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:8:3) דְּבֵי רִבִּי יַנַּאי אָמְרֵי. עָד שְׁלֹשָׁה עֲוָוקִין בְּכִסֵּא. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא בְשֵׁם דְּבֵי רִבִּי יַנַּאי. לְעִנְיָין טוּמְאָה אִיתְאֲמָרַת. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם דְּבֵי רִבִּי יַנַּאי. לְעִנְיָין חֲזָקוֹת אִתְאֲמָרַת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם דְּבֵי רִבִּי יַנַּאי. לְעִינְיָין שַׁבָּת אִיתְאֲמָרַת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ¹²⁴ 3, 6c l. 56. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, up to three steps it is like a chair¹²⁵. Rebbi La said in the name of the House of Rebbi Yannai, this was said referring to impurity¹²⁶. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said in the name of the House of Rebbi Yannai, this was said referring to rights of possession¹²⁷. Rebbi Yose in the name of the House of Rebbi Yannai, this was said referring to the Sabbath¹²⁸ 7:1 it is stated that two courtyards separated by a wall higher than 10 handbreadths are two separate domains for the rules of the Sabbath. If the wall is higher, it is possible to make the two courtyards into one domain by putting up ladders, even Egyptian ones, if only the remaining height is less than 10 handbreadths. But the ladder has to have at least 4 steps.. footnotes: ¹²⁴ A similar text, with different attributions, is in Šabbat ¹²⁵ A ladder having no more than three steps goes after the rules of chairs. ¹²⁶ A chair which is made to sit on can become impure by a person whose impurity is generated by bodily excretions (such as gonorrhea or menstrual flow) who sits on it even if he never touches it (e. g., if it is completely covered by material not subject to impurity.) A ladder can become impure only by touch or by the impurity of a corpse in a “tent”. ¹²⁷ A short ladder, even if built wide like a Tyrian, never can represent rights of possession. ¹²⁸ In Erubin ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:8:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:8:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:8:4) אָמַר רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא בֶחָצֵר. אֲבָל בְּגַנּוֹת אֲפִילוּ לְמַעֲלָה מֵד̇ אַמּוֹת מְעַכְּבוֹ. [רִבִּי יִצְחָק אֲמָרָהּ קוֹמֵי רִבִּי חֲנִינָא. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה אֲמָרָהּ קוֹמֵי רִבִּי פִּינְחָס בַּר חָמָה. לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא בֶחָצֵר אֲבָל בְּגַנּוֹת אֲפִילוּ לְמַעֲלָה מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת מְעַכְּבוֹ.] שָׁמַע רִבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא וַהֲוָה בִישׁ לֵיהּ. אָמַר. אֲנָא אֲמָרִית שְׁמוּעָתָא וְלָא אָמְרֵית מִשְּׁמִי. לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא בֶחָצֵר אֲבָל בְּגַגּוֹת אֲפִילוּ לְמַעֲלָה מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת מְעַכְּבוֹ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Eleazar said, they said this¹²⁹ where it is referred to the remark in *Yebamot* 12:3 (Notes 93,94) that one may open an Egyption window looking out on somebody else’s courtyard without asking permission on condition that the opening be higher than 4 cubits above the ground. In general, the rules of privacy do not allow the owner of a house to open windows that give him the possibility to see his neighbors’ activities which before he could not see. R. Hoshaia states that the rule from *Yebamot* holds for narrow windows opening on a courtyard which cannot be used to observe the courtyard if they are high enough. But if the new window is built in the wall of an upper storey level with the roof of a house bordering on the courtyard, the argument does not apply and the owner of that house can prohibit the opening of the window by claiming “damage by looking”. The damage feared may be from the evil eye; cf. Latin *invideo* “to look in; to cast an evil eye”, from which *invidia, ae* “envy, grudge” (E. G.). only for a courtyard. But for roofs¹³⁰ even higher than four cubits he may prevent him. ¹³¹[Rebbi Isaac said this before Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Ḥanina said this before Rebbi Phineas bar Ḥama: They said this only for a courtyard, but for roofs¹³⁰ even higher than four cubits he may prevent him.] Rebbi Hoshaia heard this and was offended. He said, I formulated this teaching but you did not say it in my name: They said this only for a courtyard, but for roofs even higher than four cubits he may prevent him. footnotes: ¹²⁹ It is not too clear to what this refers. The least unlikely suggestion is due to Pene Moshe, ¹³⁰ Reading בְּגַגּוֹת for ms. בגנות “in gardens”, parallel to the reading in the last sentence (which, however, is due to the second hand in L.). Since the error is found both in L and in E, it must be copied from an old source. ¹³¹ Text from the second hand in E; it or a similar text are required by the last sentence in the paragraph. ¹³⁰ Reading בְּגַגּוֹת for ms. בגנות “in gardens”, parallel to the reading in the last sentence (which, however, is due to the second hand in L.). Since the error is found both in L and in E, it must be copied from an old source. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:9:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:9:1) **משנה:** זִיז עַד טֶפַח יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה וְיָכוֹל לְמַחוֹת. פָּחוּת מִטֶּפַח אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְמַחוֹת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** A protrusion¹³² down to one handbreadth establishes a right of possession but he can object; less than a handbreadth does not establish a right of possession but he cannot object. footnotes: ¹³² An extension of the roof protruding outside the wall of the house. If it is built over a neighbor’s courtyard and extends from the roof at least by one handbreadth, the neighbor may forbid it but if it was built without objection it cannot be challenged later. If it extends less, the neighbor cannot object but does not have to take it for granted; he may build a new wall incorporating the molding. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:9:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:9:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:9:2) **הלכה:** זִיז עַד טֶפַח יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה כול׳. רִבִּי לָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. זִיז הַיּוֹצֵא [עַד] טֶפַח מוֹצִיאוֹ אַתְּ אֲפִילוּ כַמָּה. לִמְשׁוֹךְ כַּמָּה. נָתַן ר׳ הוֹשַׁעְיָה. בְּחוֹלֵק אֶת בֵּיתוֹ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “A protrusion down to one handbreadth establishes a right of possession,” etc. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If the molding is [up to] one handbreadth wide he may extend it all the way, to draw it all the way¹³³. Nathan¹³⁴, Rebbi Hoshaia: About one who divides his house¹³⁵. footnotes: ¹³³ The inserted word is from E. It seems to mean that if a house was built with a protruding mold along part of the wall with the neighbor’s acquiescence, the protrusion can be extended along the entire length of the wall without requiring a new permit. ¹³⁴ Correct in E: R. Nathan in the name of R. Hoshaiah. ¹³⁵ It seems that this sentence belongs to the next Halakhah, where it is explained that a person may transform a one-family house into a multi-family one as long as he constructs an interior staircase and does not increase the number of doors leading from the house into the courtyard. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:10:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:10:1) **משנה:** לֹא יִפְתַּח אָדָם חֲלוֹנוֹתָיו לַחֲצַר הַשּׁוּתָפִין. לָקַח בַּיִת בְּחָצֵר אֲחֶרֶת לֹא יִפְתָּחֶנָּה לַחֲצַר הַשּׁוּתָפִין. בָּנָה עֲלִיָיה עַל גַּבֵּי בֵיתוֹ לֹא יִפְתָּחֶנָּה לַחֲצַר הַשּׁוּתָפִין אֶלָּא אִם רָצָה בּוֹנֶה אֶת הַחֶדֶר לִפְנִים מִבֵּיתוֹ וּבוֹנֶה עֲלִיָיה עַל גַּבֵּי בֵיתוֹ וּפוֹתְחָהּ לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ. לֹא יִפְתַּח אָדָם לַחֲצַר הַשּׁוּתָפִין פֶּתַח כְּנֶגֶד פֶּתַח חַלּוֹן כְּנֶגֶד חַלּוֹן. הָיָה קָטָן לֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ גָּדוֹל אֶחָד לֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ שְׁנַיִם אֲבָל פּוֹתֵחַ הוּא לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים פֶּתַח כְּנֶגֶד פֶּתַח וְחַלּוֹן כְּנֶגֶד חַלּוֹן קָטָן עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ גָּדוֹל אֶחָד עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ שְׁנַיִם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** A person may not open windows into the common courtyard¹³⁶. If he bought a house in another courtyard he may not open it into the common courtyard¹³⁷. If he built a second floor on top of his house he may not open it into the common courtyard but he may build a room inside his house or a second floor on top of his house on condition that the access to it be from within his house¹³⁵. In a common courtyard a person may not open a door opposite a door, a window opposite a window. If it was small, he may not enlarge it. If it was one, he may not make it double¹³⁸. But he may open into the public domain a door opposite a door and a window opposite a window. If it was small, he may enlarge it. If it was one, he may make it double¹³⁹. footnotes: ¹³⁶ Once the house is built, nobody may make any changes to his house which infringes on the privacy rights of the co-owners without the explicit agreement of all co-owners. In particular one may not add windows which would enable him to see activities of his neighbors which he could not see without them. ¹³⁷ If he bought a house whose back wall borders on the condominium courtyard where his other house stands, he may not open a door directly from the common courtyard into that house since the door would acquire rights to the four adjacent cubits to the detriment of the other owners and increase traffic in the courtyard. If he wants to build such a door, he must buy the building rights from his co-owners. ¹³⁵ It seems that this sentence belongs to the next Halakhah, where it is explained that a person may transform a one-family house into a multi-family one as long as he constructs an interior staircase and does not increase the number of doors leading from the house into the courtyard. ¹³⁸ All these activities allow him to see more of his neighbors’ activities. ¹³⁹ Since building a door or a window open towards the public domain implies a waiver of privacy rights. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:10:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:10:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:10:2) **הלכה:** לֹא יִפְתַּח אָדָם חֲלוֹנוֹתָיו כול׳. הָכָא אַתָּ מַר. פֶּתַח כְּנֶגֶד פֶּתַח מוּתָּר. וְהָכָא אַתָּ מַר. פֶּתַח כְּנֶגֶד פֶּתַח אָסוּר. הֵן דְּתֵימַר. מוּתָּר. בְּמָבוֹי. וְהֵן דְּתֵימַר. אָסוּר. בַּחֲצַר הַשּׁוּתָפִין. וְהָתַנֵּי. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁבְּנֵי חָצֵר יְכוֹלִין לְמַחוֹת זֶה עַל יְדֵי זֶה בֶחָצֵר כָּךְ בְּנֵי מָבוֹי יְכוֹלִין לְמַחוֹת זֶה עַל יְדֵי זֶה בְמָבוֹי. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. כָּאן בְּשֶׁנָּתַן רְשׁוּת כָּאן בְּשֶׁלֹּא נָתַן רְשׁוּת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא בַּגַּנּוֹת שֶׁנִּיתְּנוּ לַחֲפִירָה. אָמַר רִבִּי נָסָה. וְחָרְבּוֹת לֹא נִיתְּנוּ לְהִיבָּנוֹת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “A person may not open windows,” etc. ¹⁴⁰ vol. 5, #106. Here you say, a door opposite a door is permitted, and there you say, a door opposite a door is forbidden¹⁴¹. Where you say it is permitted, in an alley¹⁴². And where you say it is forbidden, in a condominium courtyard. But did we not state¹⁴³: “Just as the inhabitants of a courtyard may object to one another, so the inhabitants of an alley may object to one another”? Rebbi La said, here when permission was given, there when permission was not given¹⁴⁴. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is a difference because gardens are usually dug into¹⁴⁵ are usually *made to protrude*.” That would refer to Halakhah 9 (Note 133) but probably is a corruption.. Rebbi Nasa said, are ruins not to be rebuilt¹⁴⁶? footnotes: ¹⁴⁰ The following explanation is based on Rashba, Responsa ¹⁴¹ The Mishnah forbids making doors opposite doors in a courtyard but allows them on a public street. It does not say anything about an alley, a narrow dead-end street frequented only by the inhabitants of the courtyards opening into the alley and their visitors, and usually bordered by windowless walls. The status of the alley is not defined in the Mishnah. If opposite doors only be forbidden in a courtyard, they would be allowed in an alley; if they only be allowed in a thoroughfare they would be forbidden in an alley. ¹⁴² The alley is part of the public domain. ¹⁴³ Tosephta 2:15. ¹⁴⁴ In principle, R. La accepts the explanation given earlier but he holds that for opening a door directly into the alley one needs the agreement of the other inhabitants of the alley. This agreement, once given, is irrevocable. But in a courtyard any co-owner may retract his assent at any time since according to the Mishnah the door should not have been built in the first place. ¹⁴⁵ This is the text of L. It does not refer to the question raised in the text but to a later statement in the same Tosephta, that if a brook passes through somebody’s vegetable garden, he may divert its water at will for his irrigation needs. This seems to contradict the entire tenor of the present Chapter which denies the individual the right to infringe upon pre-existing rights of others. R. Joḥanan holds that if the brook was treated as private property, in that the farmer’s lot was taxed as one vegetable garden rather than two properties separated by a river, the owner must be permitted to use his property without restriction.E reads here: שַׁנְייָא בַּגַּגּוֹת שֶׁנִּיתְּנוּ לְהַפְרִיח “there is a difference because roofs ¹⁴⁶ Sometimes the door built later forces a door built earlier to be walled up. If an earlier house collapsed, its right to have a door into the courtyard has not disappeared; no door can be built opposite the future door of a rebuilt house. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:10:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:10:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:10:3) אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. תַּנֵּי תַמָּן. הַפּוֹתֵחַ חַלּוֹן בְּכוֹתֶל חֲצֵירוֹ בְּמַעֲמַד חֲבֵירוֹ. (ד̇ אַמּוֹת) [רִבִּי אוֹמֵר]. פּוֹחֵת בִּשְׂמֹאל נוֹעֵל בְּיָמִין. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהָיָה עוֹמֵד שָׁם. יְכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ. הֲוִינָא בְעִית לְעִי. הָיָה מוֹשִׁיט לוֹ צְרוֹרוֹת. יְכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ. מְגָחֵךְ הֲוִינָא בָּאוּ גַבְרָא. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that there¹⁴⁷, one states: If somebody opens a window in the wall of somebody else’s courtyard in the presence of the other (four cubits)¹⁴⁸, [Rebbi says]¹⁴⁹ he takes down¹ with his left hand and closes with his right¹⁵⁰. Think of it, was he not standing there? He may tell him, I wanted to enjoy myself. If he handed him stones¹⁵¹? He may tell him, I was making fun of this¹⁵² 5, 1934, pp. 100–101.) man. footnotes: ¹⁴⁷ In Babylonia. ¹⁴⁸ Reading of L, a corruption. ¹⁴⁹ Reading of E, accepted as correct. ¹ Perhaps one should read פותח “he opens” instead of פוחת “he takes down”. ¹⁵⁰ He has to wall it up again faster than he opened it. The wall’s owner retains an unconditional right to demand the walling up of the window. ¹⁵¹ Helping with building material. ¹⁵² Reading בָּאוּ (vocalization of the ms.) as בְּהַהוּא (S. Lieberman, Tarbiz ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:10:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:10:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:10:4) הָיוּ חֲמִשָּׁה פְתָחִים זֶה לִפְנִים מִזֶּה שִׁיעוּר כּוּלָּן כִּמְלוֹא מַקְדֵּחַ. וְדָא מְסַיְיעָא לְמָאן דָּמְרִין בַּנָּאֵי. חַלּוֹן שֶׁהִיא פְתוּחָה לְאִיסְטִיב לֹא נַעֲשֵׂית אֶלָּא לְהַכְנִיס אֶת הָאוֹרָה. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין לָהּ חֲזָקָה אֵינָהּ מֵבִיאָה אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** If there were five openings one inside another, the measure of all of them is a drill hole. This supports what the builders say, *viz.,* that a window open above a stone bench¹⁵³ is made only to let light in. Since it cannot represent a right of possession, it cannot bring impurity¹⁵⁴ 13:1 states that if the window was made for light only, the minimal size which makes it a conduit of impurity is the size of the drill-hole of a builder’s drill, which in *Kelim* 17:12 is said to be equal to the size of a Neronian tetradrachma or a circular disk of about 25mm diameter. A window made for use to bring vessels to or from the building must be at least one handbreadth square; for people it must let a person crawl through. Since five successive windows of minimal size do not let light in, they are not made for light and do not transmit impurity. Then it is stated that a window which does not transmit impurity is an Egyptian window which cannot represent a right of possession (J. Benvenisti in *Śede Yehoshua*.). footnotes: ¹⁵³ Which is inconvenient to reach. ¹⁵⁴ This is rather elliptic; it refers to the rules of impurity of the dead, the most important rule of which is that any person or vessels under one “tent” with a corpse becomes impure. If the corpse is in a stoa of which a wall belongs to a house, any window in that wall brings the impurity into the entire house. Mishnah Ahilut ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:11:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:11:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:11:1) **משנה:** אֵין עוֹשִׂין חָלָל תַּחַת רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מַתִּיר כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא עֲגָלָה מְהַלֶּכֶת וּטְעוּנָה אֲבָנִים. אֵין מוֹצִיאִין זִיזִין וּכְּצוֹצְטֵרָאוֹת לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אֶלָּא אִם רָצָה כּוֹנֵס לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ וּמוֹצִיא. לָקַח חָצֵר וּבָהּ זִיזִין וּכְּצוֹצְטֵרָאוֹת הֲרֵי זוֹ בְחֶזְקָתָהּ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** One makes no hollow under the public domain, cisterns, ditches, and caves. Rebbi Eliezer permits if a cart filled with stones can pass over it¹⁵⁵ 1:1, Note 20).. One does not build protrusions and balconies¹⁵⁶ “gallery, lobby, balcony”. The Babylonian spelling is גזוזטרא. Mishnah Ahilut 14:1 defines a זיז as protrusion without a railing, גיזרא as one with a railing. above the public domain but if he wishes he builds inside his own property and adds them¹⁵⁷. If somebody bought a courtyard and there are protrusions and balconies, that remains a right of possession¹⁵⁸. footnotes: ¹⁵⁵ Even for private use. A person who owns two parcels separated by a road may connect them by a tunnel on condition that he build a bridge strong enough to carry all expected traffic (Bikkurim ¹⁵⁶ Greek ἐξώστρα, Latin exostra ¹⁵⁷ If the balconies do not extend over his property line, he may build on his property anything he wishes. ¹⁵⁸ The buyer may assume that originally the property extended into what is now public domain and the balconies were built legally; he does not have to investigate their legality. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:11:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:11:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/3:11:2) **הלכה:** אֵין עוֹשִׂין חָלָל כול׳. נָפְלוּ וּמְבַקֵּשׁ לִבְנוֹתָן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. וִויתֵּר. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. לֹא וִויתֵּר. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָה לְדֵין וּמַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָה לְדֵין. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָה לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִי שֶׁהָיְתָה דֶרֶךְ הָרַבִּים עוֹבֶרֶת בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ וּנְטָלָהּ וְנָתַן לָהֶן מִן הַצַּד. מַה שֶׁנָּתַן נָתַן וּשֶׁלּוֹ לֹא הִגִּיעוֹ. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָה לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. לָקַח חָצֵר וּבָהּ זִיזִין וּכְּצוֹצְטֵרָאוֹת וְנָפְלוּ בּוֹנֶה אוֹתָן כְּחֶזְקָתָן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “One makes no hollow,” etc. If they collapsed and he wants to rebuild¹⁵⁹. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he gave up his rights¹⁶⁰. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he did not give up his rights. A Mishnah supports one, a *baraita* supports the other. A Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁶¹: “If a public road went through somebody’s field and he took it and gave them on the side¹⁶². What he gave, he gave, but his own did not come to him.” A *baraita* supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish¹⁶³: “If somebody bought a courtyard and there are protrusions and balconies, if they collapsed he rebuilds them based on his right of possession.” footnotes: ¹⁵⁹ This refers to the second part of the Mishnah. A person built a balcony above the public domain, i. e., he built inside his property and gave over the ground under the balcony to public use. ¹⁶⁰ Since the strip which he surrendered is now in public use, if the balcony collapses the wall now borders the public domain; the Mishnah prohibits him from rebuilding. The Babli 60b agrees with the characterization of the opinions of R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish. ¹⁶¹ Mishnah 6:7. ¹⁶² He ploughed the road under and made a new road on the side of his field. The public has not lost its right of way through his field. ¹⁶³ Tosephta 2:17.