## Tosafot on Bava Batra Daf 28b ###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 28b:2:1 [Tosafot on Bava Batra 28b:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/28b:2:1) אלא מעתה חזקה שאין עמה טענה כו'. תימה מאי ס"ד דמקשה דהיכי מצי לאוקמי בידיה כיון דלא טעין מידי וי"ל דהכי פריך כיון דילפת משור המועד מה התם בשלש נגיחות הוי בחזקת נגחן הכא נמי כיון דאכלה שלש שנים ולא מיחה הויא בחזקת שלא ימחה עוד ובלא טענה נמי תהא שלו דאית לן למימר שמחל לו אי נמי הא דקא פריך למימרא דחזקה שלא בטענה תהא חזקה היינו כגון דאמר ליה מפלניא זבנתה דזבנה מינך אע"ג דלא אמר קמי דידי זבנה ולא דר בה אפי' חד יומא ולא ידע אי זבנה מיניה אי לא אלא דהכי א"ל תימה לרשב"א הא דמיבעיא לן בפ' כיצד הרגל (ב"ק כד. ושם) אי לאיעודי תורא אי לאיעודי גברא תפשוט מהכא דלאיעודי תורא הוא דקאמרי הולכי אושא מה שור המועד כיון שנגח ג' נגיחות נפקא ליה כו' ואי לאיעודי גברא לא מייעד עד נגיחה רביעית דאז הוא מועד לעבור בהתראות דכשנגח נגיחה שלישית והתרו בו עדיין לא עבר על שלש התראות עד שיגח פעם רביעית וי"ל דסוגיא דהכא כמאן דאמר לאיעודי תורא והולכי אושא לא אמרו אלא דגמרינן משור המועד ולא יותר וילפינן משלש התראות דגברא ולא משלש נגיחות דתורא ועוד דלמאן דאמר לאיעודי גברא אין צריך שיהו מוחזקות לעבור בהתראות דאם כן עד נגיחה חמישית לא יחייב אלא צריך שיודיעוהו בכל פעם כשיגח כדי שישמור שורו ומכל מקום חיובא דשור תליא במה שהוחזק ליגח: **Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:** **אלא מעתה חזקה שאין עמה טענה כולי—But now** it would appear that **a** חזקה **without an accompanying claim, etc.** should be a חזקה.**** OVERVIEW תוספות previously explained¹ that (in order to understand the questionמה אי שור המועד וכו' ה"נ עד שנה רביעית וכו' we have to interpret that) the inference from שור המועד is that three years establishes a חזקה. We consider the field in the possession of the מחזיק. Generally when there is a dispute between ראובן ושמעון over an object; שמעון claims that he bought it from ראובן; however ראובן maintains that he never sold it to שמעון (and ראובן can prove that he originally owned the object) the rule is that the person who is not in possession of the object must prove his case. If ראובן, the alleged seller, is in possession, then שמעון must prove that he bought it from ראובן; if שמעון, the alleged buyer, is in possession, then ראובן has to prove that he did not sell it to שמעון. The same rule should apply to קרקע. However it is difficult to establish who is in possession of the קרקע (they can both be standing in the field, etc.). This is the rule of חזקה, which we derive from שור המועד that whoever was in the field for the last three consecutive years is considered the מוחזק, He is in possession. The other party, the מערער, must prove his case that he did not sell the field to the מוחזק. It would seem obvious, however, that if someone is in possession of an article and another person (proves that it was his and) claims that he never sold it; then if the מחזיק argues that it should be his, merely because he is in possession of this article, it would be a ludicrous claim. The fact that he is in possession may deem him to be a thief, but does not confer upon him any rights of ownership. The only way that a מחזיק can claim ownership is if he argues that he bought the article from the (known) original owner (or it was gifted to him, etc.) Similarly by קרקע, if one is established as a מוחזק; and claims that he bought it, that necessitates the מערער to prove otherwise. Possession by itself however, gives one no right to anything that was known to have belonged to someone else previously. תוספות questions: If the לימוד from שור המועד is that three years merely establishes the מחזיק as a מוחזק, that is no reason that he should be awarded the קרקע without a טענה (claim). ------------------------- תוספות asks: **תימה מאי סלקא דעתיה דמקשה דהיכי מצי לאוקמי בידיה כיון דלא טעין מידי –** **It is astounding! What did the questioner think** when he asked that a חזקה שאין עמה טענה שאין should be a valid חזקה?! **For how is it possible to place** the property in question **in the possession** of the מחזיק and give him ownership **since he is not claiming anything.** He does not claim that he bought the property or that it was gifted to him, He merely states that he is living there for three years and no one bothered him. That does not give him any right to the property. We know for certain that the מערער was the original owner. How was that ownership transferred to the מחזיק?! He neither claims that it was bought by him nor gifted to him. It should remain in the possession of the מערער – the original owner! תוספות answers: **ויש לומר דהכי פריך כיון דילפת משור המועד² מה התם בשלש נגיחות הוי בחזקת נגחן –** **And one can say; that this is what** the גמרא **is asking: since you are deriving** the rule of שנים 'ג חזקת **from a המועד שור**, therefore we can say as follows, **just as there** by המועד שור **by goring three** times, the ox **is an established goring** ox – **הכא נמי כיון דאכלה שלש שנים ולא מיחה הויא בחזקת שלא ימחה עוד³ –** **here too** by שנים 'ג חזקת **since** the מחזיק **consumed** the produce for **three years and** the original owner **did not protest, it is established that he will never protest again;** meaning that he is relinquishing his interest in this property **–** **ובלא טענה נמי תהא שלו⁴ דאית לן למימר שמחל לו⁵ –** **And** therefore even **without a claim it should belong to** the מחזיק **for we should assume that** the original owner **forfeited to** the מחזיק the rights of the property. תוספות offers another explanation:⁶ **אי נמי הא דקא פריך למימרא דחזקה שלא בטענה תהא חזקה –** **Perhaps** we can **also** answer as follows: **that which** the גמרא **asks, ‘do you** mean **to say that a חזקה** **without a claim should be a** valid **חזקה’,** it does not mean that the מחזיק has no claim at all. If that were the case it would be unthinkable that it should be considered a חזקה, but rather טענה עמה שאין חזקה here means – **היינו כגון דאמר ליה⁷ מפלניא זבנתה דזבנה מינך⁸ –** **That for instance** the מחזיק **said to** the original owner, **‘I bought it from someone who bought it from you’.** This is what the גמרא refers to as a עמה חזקה שאין טענה.⁹ The גמרא asks that in this case the מחזיק should be believed – **אף על גב דלא אמר קמי דידי זבנה ולא דר בה אפילו חד יומא¹⁰ –** **Even though** the מחזיק **did not say** that the individual from whom I bought the field, **bought it** from you (the מערער) **in my presence.** If the מחזיק would have claimed that he (the מחזיק) purchased the field from ראובן (his מוכר) and the מחזיק also claims that he was present when ראובן purchased the field from the מערער, then it would be a חזקה שיש עמה טענה, since the מחזיק claims that he knows for sure that his מוכר bought the field from the מערער and subsequently sold it to him (the מחזיק). However in our case the מחזיק does not claim that זבנה דידי קמי. In addition, we are discussing a case where the**** alleged מוכר who sold it to the מחזיק **did not live there** (in the house or field) **for even one day.** The מחזיק cannot prove that his מוכר lived in the house of the מערער for even one day. If the מחזיק can bring עדים that his מוכר lived in the house of the מערער for (even) one day, then it is considered a חזקה שיש עמה טענה and the מחזיק is entitled to the property. The reason for this is that since we know that the מוכר lived in the house, therefore the מחזיק is considered a bona fide buyer. The rule is that ללוקח טוענין, we argue on behalf of (a bona fide) buyer.¹¹ If the מוכר was here and claimed that he bought it from the מערער (and then sold it to the מחזיק), the מחזיק would receive the field, since it is a טענה עמה שיש חזקה. Now even though the מוכר is not present, we argue on behalf of the לוקח – מחזיק, that if the מוכר would be here he would claim that he bought it from the מערער, and coupled with the חזקה of the מחזיק it would be sufficient to remove the property from the רשות of the מערער. In our case however, the מחזיק could not prove that the מוכר ever lived in this property, therefore he is not a bona fide לוקח; he may have been duped by a swindler (or there was no 'מוכר' at all, it is a fiction created by the מחזיק).¹² בי"ד therefore will not argue on his behalf that the מוכר bought it from the מערער.¹³ The מחזיק is also not claiming that he was present when the מוכר allegedly bought the house from the מערער. **ולא ידע אי זבנה מיניה אי לא אלא דהכי אמר ליה –** **And** therefore the מחזיק **does not know whether** his מוכר **bought** the property **from** the מערער **or not.** When he claims מפלניא זבנתה דזבנה מינך, he does not mean that ‘I know that he bought it from you’ **But rather** he claims **that this is what** his מוכר **said to him** (the מחזיק). The מחזיק claims that his מוכר told him that I (the מוכר) bought it from the מערער. This is called a טענה עמה שאין חזקה, because even if we believe what the מחזיק says, we do not know for sure (as the מחזיק himself does not know) that the מערער ever sold the field!¹⁴ תוספות asks a different question: **תימה לרבינו שמשון בן אברהם¹⁵ הא דמיבעיא לן בפרק כיצד הרגל (בבא קמא כד,א ושם) –** **The א"רשב** **is baffled** concerning **that which** the גמרא **queries in הרגל כיצד פרק** regarding the three day requirement to establish a המועד שור – **אי לאיעודי תורא אי לאיעודי גברא¹⁶ –** **Is it to** establish **the ox as a habitual** gorer, or **is it to establish the person as a habitual** derelict in his duty to control his ox. This is the query in הרגל כיצד. The question is – **תפשוט מהכא דלאיעודי תורא הוא –** **Resolve** the query **from** the גמרא **here that it is לאיעודי תורה – דקאמרי¹⁷ הולכי אושא מה שור המועד כיון שנגח ג' נגיחות נפקא ליה כולי –** **since the אושא** **הולכי** **say; ‘just as a** **שור המועד since he gored three times he is extracted, etc.’** from being a תם and he becomes a מועד**.** We can derive from their statement that the three days is תורא לאיעודי – **ואי לאיעודי גברא לא מייעד עד נגיחה רביעית דאז הוא מועד לעבור בהתראות¹⁸ –** **For if** the purpose is **גברא לאיעודי;** the owner **is not a** מועד **until the fourth נגיחה,** **for** only by the fourth נגיחה **is the** owner **a מועד to disregard the warnings** – **דכשנגח נגיחה שלישית והתרו בו עדיין לא עבר על שלש התראות עד שיגח פעם רביעית –** **for when** the ox **gored the third** נגיחה **and they warned him** a third time (once after the first נגיחה, a second warning after the second נגיחה, and a third time now after the third נגיחה), the owner **did not as of yet disregard three warnings until** the ox **will gore a fourth time**, only then should the owner be considered a מועד. The הולכי אושא said ליה בחזקת מועד וקם תם מחזקת ליה נפק נגיחות 'ג שנגח כיון,¹⁹ however according to the opinion of גברא לאיעודי, the owner ceases to be a תם only after the fourth נגיחה, not the third, as the הולכי אושא contend. תוספות answers: **ויש לומר דסוגיא דהכא כמאן דאמר²⁰ לאיעודי תורא –** **And one can say that the** גמרא **here** in ב"ב follows the opinion **of the one who maintains תורא לאיעודי.** Therefore it is understood why the גמרא here says 'וכו נגיחות 'ג משנגח. תוספות however anticipates the following question. The query of תורא לאיעודי or לאיעודי גברא is raised by the אמוראים. If the אושא הולכי, who were תנאים, state that משנגח ג' נגיחות וכו', that would imply that the אושא הולכי maintain that it is תורא לאיעודי, how can there then be a query by the אמוראים if it is גברא לאיעודי. תוספות responds: **והולכי אושא לא אמרו אלא דגמרינן משור המועד ולא יותר –** **And the** אושא הולכי **did not say** the statement that 'וכו נגיחות 'ג משנגח שור המועד מה, **but** rather they merely said **that we derive** חזקת ג' שנים **from שור המועד and** they did not say **any more.** The statement of 'וכו נגיחות 'ג משנגח מה שור המועד, was not made by the אושא הולכי but rather by the הגמרא סוגית here, who indeed maintains תורא לאיעודי. However the גברא לאיעודי מ"ד will maintain – **וילפינן משלש התראות דגברא ולא משלש נגיחות דתורא –** **That we derive** שנים חזקת ג' **from the** transgressing of the **three warnings** given **to the owner and** we do not derive שנים 'ג חזקת **from the three gorings of the ox.** The מ"ד of גברא לאיעודי would have worded the derivation from שור המועד differently.²¹ תוספות offers a different resolution of the matter:** ועוד דלמאן דאמר לאיעודי גברא אין צריך שיהו מוחזקות לעבור בהתראות –** **And furthermore;** we can say that our סוגיא can be in accord even with the מ"ד of לאיעודי גברא, **for** even **according to the** מ"ד **of גברא לאיעודי it is not required that it should be established that** the owner **is disregarding the warnings,** i.e. that he must disregard the warnings three times before it is considered גברא לאיעודי. This is not so – **דאם כן עד נגיחה חמישית לא יחייב –** **For if this were so,** that according to the גברא לאיעודי מ"ד, the person does not become a מועד until he disregarded three warnings, then the ruling should be **that until the fifth goring,** the owner **should not be obligated to pay** full damages of a מועד. At the fourth goring the owner was not as of yet a מועד. The owner will only be a מועד if he disregarded three warnings. Before the fourth נגיחה he has only disregarded two warnings, the ones after the first and second נגיחה. He will have disregarded the third warning only after the fourth נגיחה. It is only then that he is a מועד. Therefore, he should be חייב a נזק שלם only on the fifth נגיחה after it was established that he is a מועד.²³ Since everyone agrees that he is חייב even on the fourth נגיחה, therefore it is obvious that גברא לאיעודי, does not meant that the owner must be a בהתראות לעבור מועד – **אלא צריך שיודיעוהו²⁴ בכל פעם כשיגח כדי שישמור שורו –** **But rather** גברא לאיעודי means that **it is necessary to inform** the owner **every time** his ox **gores in order that he guard his ox.** The warnings to the owner are simply to make him aware of his ox’s doings, so he should not claim later I was not warned sufficiently. Three warnings are sufficient. **ומכל מקום חיובא דשור תליא במה שהוחזק ליגח:** **But nevertheless,** even if we maintain גברא לאיעודי the obligation of payment for the damages of the ox depends on the fact **that** the ox **became accustomed to gore.** Therefore as soon as the ox gored three times and the owner was warned three times he is חייב נזק שלם, even though the owner was not established as a מועד. It is the שור who is the מועד not the owner. SUMMARY The question 'אלא מעתה חזקה וכו, can be understood in two ways. A. It should be considered as a מחילה, on part of the מערער. B. If the מחזיק claims מפלניא זבנתה דזבנה מינך, he should be believed even if it was not קמי דידי and also not דר ביה חד יומא. The סוגית הגמרא which states 'כיון שנגח ג' נגיחות יצא מחזקת תם וכו'', can either go according to the מ"ד of לאיעודא תורא, and it was not said by the אושא הולכי; or it was said by the הולכי אושא and even the מ"ד of לאיעודי גברא does not require that the owner should be a מועד לעבור בהתראות. THINKING IT OVER 1. תוספות explains the question of אלא מעתה חזקה וכו' in two ways. What answer does the גמרא give to this question according to each of these explanations? 2. In the case of 'מפלניא זבנתה וכו; what would be the דין if the מחזיק has a valid שטר from the מוכר; would we say טענינן ללוקח?²⁵ 3. Why does the רשב"א ask his question after the גמרא asks 'אלא מעתה חזקה וכו; the question should be asked when the גמרא previously statedמה שור המועד משנגח ג' נגיחות? footnotes: ¹ See previous עד ה"ד (כח,א)'תוס. ² If the purpose of a חזקה is to establish the מחזיק as a מוחזק, that he is in possession, then obviously if it is a חזקה שאין עמה טענה, it would be a meaningless חזקה, for there is no claim. However according to this גמרא, the לימוד from שור המועד, is that we are establishing the status (of the שור and) of the מערער. The מערער by not being מוחה for three years is conceding ownership; therefore, as תוספות continues, there is reason to argue that even a טענה עמה שאין חזקה is sufficient to place the field in the possession of the מחזיק. ³ See previous עד ה"ד 'תוס. Even though, the מערער is protesting now; nevertheless at the end of the third year, when he did not protest, it became עוד ימחה שלא בחזקת, so at that point he relinquished his rights to the property, and was 'מוחל' the property to the לוקח then. Afterwards he can no longer renege on this 'מחילה'. ⁴ It would seem that the two questions of the גמרא; the question of המועד שור מה אי and the question מעתה חזקה אלא are sort of a נפשך ממה. If the לימוד from המועד שור is to establish the מחזיק as being in possession, then just as by המועד שור the new status is achieved only by רביעית נגיחה, then by חזקה the status of possession should be accomplished only in the fourth year. If, however, the לימוד from המועד שור is that the מערער is עוד ימחה שלא בחזקת, that this proves that he is conceding ownership; then even a טענה עמה שאין חזקה should also be sufficient. ⁵ There is an inherent difficulty with this answer. It is generally assumed that ownership of property cannot be transferred through מחילה. Even if the owner would state specifically, ‘I am מוחל this property to you’, there would be no transfer of property even if a קנין was made. The prevailing view amongst many of the commentaries is that since the מחזיק was silent for three years it indicates that he is relinquishing all his rights to this property, and it is considered as if he is gifting it to the מחזיק and telling him וקני חזק לך. ⁶ In this answer we can again assume that the לימוד from המועד שור is that the מחזיק becomes a מוחזק. ⁷ See א"סע,ל לקמן. ⁸ There are three people involved here: The מערער who can prove that he was the original owner (more than three years ago), the מחזיק who is presently in the field and brings עדים that he was there for three years, and the מוכר, from whom the מחזיק (allegedly) bought the field. The מחזיק claims that the מוכר bought the field originally from the מערער, and then sold it to the מחזיק. The מוכר is not presently here. ⁹ It is considered a טענה עמה שאין חזקה, since the מחזיק himself is not sure whether the מוכר actually bought the field from the מערער and subsequently that the field is his. ¹⁰ See ב,מא לקמן. ¹¹ This ruling is to protect innocent buyers. When someone buys a field, he cannot be certain how the field came to be in the possession of the seller. There is always the concern that some original owner will claim that he never sold it to the seller. The new buyer will be at a loss. Therefore בי"ד steps in and argues on behalf of the last buyer, that his seller bought the field from the original owner. ¹² See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ¹³ When the מוכר was דר בו חד יומא there is some connection between the מוכר and the property, therefore the לוקח was acting within reason when he purchased the property. He is a bona fide לוקח. In such a case בי"ד is טוען ללוקח. However if we cannot associate the מוכר with the property, we do not know that the מוכר had any connection with the property; it is possible (and probable) that the מחזיק bought the field from a person in the street. It was extremely careless and unreasonable on the part of the מחזיק to buy a field from a person who has no known connection to the property. This מחזיק is not a bona fide לוקח; therefore there is no טענינן ללוקח. ¹⁴ We can now understand that the גמרא argues that even in a case where the מחזיק claims that he bought the field from someone who bought it from the מחזיק it should be a valid חזקה. The reason is that since we derive from שור המועד that in three years he becomes a מוחזק (the גמרא stated that we derive from שור המועד that נפק ליה מרשות מוכר וקיימא ליה ברשות לוקח), and he is claiming that he bought it, the onus of proof should be on the מערער that he did not sell it to that מוכר. Until the מערער proves otherwise, it should remain in the רשות of the מחזיק. ¹⁵ See תוס' ב"ב נד,ב ד"ה וישראל (ועדיין צ"ב). ¹⁶ The גמרא there in ק"ב explains that the difference להלכה between these two options is in a case where עדים came at one time and testified that this ox has already gored three times. If we maintain תורא לאיעודי, then the ox becomes a מועד immediately, and the next time he gores he is מועד בתשלומי חייב. If, however we maintain גברא לאיעודי, then since the owner was warned merely once, he is not obligated yet to pay תשלומי מועד for the next נגיחה, until the owner is warned three times. ¹⁷ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read מדקאמרי. ¹⁸ תוספות in this question (as well as in the first answer) assumes גברא לאיעודי to mean literally that the owner must be a מועד. He (deliberately) ignored the warnings three times. ¹⁹ תוספות is seemingly interpreting 'וכו תם מחזקת יצא as referring to the owner as a תם and a מועד. ²⁰ There are no actual מ"ד in ק"ב who maintain תורא לאיעודי or גברא לאיעודא. Rather, תוספות is referring to each side of the query as a מ"ד. ²¹ Perhaps he would have said 'וכו תם מחזקת יצא התראות 'ג על שעבר כיון המועד שור מה, or something similar. ²³ תוספות in his question (as well as according to the first answer) maintains that even if גברא לאיעודי means that it is necessary for the owner to be a בהתראות לעבור מועד, nevertheless he would be מועד בתשלומי מחויב even after the fourth נגיחה. The reasoning is that when the owner was warned after the third נגיחה, the owner was warned three times and has already disregarded two of these warnings ('וג 'ב נגיחות); when the 'ד נגיחה actually occurred it was because the owner already disregarded the third warning, hence he is a לעבור בהתראות מועד even before the fourth נגיחה, by allowing his ox to be נוגח the fourth time (ס"בחת 'ועי). The second answer of תוספות, however will maintain that in order to be בהתראה עובר the ox must actually inflict a damage for which it is liable. The mere fact that his ox was not being watched is not sufficient to consider him a בהתראה מועד. Therefore the גברא will not become a מועד until after the רביעית נגיחה and will not be liable for ש"נ until the חמישית נגיחה. ²⁴ The term לאיעודי (at least according to the גברא לאיעודי מ"ד) would mean to warn or testify as in העדאת עדים, but not in the usual term of מועד that he is habitually derelict. ²⁵ See footnote # 12. ###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 28b:4:1 [Tosafot on Bava Batra 28b:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/28b:4:1) אלא מעתה מחאה שלא בפניו לא תהא מחאה. פירש ר"י כי היכי דילפת משור המועד דהוי חזקה בשלשה זימני הכי נמי נילף מה שור צריך העדאה בפניו ולא אמר קלא אית ליה ותועיל הכי נמי מחאה שלא בפניו אית לן למימר דלית ליה קלא ולא תהא חזקה אף על פי ששמע החזקה כיון דאין קול למחאה מה היה מועיל אם מוחה כיון שלא תגיע למחזיק מחאתו ואע"ג שמחאה באה לבטל החזקה וההעדאה באה לקיים מ"מ פריך שפיר והא דנקט מחאה ולא נקט חזקה משום דחזקה נשמעת טפי מהעדאה אבל מחאה אינה נשמעת יותר ובלא שור המועד הוי מצי למיפרך דלא תהא מחאה כדפריך אליבא דרבנן אלא כיון דיליף משור המועד ניחא ליה למפרך מיניה ומשני חברך חברא אית ליה ויש קול בין למחאה בין להעדאה אבל בהעדאה גרידא גזירת הכתוב הוא דאין נעשה מועד אלא אם כן מעידים בפניו אפילו יתברר לו באלף עדים שהעידו על שורו בבית דין: **Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:** **אלא מעתה מחאה שלא בפניו לא תהא מחאה—But now** it would appear that **a protest not in his presence should not be a protest** OVERVIEW רב עוירא asked that if we derive חזקת ג' שנים from שור המועד, then we should also derive that a מחאה שלא בפניו לא הויא מחאה. It would seem that his question is that if the מערער made his מחאה שלא בפניו, it should not be a valid מחאה, and therefore the חזקה should be a proper חזקה.¹ However תוספות is not satisfied with this explanation. One reason may be that if a מחאה שלא בפניו לא הויא מחאה, then if the מערער lives in a different city from the מחזיק, he would be required to travel to the s'מחזיק city to make a מחאה. This, תוספות maintains, is unreasonable.² Another difficulty with this interpretation is (as תוספות later states³) that a העדאה is coming to establish a new חזקה, while a מחאה is coming to retain the present חזקה. We cannot derive one from the other. תוספות therefore chooses a different interpretation of s'עוירא רב question. ------------------------------- **פירש רבינו יצחק כי היכי דילפת משור המועד דהוי חזקה בשלשה זימני –** **The ר"י** **explained** the s'גמרא question as follows: **just as you derive from שור המועד that a חזקה** **is established in three times –** **הכי נמי נילף מה שור⁴ צריך העדאה בפניו ולא אמר קלא אית ליה ותועיל –** **let us also similarly derive** from המועד שור an additional lesson; **just as** by **a שור [המועד] it is required that the warning** take place **in the presence** of the owner; however a warning not in his presence is insufficient to render the ox a מועד **and** one **does not say that** the warning בפניו שלא **is** adequately **publicized and** a העדאה שלא בפניו **should be adequate** because the owner of the ox will hear of the העדאה; we do not assume that, but rather we require a בפניו העדאה, because we assume that the owner will not hear the העדאה – **הכי נמי מחאה שלא בפניו אית לן למימר דלית ליה קלא ולא תהא חזקה –** **Similarly** by שנים 'ג חזקת if it is a **בפניו שלא** **מחאה**, if the מערער and מחזיק live far apart, **we should also** **assume that** the מחאה **does not have** sufficient **publicity** and the מחזיק will not hear the מחאה, **and** therefore **it should not be a חזקה – אף על פי ששמע החזקה כיון דאין קול למחאה⁵ –** **Even** in a case where the מערער **heard** about the **חזקה;** nevertheless it should still not be considered a חזקה. The reason it should not be a חזקה, is **since the objection will have no publicity;** the מחזיק will not hear it – **מה⁶ היה מועיל אם מוחה כיון שלא תגיע למחזיק מחאתו⁷ –** **[for] what would it accomplish if** the מערער **[would] object, since his objection will not reach** the ears **of the מחזיק.** Therefore since there is no purpose in the מחאה, there is no reason for the מערער to make a מחאה.⁸ If no מחאה needs to be made, there can be no חזקה. The validity of a חזקה is based on the fact that the מערער did not object.⁹ If there is no need (or purpose) to object, there can be no חזקה. The question that the גמרא asks, אלא מעתה מחאה שלא בפניו וכו', is that if the חזקה is not המערער בפני, it should not be a חזקה (not that it should not be a מחאה and it should be a חזקה). תוספות anticipates the following question: **ואף על גב שמחאה באה לבטל החזקה וההעדאה באה לקיים –** **And even though that** the intent of a **מחאה** **is to nullify the חזקה;** as opposed to **the warning** by a המועד שור; whose intent is **to substantiate** a new חזקה**.** How can we derive from המועד שור that just as to establish a חזקה it must only be בפניו, similarly to establish a מחאה it must also be בפניו? Perhaps the rules concerning establishing a חזקה differ from those of establishing a מחאה! When we wish to establish a new חזקה, to change from the previous status, it requires a greater effort (only בפניו); however to establish a מחאה (which will prevent a חזקה from taking effect, and maintaining the present status) that can be accomplished much easier (even שלא בפניו).¹⁰ תוספות responds: **מכל מקום פריך שפיר –** **Nevertheless the question** of מחאה מעתה אלא **is justified.** תוספות explained previously that by arguing that מחאה תהא לא בפניו שלא מחאה, we really intend to say thatחזקה שלא בפניו לא תהא חזקה. Therefore the לימוד from המועד שור is accurate; in both cases (by שור המועד and חזקת ג' שנים) we wish to invalidate a חזקה שלא בפניו.¹¹ תוספות anticipates and addresses another question on his interpretation: If the intention of the גמרא is that we should derive from המועד שור that חזקה תהא לא בפניו שלא חזקה – **והא דנקט מחאה ולא נקט חזקה –** **So why** did the גמרא **mention** the case of בפניו שלא **מחאה and it did not mention** the case of בפניו שלא **חזקה;** since we are interested to derive that a בפניו שלא חזקה, cannot take effect. The גמרא should have asked that חזקה תהא לא בפניו שלא חזקה instead of מחאה. The same logic that dictates that מחאה שלא בפניו לא הוי מחאה, since the מחזיק does not hear the מחאה, will also dictate that בפניו שלא חזקה should not be a חזקה since the מערער does not know about the חזקה, so that he should be מוחה. תוספות replies: **משום דחזקה נשמעת טפי מהעדאה –** **Because a** חזקה **is more readily heard than the warning** of a המועד שור. The fact that the העדאה of a המועד שור must be בפניו, would not lead us to conclude that a בפניו שלא חזקה is not a חזקה. We could differentiate between them. The owner of the שור may not hear the העדאה of the שור (therefore it is not a מועד); however the מערער will more likely hear of the חזקה (therefore it should be a valid חזקה).¹² That is why the גמרא cannot ask initially that חזקה שלא בפניו לא תהא חזקה. **אבל מחאה אינה נשמעת יותר¹³ –** **However the objection** of the מערער **is not more readily heard** than the העדאה of the שור. Therefore we can compare the two, and argue that just as a העדאה שלא בפניו is invalid (since the owner will not hear it) similarly a מחאה שלא בפניו is invalid (for the מחזיק will not hear it). Once, however, that we derive that a מחאה שלא בפניו is not a מחאה, then it follows that a חזקה שלא בפניו is not a חזקה. There can be no חזקה without the need and opportunity of a purposeful מחאה. תוספות anticipates an additional question: The גמרא when it asks the question that a מחאה שלא בפניו should not be a מחאה, just as by a שור המועד a העדאה שלא בפניו is not a העדאה, the גמרא is assuming that the reason why a העדאה שלא בפניו is invalid, is because the owner will not hear of it. Similarly the מחאה which has the same publicity as a העדאה (as just mentioned) will also not be heard. If the גמרא assumes that the מחאה שלא פניו will not be heard, then – **ובלא שור המועד הוי מצי למיפרך דלא תהא מחאה כדפריך¹⁴ אליבא דרבנן –** **The** same question **can be asked without** any reference **to המועד** **שור.** The גמרא could have simply asked **that** a בפניו שלא מחאה **should not be a** valid **מחאה;** since it cannot be heard by the מחזיק. Our תוספות proves that the question of מחאה שלא בפניו לא תהא מחאה, does not require any support from המועד שור **as** the גמרא will later **ask according to the רבנן,** who do not derive שנים 'ג חזקת from המועד שור, but rather from a סברא. Nevertheless the גמרא asks there that a מחאה תהא לא בפניו שלא מחאה, since it cannot be heard. Why did our גמרא have to resort to compare שנים 'ג חזקת to המועד שור, in regards to this question?! תוספות answers: In truth it was not necessary to depend on המועד שור – **אלא כיון דיליף משור המועד ניחא ליה למפרך מיניה –** **however since we derive** שנים 'ג חזקת **from שור המועד it is easier** for the מקשן **to challenge** the status of מחאה שלא בפניו **from** המועד שור; for from המועד שור we have proof that בפניו שלא has no קול, since בפניו שלא העדאה is invalid. תוספות continues with the s'גמרא answer to the question of עוירא 'ר:¹⁵ **ומשני חברך חברא אית ליה ויש קול בין למחאה בין להעדאה –** **And** the גמרא **answers: ‘Your friend has** another **friend,** etc. **so there is** adequate **publicity both by a מחאה and העדאה;** which explains why a מחאה הויא בפניו שלא מחאה – **אבל בהעדאה גרידא גזירת הכתוב הוא דאין נעשה מועד אלא אם כן מעידים בפניו –** **However, concerning העדאה** **only,** **it is a decree of the תורה that** the ox **does not become a מועד unless** the witnesses **testify in the presence** of the owner – **אפילו יתברר לו באלף עדים שהעידו על שורו בבית דין:** **Even if** the owner **will become aware through** the testimony of a **thousand witnesses,** who will come to the owner and testify **that** witnesses **testified in ד"בי** **concerning your ox;** that he gored three times, nevertheless since he was not warned personally (in ד"בי) to guard his ox he will not be מועד בתשלומי מחוייב. The reason why העדאה must be בפניו is not because the owner is not aware; but rather it is a special requirement that he be warned personally by the עדים (in ד"בי). SUMMARY The question 'וכו מחאה מעתה אלא, is that since a בפניו שלא העדאה is not a העדאה therefore a בפניו שלא מחאה should not be a מחאה and consequently the חזקה שלא בפניו should not be a חזקה. THINKING IT OVER 1. In the previous תוספות there were two ways how to understand the לימוד from שור המועד: A. Three years makes the מחזיק a מוחזק in the field and the מערער is a מוציא.¹⁶ B. If the מערער did not protest for three years, then he is presumed to give up his rights.¹⁷ When the גמרא asks אלא מעתה מחאה וכו', which of these two interpretations is the גמרא following? 2. תוספות states that since a מחאה שלא בפניו will not be heard by the מחזיק, there is no point in the מחאה.¹⁸ Seemingly there is a point to the מחאה even if the מחזיק does not hear it. It invalidates the proof of the חזקה. We cannot say that if it is the s'מערער field, why did he not protest. The מערער did protest.¹⁹ 3. Why is it necessary for תוספות to explain²⁰ the תירוץ of the גמרא? footnotes: ¹ This seems to be s'י"רש understanding of the גמרא (see רש"י ד"ה מחאה). ² See תוס' לקמן כט,א ד"ה אלא, 'דהא אינו צריך לבא בעיר אחרת לפני המחזיק ולמחות כדמוכח לקמן'. ³ See also footnote # 10 ⁴ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read; שור המועד צריך. ⁵ תוספות will point out later that a בפניו שלא חזקה has a greater chance of being heard (by the מערער) than a מחאה שלא בפניו has a chance of being heard (by the מחזיק). ⁶ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read; דמה היה מועיל אם היה מוחה. ⁷ This seems to indicate, that תוספות maintains that (even) according to the המועד משור לימוד, the purpose of the מחאה is to weaken the position of the מחזיק, by challenging him that since there was a מחאה, then where is the שטר. If the מחזיק will not hear the מחאה, the purpose of the מחאה is defeated. ⁸ See ‘Thinking it over # 2. ⁹ In the confrontation between the מערער and the מחזיק, the מערער (generally) has proof that he was the original owner. The מחזיק has no שטר. The claim of the מחזיק that he bought the field from the מערער is substantiated (only) by the חזקה and the lack of a מחאה. If the מערער did not sell the field, why did he not protest? Had the מערער protested, that would have alerted the מחזיק to keep his שטר. If however the מחזיק would not have heard the מחאה anyway, what purpose is there in making it? Consequently the חזקה in such an instance is meaningless, for it does not substantiate the claim of the מחזיק. ¹⁰ It is readily understood that it is more difficult to change the status quo that to retain it. When there is either a העדאה or בפניו שלא מחאה we are not certain whether it is sufficiently publicized or not. Therefore by a בפניו שלא העדאה, since we cannot assume that it was heard by the owner, so the status quos remains; the שור is still a תם. By מחאה שלא בפניו, however, even though we are not certain whether the מחזיק heard the מחאה, nevertheless it is possible that he did hear it. Since it is in doubt we let the original status remain. The field should remain המערער בחזקת. (Alternately, since the מערער made a מחאה, therefore the basis of the חזקה is undermined. Even if this מחאה is questionable [since קול לה אין], nevertheless, it should suffice that the מערער retain his original חזקה.) ¹¹ If the intention of the question מחאה מעתה אלא was that it should not be a מחאה, then there would be a difficulty as just mentioned; however since as תוספות explained, the intention is that there should be no חזקה, then it is similar to המועד שור, in both cases בפניו שלא cannot establish a חזקה. ¹² An absentee owner is continually inquiring as to the status of his fields; therefore he will be aware of any חזקה in his field. ¹³ In both cases neither the owner of the שור or the purchaser of the field anticipates any difficulties or changes of the present status ¹⁴ לקמן כט,א, ועיי"ש תוס' ד"ה אלא. ¹⁵ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ¹⁶ See עד ה"ד א,כח 'תוס. ¹⁷ See תוס' כח,ב ד"ה אלא וכו' חזקה. ¹⁸ See footnote # 8. ¹⁹ See מג אות ד"סוכ. ²⁰ See footnote # 15. ###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 28b:8:1 [Tosafot on Bava Batra 28b:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/28b:8:1) כגון צלף. בתר דשני ליה מתאנה פריך מצלף דתאנה גדולה היא בשעה שנוטלין חבירתה מן האילן אלא שלא נתבשלה עדיין אבל צלף קטן הפרי הרבה כשנוטלין האחת כדאמר בשבת (דף ל.) עתידין אילנות שיטענו פירות בכל יום לגלג עליו אותו תלמיד אין כל חדש תחת השמש אחוי ליה צלף ור"ח גריס ברישא תלתא פירי בחד יומא כגון צלף שיש לו שלשה פירות ביחד ובתר הכי גריס כגון תאנה וההיא דשבת משמע כספרים שלנו: **Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:** **כגון צלף¹—For instance, צלף** OVERVIEW The גמרא asked, if we are deriving שנים 'ג חזקת from the three נגיחות of שור המועד, then we should not require three years but rather three harvests. Therefore, since figs do not ripen at the same time, if three figs were harvested in one day, it should be considered three אכילות, since all three figs ripened at different times (in this same day). The גמרא responded that figs are different from המועד שור; by שור המועד when the first נגיחה happens the second נגיחה does not exist at all; however by figs all three figs were on the tree at the same time on this one day. [It is just that they do not ripen at the same time.] Therefore it cannot be considered as three harvests, but rather as one harvest. The גמרא continues to ask that (nevertheless) in the case of צלף if one harvested three fruits (in three days²) it should be considered a חזקה. The גמרא (again) answers that צלף is (also) different from שור המועד, because by צלף when one fruit is harvested the others are there; they are just not ripe. This concludes the excerpt of the relevant גמרא. It would seem at first glance that the answers to the two questions of תאנה and צלף are identical. All three fruits are there (at the first harvest) but they are not ripe. The question is; that once we already made this distinction by תאנה, why did the גמרא repeat the seemingly same question and answer by צלף. Our תוספות will offer two resolutions to this question. ---------------------------- **בתר³ דשני ליה מתאנה פריך מצלף –** **[Even though] (after)** the גמרא already **answered** why **figs** are different from המועד שור; that all three figs are on the tree at the same time (where seemingly this answer should apply to צלף as well), nevertheless, the גמרא **challenges** the assumption that we derive שנים 'ג חזקת from שור המועד, **from** צלף**.** The reason why the explanation that תאנה is not comparable to שור המועד is not sufficient to distinguish צלף from המועד שור, is – **דתאנה גדולה היא בשעה שנוטלין חבירתה מן האילן אלא שלא נתבשלה עדיין –** **For the fig** that remains on the tree **when the other** fig **is taken off the tree, is a large** fig **at that time; however it is not ripe yet.** It is not comparable to שור המועד at all. By המועד שור when there is the first נגיחה there is no second נגיחה, however by a תאנה, the second תאנה is sufficiently large (albeit not ripe) to be considered a fruit, when the first תאנה is picked – **אבל צלף קטן הפרי הרבה כשנוטלין האחת –** **However, צלף** is different from תאנה, because the remaining צלף fruit that will be harvested on the successive days **is extremely small when the one** ripe צלף fruit **is taken off** the tree. Therefore it may be considered similar to המועד שור, that when one fruit is harvested, there is not really another fruit on the tree than can be truly considered a fruit, since the remaining fruits are extremely small. תוספות will prove this point that the remaining צלף fruit, is too small to be considered a fruit: **כדאמר בשבת (דף ל,א) עתידין אילנות שיטענו פירות בכל יום –** **As** the גמרא **relates in שבת** מסכת**,** גמליאל רבן stated; **‘it is destined** לבוא לעתיד **that trees will bear** new **fruits every day’.** When one student heard this – **לגלג עליו אותו תלמיד אין כל חדש תחת השמש –** **This one student mocked this** statement; it cannot be true for it is written**⁴** in קהלת, **there is nothing new under the sun.** Therefore since nowadays we have no trees that bear fruit every day, therefore ל"לע it cannot be possible either. In response to this mocking student, רבן גמליאל – **אחוי ליה צלף –** **showed** the student the **צלף** tree, as a refutation to his mocking; that even nowadays there is the צלף tree that bears fruit every day. Therefore it is possible that ל"לע trees in general will also bear fruit every day. However our גמרא states that even by צלף, the fruit that ripens on one day was already on the tree the previous day(s). We must therefore conclude from these two גמרות that צלף is considered to produce new fruits every day, since the fruit of yesterday was insignificantly small to be considered fruit. תוספות offers a different approach: **ורבינו חננאל גריס ברישא תלתא פירי בחד יומא כגון צלף⁵ שיש לו שלשה פירות ביחד –** **However, the ח"ר** **emends the text to state first** the challenge that it should be a חזקה if one harvested **‘three fruits in one day; for instance** צלף **which has three fruits simultaneously** in the same day’⁶ **–** **ובתר הכי גריס כגון תאנה –** **And after** the (question and) answer concerning צלף, that all the fruits are present on the same day; **the text reads** an additional challenge, **‘**that if he ate three fruits (in three days) **for instance figs** it should be a חזקה’. The reason the גמרא can ask from תאנה even after it explains why צלף is different than המועד שור is, that by צלף all three fruits ripen on the same day, therefore it is considered one harvest. However by תאנה since the three fruits ripen on three separate days that should be considered as three harvests. תוספות is not satisfied with the גירסא of the ח"ר: **וההיא דשבת משמע כספרים שלנו:** **However, that** גמרא in **שבת** מסכת**,** which was previously quoted, **indicates** that the correct reading **is like in our text;** that the צלף fruit ripens on consecutive days [בתלתא יומי] and not on the same day [אחד ביום]. The גמרא there used צלף as an example that a tree can produce new fruit every day. According to the ח"ר, however, it seems that the three fruits are ripe on the same day.⁷ SUMMARY There are two ways of reconciling the seemingly redundant questions and answers concerning תאנה and צלף. A. תאנה is different from שור המועד, since the remaining fruits (that will be harvested during this day), even though they are not yet ripe, nevertheless they are large. By צלף however the remaining fruits (that will be harvested on the successive days) are insignificantly small and should not be considered as present. B. (ר"ח) that צלף is different from שור המועד since all three fruits are present and ripe(n) in the day they are harvested. By תאנה however, the fruits that will be harvested in the successive days, are not ripe as of yet. THINKING IT OVER 1. According to the מסקנא of our גמרא that concerning צלף, the fruit of the successive days exists already (איתיה מיהא פירא), how are we to understand the גמרא in שבת, which states צלף ליה אחוי to prove that שיטענו פירות בכל יום אילנות עתידין?! 2. What are the advantages of ח"ר פירוש over the first answer of תוספות? footnotes: ¹ צלף is translated as a ‘caper-bush’; a plant with edible buds (flowers, and shoots). ² See the variant גירסא in the ס"הש מסורת; אחד ביום. See footnote # 5. ³ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read, אע"ג דשני לי', instead of בתר דשני. ⁴ ט,א. ⁵ This is different than our גירסא which states first תאנה כגון יומא בחד פירא תלתא. See footnote # 2. ⁶ See רש"י in מסכת שבת who states that צלף produces three types of edible fruits אביונות, קפריסין ולולבין (in the משנה of מעשרות פ"ד מ"ו it substitutes תמרות for לולבין) [berries, flowers, and shoots]. Perhaps the ר"ח is referring to these three fruits which ripen (or are ripe) on the same day. ⁷ See 'נ אות ד"סוכ, how the גמרא in שבת is not a refutation of the ח"ר. ###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 28b:14:1 [Tosafot on Bava Batra 28b:14:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/28b:14:1) ודלמא עצה טובה קא משמע לן. ה"נ מצי למיפרך ודלמא בתוך עשר הוה קאי ומזהיר על תחלת אחת עשרה דליכא אפילו שנה ולעולם בשנה אחת הויא חזקה ור"ח פירש דרב יוסף יליף הכי וגריס שהרי נביא עומד בתשע ומזהיר על י"א שתלכד העיר ויאבדו השטרות ויסמכו על חזקת שלש שנים ומביא ראיה מסדר עולם דבשנה תשיעית בחדש עשירי היה ומיהו בכל הספרים שלנו כתוב שהרי נביא עומד בעשירי וכן בסדר עולם שלנו תניא בשנה העשירית ועוד דלגירסתו נמי קשיא מנא ליה שלש שנים מיום ליום דלפי גירסת סדר עולם ליכא אלא שמנה עשר חודש שהרי בשנת אחת עשרה לחדש הרביעי בתשעה לחודש הובקעה העיר: **Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:** **ודלמא עצה טובה קא משמע לן—But perhaps** the פסוק is merely **telling us good advice** OVERVIEW רב יוסף claimed that the רבנן derive חזקת ג' שנים from the פסוקים in ירמיהו. The נביא ירמיהו was telling the Jews that those who are buying fields now should make sure that they have deeds of sale. The Jews will soon be exiled from ארץ ישראל and they will not have had the opportunity of establishing a חזקה. The נביא was speaking to them during the tenth year of s'צדקיהו reign. The Jews were exiled in the eleventh year of his reign. The most they could be in the fields is only two years; that, warned ירמיהו, is not sufficient time to establish a חזקה. Therefore they should make sure to have שטרות. Therefore, רב יוסף concluded that a חזקה requires more than two years, hence ג' שני חזקה.¹ אביי challenged s' רב יוסףproof. Perhaps a חזקה can be established even in one year; however ירמיהו was giving them good advice. It is preferable to have a שטר, rather than relying on עדי חזקה.² Our תוספות will argue that אביי could have refuted רב יוסף in a different manner. --------------------------- **הכי נמי מצי למיפרך ודלמא בתוך עשר הוה קאי³ ומזהיר על תחלת⁴ אחת עשרה –** אביי **could have challenged** the proof **just as well** by asking, **‘but perhaps** the נביא **was standing in the midst of the tenth** year of s'צדקיהו reign **and** he was **warning** the people **concerning the beginning of the eleventh** year of s'צדקיהו reign’, in which case – **דליכא אפילו שנה⁵ ולעולם בשנה אחת הויא חזקה –** **There is not even a year** in which to make a חזקה **and indeed a** חזקה **can be accomplished in** even **one year** only. ירמיהו was telling them since there is not even a year till the גלות, you cannot establish a חזקה (of one year) and therefore שטרות are required. תוספות offers a different approach to this problem: **ורבינו חננאל פירש דרב יוסף יליף הכי –** **And the ר"ח explained that ר"י derived** חזקת ג' שנים **in this manner –** **וגריס שהרי נביא עומד בתשע⁶ ומזהיר על י"א שתלכד העיר –** **And the text** of the ח"ר reads, **for the prophet** ירמיהו **was standing in the ninth** year of s'צדקיהו reign **and he was warning** the people **concerning the eleventh** year of s'צדקיהו reign **that the city** of ירושלים **will be captured** by the Babylonians, and on account of the turmoil, the landowners – **ויאבדו השטרות ויסמכו על חזקת שלש שנים⁷ –** **will lose their deeds and they will** be able to **depend on the three year** חזקה**,** which they have established during the ninth, tenth and eleventh years of s'צדקיהו reign. **ומביא ראיה מסדר עולם דבשנה תשיעית⁸ בחדש עשירי היה –** **And** the ח"ר **brings proof from** the **עולם סדר** ספר **that** the story with ירמיהו **took place in the ninth year and the tenth month** (טבת) of s'צדקיהו reign. He was therefore telling them, that now is their last chance to buy fields and still be able to rely on שנים 'ג חזקת even if they will lose their deeds. According to the ח"ר the question of תוספות is irrelevant, for the ח"ר maintains that there was three years from the time of the נבואה until the גלות. תוספות has difficulties with the s'ח"ר interpretation and text. **ומיהו בכל הספרים שלנו כתוב שהרי נביא עומד בעשירי –** **However, in all our text** of גמרא **it is written, ‘for the prophet was standing in the tenth’** year; not in the ninth year as the ח"ר would have it. **וכן בסדר עולם שלנו תניא בשנה העשירית –** **And similarly in our עולם סדר** **it is taught** that this story happened **in the tenth year.** תוספות has an additional difficulty with the ח"ר פירוש: **ועוד דלגירסתו נמי קשיא מנא ליה שלש שנים מיום ליום –** **And furthermore** (even) **according to his text** (that it happened in the ninth year) **it is also difficult how can he derive** from this פסוק that a חזקה requires **three** full **years from day to day –** **דלפי גירסת סדר עולם ליכא אלא שמנה עשר חודש⁹ –** **Because according to the text of the עולם** **סדר** **there is no more than eighteen months** in which they could make a חזקה – **שהרי בשנת אחת עשרה לחדש הרביעי בתשעה לחודש הובקעה העיר: For in the fourth month** (תמוז) **of the eleventh year the city** walls of ירושלים **were breached.** SUMMARY The ח"ר maintains that שנים 'ג חזקת is derived from the fact the ירמיהו told the people to buy fields in the ninth year in order that they will establish a חזקה before the גלות in the eleventh year. תוספות disagrees, maintaining that both in our גמרא and in עולם סדר the text reads ‘the tenth year’. In addition תוספות argues that there was only eighteen months from the נבואה until the גלות. According to our understanding, תוספות states that אביי could have presented an alternate refutation of יוסף רב; that perhaps there was not even a year between the נבואה and the גלות. THINKING IT OVER According to the ח"ר, why did ירמיהו tell them to write שטרות (according to רב יוסף); they can have a חזקה?! According to the ח"ר, how did אביי refute יוסף רב?¹⁰ footnotes: ¹ See 'וכו מ"ש as to how we derive שנים 'ג. ² See עצה ה"וד ג"ה ה"ד רש"י. ³ After the fourth month (תמוז); not in the beginning. ⁴ The fourth month (תמוז), when the Babylonians breached the walls of ירושלים. ⁵ The reason that תוספות presents a scenario that it is less than a year is, for in this manner, the proposed question (of תוספות) would be the equivalent of the actual (sגמרא') question; that a חזקה can be established in only one year. ⁶ As opposed to our texts which read ‘the tenth year’. ⁷ The ח"ר disagrees with 'ותוס י"פירש (also) in the manner in which שנים 'ג חזקת is derived from ירמיהו. According to 'ותוס רש"י, the נביא was telling them that since it is two years to the גלות, there is not enough time for a חזקה, you must have a שטר. The ח"ר however understands that ירמיהו was telling them that now is the last chance to make שנים 'ג חזקת for in three years the גלות will begin. ⁸ See א"מהרש who alludes to the apparent difficulty, for in the (א,לב ירמיה) פסוק it clearly states העשירית בשנה. ⁹ The three months of ואדר שבט ,טבת of the ninth year, twelve months of the tenth year, and סיון אייר ניסן of the eleventh year for a total of eighteen months (טבת and תמוז are partial months). ¹⁰ See 'וכו א"מהרש.