חזקת הבתים ובית הבדים—The possession of houses and olive presses¹

OVERVIEW Our משנה states that there are two types of חזקה. For those items that are constantly in use (i.e. a house) the חזקה is three complete years. However those items which are not constantly in use, their חזקה do not require שנים מיום ליום שלש, but rather three seasons. Our משנה mentions הבדים בית as one of the items that require a ליום מיום שנים חזקה שלש, indicating that it is active throughout the year. תוספות challenges this assumption.

פירש רבינו יצחק בר מרדכי דהא דתנן בפרק חומר בקדש (חגיגה כד,ב) – The ם"ריב explained that this which we learnt in a משנה in בקודש פרק חומר, namely עברו הגיתות והבדים דמשמע שיש להן זמן קבוע – **‘**When the season of wine pressing and olive pressing passes’, etc. This concludes the quote from the משנה; indicating that olive (and wine) pressing have a set time during the year, when these activities take place. If this is true why does a חזקה of הבדים בית require three full years? The requirement of a ליום מיום שנים שלש חזקת is limited to such things that are continually active throughout the year; not to an activity which is done sporadically as a הבדים בית seems to be. תוספות answers that when the משנה states that the season passed, the reason we say the season passed is not because there is no pressing after this season but rather – היינו שרוב העולם דורכים אז בזמן לקיטה – *It means that mostpeople do their pressing then, at harvest time;* therefore it is called the season of pressing –

**However, there are people that store (**their olives [and grapes]) for the whole year; they do not press them at the harvest time, but rather they press their olives (and grapes) little by little; so they indeed use the presses for the entire year. That is why it requires a ליום מיום שנים שלש חזקת, since it is active the entire year.

SUMMARY An olive press is in use continuously; however most of the pressing is done during the harvest season.

THINKING IT OVER What possible difficulty may footnote # 1 resolve?

footnotes: ¹ A הבד בית, olive press, is generally owned by an individual who presses olives, for a fee, for various olive growers and/or olive (and) oil merchants. See ‘Thinking it over’ and מ"נח.

שלשה חדשים בראשונה—Three months in the first year

OVERVIEW The משנה states that a הבעל בית שדה, which does not produce crops continuously, does not require a full three year חזקה. Rather it may be accomplished (according to ר"י) by two, three month, cycles (one month cycles ע"לר) and one twelve month cycle in between; for a total of eighteen (fourteen) months. It is not clear what the מחזיק is required to do in the field during these three months to accomplish a valid חזקה. It is also not clear how it is possible to have three harvests in a הבעל בית, in less than three years, since a הבעל בית produces one only crop a year. תוספות will address these issues.

מתוך פירוש הקונטרס משמע דבעי רבי ישמעאל – From s'י"רש explanation it seems that ישמעאל 'ר requires – שהוא יזרע ויקצור¹ באותן שלשה חדשים ראשונים וכן באחרונים – That the מחזיק should sow and harvest the field in these first three months (of the first year) and similarly in the last three months (of the third year). תוספות anticipates a question: ואין תימה שתהא תבואה הנזרעת אחר ניסן גדילה בג' חדשים ואין זמנה עד ניסן הבא – And it is not surprising that grain which was sown after the month of ניסן would ripen in three months, even though its usual time for ripening is not until the following ניסן. תוספות is assuming (and it seems also that רש"י agrees²) that when the משנה states 'באמצע חדש עשר ושנים', we are referring to a regular year from השנה ראש to ה"ר. Therefore the first three months (the first year) are אב, תמוז and אלול. The last three months (the third year) are כסלו, חשון, תשרי. A הבעל בית שדה generally yields one crop a year.³ Grain (in those areas around ובבל י"א) ripens around ניסן time.⁴ It would seem unusual that grain can be planted and harvested (so quickly) during אלול – תמוז, then planted and harvested again in ניסן⁵ (and planted and harvested again during כסלו⁶ – תשרי). תוספות maintains that this is not such a difficulty – דמצינן כעין זה דאמרינן בראש השנה (יג,א) כל תבואה הנקצרת בחג – For we find something similar to this, for the גמרא states in ה"ר מסכת any grain which is harvested on the holiday of סוכות – בידוע שהביאה שליש לפני ראש השנה – It is known that it grew a third of its entire growth before ה"ר**.⁷** אלמא גדלה פעמים באותו זמן – It is evident that sometimes it does grow in that season; around ה"ר time. Therefore it is possible that grain can be planted and harvested immediately before (or after) ה"ר.⁸ תוספות asks another question: אבל קשיא לרבינו יצחק דאם כן אמאי צריך י"ח חדשים בט"ו חדשים סגי – however the ר"י has a different difficulty with s'י"רש interpretation for if this is so; that it is possible to plant and harvest grain before ה"ר, without negatively affecting the upcoming ניסן crop, then why are eighteen months needed in order to effect a three season חזקה, it should be sufficient to accomplish the חזקה in fifteen months. תוספות goes on to explain: שיזרע ג' חדשים לפני ניסן ויקצור בניסן ושניה בסוף הקיץ⁹ ושלישית בניסן הבא – He should plant the grain three months before ניסן and harvest the first crop in ניסן, as is usual and the second crop will be planted and harvested at the end of the summer; in אלול-תמוז as stated previously according to ¹⁰י"רש and the third crop will be harvested in the following ניסן. There will be three crops harvested within fifteen months; beginning with שבט and ending the following ניסן a year and three months later.¹¹ תוספות offers an answer: ויש לומר דצריך אכילה חשובה של י"ב באמצע – And one can say that fifteen months is not sufficient, because we require a substantive consumption of twelve months in between the two minor usages of three months apiece.**** A שדה בית הבעל generally yields one crop a year. A חזקה requires (planting and) harvesting three crops. Therefore we require that at least one of the חזקה crops, namely the middle one, be a substantive normative חזקה of one full year. For the other two חזקות we are lenient, allowing two, three month חזקה cycles, for a total of eighteen months. תוספות anticipates the following question: אף על גב דאמרינן בגמרא¹² אכל תלת פירי לתלתא ירחי – Even though the גמרא states, that if one consumes three produce harvests in three months – כגון אספסתא לרבי ישמעאל הויא חזקה – For instance in the case of אספסתא which can be harvested once a month, that according to ישמעאל 'ר it will be a valid חזקה. We can derive from that גמרא that according to ר"י a חזקה can be accomplished in three months and there is no requirement of an אכילה חשובה of twelve months (besides the other two חזקה periods). Why therefore here in the case of a שדה הבעל is there a requirement of an אכילה חשובה of one year. תוספות responds: שאני התם לפי שהוא זמן שלה – For it is different there in the case of אספסתא for that is its time. אספסתא can grow in a month, be harvested then grow again in another month, be harvested etc. Therefore it is logical that no twelve month חשובה אכילה period is required, since a month is its proper time to grow and be harvested. However by a הבעל בית שדה, its growing season is one year from harvest to harvest. Therefore even though it is technically possible to induce it to produce three harvests in a shorter period than the normal three years, nevertheless one of these consumption periods must be the normal full year cycle. תוספות questions s'י"רש interpretation: אבל קשה לרבינו יצחק דאמרינן בגמרא (לקמן דף לו,ב) – However the ר"י has a difficulty; for the גמרא states – פירא רבה ופירא זוטא איכא בינייהו דרבי ישמעאל ורבי עקיבא – That the difference of opinion between ר"י (who requires eighteen months) and ר"ע (who requires fourteen months)**** is based on whether ‘large produce’ or ‘small produce’ are required for a חזקה. ופירש הקונטרס דרבי ישמעאל סבר פירא רבה – And רש"י explains that גמרא to mean that ר"י maintains that consuming a פירא רבה is required in order to effect a חזקה – כגון שעורים ושבולת שועל שגדלים בג' חדשים – For instance barley and oats that grows in three months. Therefore, eighteen months are required; twelve months in the middle; and the two cycles of three months, to plant and harvest the רבה פירא. Harvesting זוטא פירא is not sufficient to establish a חזקה. However – ורבי עקיבא סבר פירא זוטא כגון ירק הגדל בחדש אחד – ע"ר maintains that even זוטא פירא such as vegetables that grow in one month are also sufficient to constitute a חזקה. Therefore fourteen months are sufficient. This concludes the citing of the גמרא and י"פירש. תוספות now concludes his question. How can רש"י state that ר"י requires רבה פירי of three months for a חזקה – והא אמרינן בגמרא (לקמן עמוד ב') דאספסתא בחדש אחד הויא חזקה לרבי ישמעאל – For the גמרא states that harvesting אספסתא once a month three times is considered a חזקה according to ר"י! The אספסתא would be considered a פירי זוטא according to רש"י. How can we reconcile these two issues; that ר"י requires פירי רבה and nevertheless by אספסתא there is a חזקה in (three) one month cycles?!¹³ On account of this last question (and the previous difficulties) תוספות disagrees with רש"י who says that for each of the two minor חזקה cycles both זריעה and קצירה are required. ונראה לרבינו יצחק דלא בעי רבי ישמעאל שיזרע התבואה ויקצור – And the ר"י maintains that ישמעאל 'ר does not require that the grain be both planted and harvested – אלא אפילו זרעה הראשון או הוא יזרענה בשלשה חדשים אחרונים אף על פי שלא קצרה – But rather even if the first (previous) owner planted the field and the present מחזיק harvested it during the (last) three months of the first year, it would be considered a proper אכילה for the first year cycle of the חזקה, similarly if the מחזיק only plants this field in the last three months of the חזקה (i.e. the first three months of the third year) even though the מחזיק did not harvest the grain that he planted, nevertheless the planting of the last three months is also considered a valid אכילה for the third year of the חזקה.¹⁴ תוספות will now explain the מחלוקת between י"ור ע"ר concerning זוטא ופירי רבה פירי and it will not conflict with the case of אספסתא, according to this interpretation. ובהא פליגי דרבי ישמעאל סבר בעינן שיהא גדל הפרי ברשותו הרבה כגון ג' חדשים – And this is what ע"ור ר"י are arguing about**: for ר"י** maintains that it is necessary that the produce should grow in his possession an extended amount of time for instance three months – והיינו פירא רבה – And this is what רבה פירא means; that it is growing for an extended time of three months. Otherwise it cannot be counted for a yearly חזקה cycle. ורבי עקיבא סבר דאין צריך שיגדל ברשותו אלא חדש אחד והיינו פירא זוטא – However ע"ר maintains that it is not necessary that it grow in his possession three months but rather only one month is sufficient and that is the meaning of זוטא פירא. However neither ר"י nor ע"ר require that it must be planted and harvested in that time (i.e. one or three months); either זריעה or קצירה is sufficient.¹⁵ According to תוספות the חזקה in each three month cycles (one month for ר"ע) is accomplished either by זריעה or קצירה but not (necessarily) both. תוספות questions this. ואם תאמר היאך יהא ניכר שיחזיק בה כל ג' חדשים ראשונים או אחרונים – And if you will say; How will it be apparent that he was in possession of the field all of the first three months or of the last three months – כי ביום אחד או בב' יוכל לקצור או לזרוע – Since, in one or two days he is able to harvest (concerning the first three months) or to plant (concerning the last three months).¹⁶ What does it mean that he made a חזקה for three months? What did he actually do during the entire three month period?¹⁷ תוספות anticipates a possible answer: וכי תימא שמנכש את השדה ומתקנו – And if you will say that he will weed the field and improve it by removing any defects; that is the way he will be מחזיק for the three month cycles. תוספות rejects this answer – הא לא הויא חזקה מידי דהוה אניר דאמר לקמן (דף לו,ב) דלא הויא חזקה – For מנכש or מתקן is not a חזקה for it is similar to plowing, concerning which the גמרא later says that plowing is not a חזקה – משום דמימר אמר כל שיבא דכרבא ניעול בה¹⁸ – Because the original owner certainly says, ‘let every chip of the plow go into the soil’. The original owner is saying let the מחזיק plow so much until his whole plow will be consumed chip by chip from the wear and tear of plowing.¹⁹ The owner is happy that a stranger is plowing his field. After the מחזיק is finished plowing the owner will be able to plant the field and avoid all the difficult work of plowing. Therefore just as plowing is no חזקה similarly weeding and repairing is no חזקה for the same reason. The owner is happy that someone else is doing his work.²⁰ A חזקה is only when the מחזיק is infringing on the rights of the owner in some way; when he harvests the crops, etc. The question remains; how does he perform a חזקה for three months. תוספות answers: ויש לומר כגון שאוכלה שחת – And one can say; that he consumes it for fodder, for instance. He harvests the growing stalks [of grain] before they mature and uses them as animal fodder. That will be considered as a חזקה for the three months (in addition to the planting [or regular harvesting] of grain). תוספות anticipates a difficulty: והא דאמרינן (שם [לו,] א) אכלה שחת לא הויא חזקה – And concerning that which the גמרא states: If he consumed שחת it is not a חזקה. This seemingly contradicts what תוספות just said that his חזקה is accomplished by אוכלה שחת.²¹ תוספות responds: הני מילי כשאוכל בענין זה שאין התבואה חוזרת לבא – These words (that חזקה הויא לא שחת אכלה) were said when he consumed it in such a manner that the grain will not come back; he cut the stalks in such a manner that they will never recover and grow back to produce grain. In that case חזקה הויא לא שחת אכלה – דשייך לומר לאו אחזקת כדמחזקי אינשי לפיכך לא חש למחות – For then it is applicable that the original owner says, ‘you did not take possession of this field in the manner which people usually take possession.’ A person who is in possession of a field does not willfully destroy his crops of grain and instead feed the stalks to animals. Therefore since the מחזיק did not make a regular חזקה therefore the original owner was not concerned to protest this unusual occupation of his field. This explains the גמרא of הויא חזקה לא שחת אכלה. אבל אם אכלה שחת בענין שאין התבואה מתקלקלת – However if he was שחת אכלה in a manner that the grain does not spoil; there will be a crop of grain even after שחת אכלה – כדרך שבני אדם עושים בעוד שהוא ירק ולא בא עדיין גבעול שלה הויא חזקה – As is the custom of some people, who perform the אכילת שחת while the plant is still green and it did not reach the stalk stage; then even if you cut it, it will regenerate and produce grain, in that case it will be a חזקה. This is the type of שחת אכלה that תוספות mentioned which is eligible for the three month חזקה.²² תוספות concluded that there can be a continuous חזקה in a שדה through שחת אכלה. However, תוספות anticipates a difficulty: ובשדה אילן דבעו רבנן דפליגי ארבי ישמעאל בגמרא²³ מיום ליום ג' שנים – And concerning an orchard, in which the רבנן, who argue with ר"י as mentioned in the גמרא, require that the חזקה be three full years ‘from day to day’ – אף על גב דלא שייך התם אכלה שחת – Even though that שחת אכלה is not possible there, by an orchard; there are no stalks to be harvested. How can there be a חזקה for three full years? What is he doing during all this time to show that he is מחזיק? Seemingly he only harvests the fruit, which requires a relatively short time.²⁴ תוספות answers: מכל מקום איכא למימר כגון שזומר ומעכב העצים לעצמו – Nevertheless even though there is no שחת אכלה, we can say that he makes a חזקה continually that he prunes the trees for instance and he retains the pruned wood for his usage; for firewood, building, etc. תוספות anticipates a question: ואף על גב דמתקן בכך והוי כמו ניר – And even though that by pruning, he is merely improving the orchard for the owner and it is similar to plowing; which the גמרא says is not a חזקה, as mentioned previously. How can pruning be a חזקה? תוספות replies: כיון (שמתקן²⁵) העצים לעצמו לא שייך למימר כל שיבא דכרבא ניעול בה – Since, however, he is retaining the wood for himself, it is not appropriate for the original owner to say let every chip of the plow go into the soil. The owner is not happy that he is taking the wood for himself and away from the owner. We cannot compare plowing to pruning. By plowing the owner is only gaining, however by pruning even if the owner is gaining somewhat, but he is losing his wood. Therefore זומר ומעכב לעצמו is considered a חזקה. תוספות will offer another way how the חזקה is accomplished in the three month cycle. ועוד אומר רבינו יצחק דאחזיק בה בכהאי גוונא – And furthermore, says the ר"י that he made a חזקה in the field in this manner – שנעל²⁶ וגדר את השדה ונועל במפתח ואין מניח אדם ליכנס – That he made a lock and fenced in the field and he continually locks it with a key, when he leaves the field and he permits no person to enter. This is considered a חזקה for it shows (exclusive) ownership. תוספות anticipates a question on this explanation: והא דאמר בגמרא (דף כט,ב) צונמא במאי קני לה ולא קאמר כגון שנעלה וגדרה – And concerning that which the גמרא says how can one acquire possession of a rocky area (with חזקת ג"ש); since there can be no planting there? This concludes the quote from the גמרא.**** The גמרא does not say that a צונמא may be acquired, if for instance he locked it and fenced it. The fact that the גמרא did not give this answer would seemingly indicate that וגדר נעל is not a valid חזקה, contrary to what תוספות said. תוספות replies: איכא למימר דאין נעילה מועלת אלא אם כן איכא אכילה בהדה או זריעה – It is possible to answer that locking alone is insufficient to be a חזקה unless there is a harvest together with the locking, or planting together**** with the locking – אבל נעילה גרידא לא מהני מידי²⁷ – However, locking alone without זריעה or קצירה is not sufficient at all, there is no חזקה. Therefore by צונמא where there can be no וקצירה זריעה, the גמרא could not have said that the חזקה was made by נעל וגדר. However by a הבעל שדה where there is זריעה or קצירה, then וגדר נעל can complete the three month חזקה cycle. תוספות concludes:

And now that we are stating that וגדר נעל can accompany וקצירה זריעה to complete a חזקה, then it will also be understood according to the רבנן who argue with ר"י concerning a האילן שדה. They maintain that a full three year חזקה is necessary. That חזקה can be accomplished if in addition to harvesting the fruit he will fence and lock the orchard.

SUMMARY There is a dispute between רש"י and תוספות whether during the two, three (one) month, cycles the מחזיק is required to both plant and harvest the crops (רש"י); or whether it is sufficient that he either harvest or plant the crops (תוספות). A similar dispute is whether פירי רבה ופירי זוטא is referring to the growing cycle of the crop (רש"י); or whether it merely refers to the time the מחזיק is working with it. According to רש"י planting and harvesting (is all that) is required for the חזקה. According to תוספות, in addition to the harvesting or planting, he is also required to be אכלה שחת in a manner that the crop is not destroyed. Alternatively he may fence and lock up the field that he is harvesting or planting for a valid חזקה. Plowing, weeding, pruning (unless he retains the wood), repairing, locking etc. are not acts of חזקה (for חזקת ג' שנים as opposed to חזקת קנין).

THINKING IT OVER

1. Does the חזקה of eighteen (fourteen) months need to begin only at a specific date (תמוז, for instance), or from any time that the מחזיק begins the חזקה, it will conclude eighteen months later (רש"י, תוספות)?
2. What proof does תוספות bring from the גמרא in ר"ה that כל תבואה וכו' בחזקת וכו' לפני ר"ה; perhaps that is concerning a בית השלחין?²⁸
3. Can we answer תוספות final question on רש"י in the following manner; ²⁹ similar to תוספות answer on the previous question of אספסתא. In the case of אספסתא since its cycle is one month, therefore three one month cycles are sufficient. However concerning a בית הבעל where its intrinsic cycle is one year, the חכמים were willing to lessen the two minor cycles but only if there would be an אכילה חשובה of פירי רבה – three months.
4. According to תוספות, when is he required to plant/harvest in the three month cycle; in the beginning, at the end, or there is no difference?³⁰
5. תוספות cites that plowing is not a חזקה.³¹ Why is זריעה a חזקה?³²
6. תוספות asks, that the גמרא states אכלה שחת לא הוי חזקה; this conflicts with תוספות suggestion that he be אכלה שחת.³³ Why does not תוספות answer that the גמרא is discussing a case where it is only אכלה שחת; he never harvests the crop; here, however, he is harvesting the crop?
7. If it was אכלה שחת in the manner כדרך שבנ"א עושים is that a חזקה?³⁴ Why?
8. תוספות asks how one makes a חזקה in a שדה אילן.³⁵ Is this question applicable according to רש"י?

footnotes: ¹ In our (שדה ה"ד) רש"י it states that he planted during the three months; it does not specifically state that he also harvested during these three months. במפרשים 'ועי. ² See שדה ה"ד רש"י where he writes, (seemingly) concerning the first three months, that יש ממהרין לזרוע לפני ר"ה. ³ See שדה ה"ד רש"י where he states: בשנה אחת פעם אלא פירות עושה אינה, and at the end of the same רש"י, he states: שזורע את שדהו לאכול פרי העשוי לשנה. ⁴ The עומר of barley was harvested on the second day of פסח. The חדשה מנחה of wheat was brought on שבועות, etc. See ולב לא ט, בא 'פ where the תורה relates the effect that ברד מכת [which (seemingly) took place a short while before יציאת מצרים], had on the wheat and barley. ⁵ תוספות does not ask how is it possible to plant a (second) crop in אלול-תמוז, if a crop was already harvested in the previous ניסן. The reason may be that (according to רש"י) in our case no one planted the field previously during this year. The מחזיק entered a barren field in תמוז and planted it then. See however later in this תוספות (footnote # 9), where it is apparent that (according to תוספות) two crops can be harvested within a year. ⁶ It may be that תוספות is not (that) concerned about harvesting and planting during כסלו-תשרי for then it is the rainy season, however אלול-תמוז is the driest season, how can grain be planted and harvested then? See however footnote # 5; If it is planted and harvested during כסלו-תשרי, it will not be planted again for ניסן. ⁷ That grain would be therefore considered to ‘belong’ to the year, previous to the סוכות in which it was harvested. This is relevant to the laws of מעשר and שביעית. It is also relevant to us; since it grew a third before ה"ר, it will be considered a proper harvest (even) before ה"ר in regard to the חזקה. ⁸ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁹ It seems, that תוספות maintains that a field can yield two crops in the same year. See footnote # 5. ¹⁰ According to רש"י a span of six months from harvest to harvest is sufficient. The first harvest occurs before ה"ר and the second before פסח. תוספות question is that this (first) cycle can start with a ניסן harvest, instead of a ה"ר harvest. ¹¹ This difficulty is (only) according to s'י"רש opinion that it is possible to plant and harvest within a three month cycle. See later in תוספות for a differing opinion. ¹² ב,כח דף. ¹³ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ¹⁴ The advantage of this interpretation is that we may now maintain that only one crop a year can be harvested from a בעל שדה, and nevertheless three אכילות can be accomplished in eighteen months. The original owner planted his field in the first year and the מחזיק harvested it in the last three months of the first year. The next year was a regular year of planting and harvesting by the מחזיק. In the first three months of the third year the מחזיק planted the field, and he now has a חזקה even before the harvest of the third crop, which will take place later in the year. It also explains why the חזקה cannot be accomplished in fifteen months (תוספות second question) for that would require more than one crop a year. There will also be no question from אספסתא (see א"מהרש) [where no twelve month middle cycle is required, and a one month cycle is sufficient], for there he is both planting and harvesting; however here he is either planting or harvesting, therefore we require a three month cycle and a twelve month חשובה אכילה in between. ¹⁵ י"רש who maintains that each yearly חזקה cycle must consist of both וקצירה זריעה, cannot interpret ופירא רבה פירא זוטא, the way תוספות explains it. There can be no חזקה by produce that requires more than a month from the זריעה until קצירה, even according to ע"ר since there was no וקצירה זריעה. Therefore רש"י must interpret that ר"י and ע"ר are arguing whether a זוטא פירי, a produce that requires no more than a month from זריעה to קצירה, is eligible to be considered a חזקה, or that only a רבה פירא which requires three months is eligible for a חזקה. Therefore תוספות has the סתירה (according to רש"י) between ר"י of the משנה, where three months are required and ר"י of אספסתא where one month is sufficient for a חזקה. ¹⁶ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 4. ¹⁷ According to רש"י it is understood. He planted in the beginning of the three months and harvested at the end of the three months, therefore it is considered as if he was מחזיק all three months, for this is the normal manner in which a person tends to his field. ¹⁸ The מסורת הש"ס amends this to read לעייל ביה. ¹⁹ See ם"רשב there כל ה"ד. ²⁰ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 5. ²¹ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 6. ²² See ‘Thinking it over’ # 7. ²³ לקמן לו,ב. ²⁴ See ‘Thinking it over # 8. ²⁵ See מסורת הש"ס that others substitute שמעכב for שמתקן. ²⁶ See תוס' לקמן נב,ב ד"ה נעל ודו"ק. ²⁷ It could be he is merely a watchman, or he wants to protect his neighbor’s property. However when he harvests [or plants], the locking indicates that he is protecting his produce. ²⁸ See footnote # 8. ²⁹ See footnote # 13. See א"רשב. ³⁰ See footnote # 16. ³¹ See footnote # 20 ³² . See יא אות י"בל. ³³ See footnote # 21. ³⁴ See footnote # 22. ³⁵ See footnote # 24.

שהן י"ח חדש—Which are eighteen months

OVERVIEW After the משנה teaches us how a חזקה is made in a הבעל בית, the משנה concludes ‘חודש שהן י"ח’. תוספות will discuss what is this phrase ‘חודש י"ח שהן’, teaching us.

תוספות asks: תימה וכי מניינא אתא לאשמועינן וכהאי גוונא פריך בכמה דוכתי – It is astounding! Does the תנא of the משנה come to teach us how to count?! It is obvious that twelve months and twice three months are eighteen months. Why does the משנה conclude that ‘it adds up to eighteen months’? And in many places the גמרא asks in this manner; we do not need to be taught how to calculate.¹ תוספות anticipates a possible answer: וליכא למימר דרצופין אתי לאשמועינן – And we cannot answer that the תנא of the משנה is teaching us that these eighteen months must be consecutive. If the תנא would have merely stated ‘three months, etc. and three months, etc. and twelve months in between, without adding 'שהן י"ח חודש', I may mistakenly assume that the three months and the twelve months etc. do not have to be consecutive. It may be possible to make a חזקה for three months, then wait awhile and then continue to make the חזקה for the twelve months, etc. The משנה, by stating חודש ח"י שהן, makes it clear that the total amount of time is eighteen months, meaning there can be no interruption in between. This will seemingly answer תוספות question. תוספות rejects this answer: דאם כן מאי קא משמע לן רב הונא – For if it is indeed so; that by stating חודש ח"י שהן, the משנה is teaching us the requirement of רצופין, then what does הונא רב teach us. הונא רב states in the גמרא,² that the שנים 'ג חזקת must be רצופין. However, now that we are proposing that the phrase חודש ח"י שהן, teaches already the rule of רצופין, why did הונא רב have to repeat it. We already know it from the משנה! תוספות anticipates a possible answer to this last question and rejects it. Seemingly it is possible that we know the rule of רצופין from the משנה. However הונא רב is merely restating that we can derive it from the משנה; he is not necessarily teaching us something new. This would seem to resolve all difficulties. תוספות however rejects this approach: ובגמרא משמע דממתניתין לא הוה שמעינן דבעינן רצופים – However from the גמרא it seems that from our משנה (alone) we would not be aware that רצופין is required³ – אי לא דאשמועינן רב הונא [עי' תוי"ט שתמה על זה⁴]: Were it not for the fact that הונא רב taught it to us. Therefore the question remains why is it necessary for the משנה to state 'חודש ח"י שהן'? It cannot be to teach us רצופין, for רב הונא exclusively is teaching that to us.

SUMMARY תוספות questions the need for the משנה to state חודש ח"י שהן. It cannot come to teach us רצופין, for that is taught exclusively by הונא רב.

THINKING IT OVER Why indeed cannot we infer from חודש ח"י שהן that רצופין are required?

footnotes: ¹ This may be a support to the original question; or perhaps it is an additional question. Why indeed did the גמרא not ask here, וכי מנינא אתא לאשמועינן? ² א,כט דף. ³ After the גמרא cites the rule of רב הונא, it asks immediately מאי קמ"ל תנינא חזקתן שלש שנים וכו'. Now if we were to assume that שהן י"ח חודש teaches us that רצופין are required, the גמרא should have asked מאי קמ"ל תנינא שהן י"ח חודש. This proves that the גמרא assumes that שהן י"ח חודש cannot teach us the rule of רצופין. Also from the answer of the גמרא it is indicated that this rule is a חידוש of רב הונא. See: ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ The ט"יו 'תוס claims, even if חודש ח"י שהן teaches us רצופין, however it may be that רצופין is required only by a בית הבעל (where חודש ח"י is stated), since it is not a complete three years. הונא רב is teaching us that even when three full years are required for a חזקה, nevertheless רצופין are still required. See א"רעק and others who discuss this point.

כנס את תבואתו—He harvested the produce of his grapevine

OVERVIEW The משנה states that in a האילן שדה it is possible to make a חזקה with just three harvests; namely, grapes, olives and figs (in that order). תוספות questions the order in which the משנה lists these three fruits. It seems to contradict the order of their harvest as mentioned in other גמרות.

להכי קרי ליה לכרם תבואה משום דכתיב (דברים כב [פסוק ט]) ותבואת הכרם – It is on account of this that he refers to the produce of the vineyard as תבואה; which is generally translated as grain, Here however the תנא refers to the grapes and wine as תבואה because it is written in the תורה ‘and the תבואה of your vineyard’. We see that the תורה refers to the produce of the vineyard, the grapes and wine, as תבואה,¹ therefore the משנה also refers to it as תבואה.² תוספות asks a question: ואם תאמר תינח הא דתנא תבואה קודם זיתים דיין קודם לשמן – And if you will say, it is understandable that the תנא of the משנה states תבואה before he mentions olives; 'זיתיו את ומסק תבואתו את כנס' for the wine season precedes the olive oil season – כדאמרינן באיזהו נשך (בבא מציעא סג,א) הגיע זמן יין למכור – As the ברייתא states in נשך איזהו פרק; first it states, ‘the time of selling wine arrived’ – ובתר הכי קאמר הגיע זמן למכור שמן And afterwards the ברייתא mentions in sequential order that the time for selling oil arrived.³ Therefore the precedence of wine before oil in our משנה is understood. אלא כנס את קייצו אמאי תני ליה בתר הכי הא תאנים קדמי – However, the phrase, ‘he gathered his dried figs’, why is that taught in the משנה afterwards; after the wine and the oil, since figs ripen before the wine and olive oil seasons! תוספות proves his point: דהא אמר בהמקבל (שם קו,ב) חצי ניסן ואייר וחצי סיון קציר חצי סיון ותמוז [וחצי] אב קיץ – For the גמרא states in המקבל פרק, ‘the latter half of the month of ניסן, the month of אייר, and the first half of סיון is the harvesting of grain,⁴ the latter half of סיון, the month of תמוז [and the first half of] אב is the season of drying the figs’ – ואילו בציר היה בתשרי כדאמרינן בברכות (דף לה,ב) – However, the harvesting of the grapes/wine was in the month of תשרי, as the גמרא states in מסכת ברכות – דאמר להו רבא לרבנן במטותא מינייכו לא תיתחזיאו קמאי לא ביומי ניסן ולא ביומי תשרי – That רבא said to the student scholars, ‘I beg of you do not appear before me not in the days of ניסן and not in the days of תשרי’; for in ניסן was the grain harvest and תשרי was the season of pressing the grapes for wine. תוספות offers an additional proof that תשרי is the time of בציר: ואמרינן נמי בסנהדרין (דף כו,ב) גנב ניסן וגנב תשרי לא שמיה גנב – And the גמרא in מסכת סנהדרין also states, a thief who steals during the month of ניסן or the month of תשרי is not considered a thief, that he should become disqualified as a witness, the גמרא continues there – והני מילי באריסא ודבר מועט – And these words are valid only if this thief is a sharecropper and he takes (only) a small amount in addition to what he is entitled to. The sharecropper when he takes something extra does not feel that he is a thief. In his opinion he is entitled to take something extra for all the (extra) work he does. In any event it is during the harvest months of ניסן (grain) and תשרי (grapes) that we do not consider him a thief since he is actually doing the harvest work during this time. It is evident from the גמרא there that during תשרי there is harvest work. תוספות brings another proof that תשרי is the בציר month. ואמרינן באיזהו נשך (בבא מציעא דף עג,ב) חזי מר להנהו רבנן – And the גמרא relates in פרק איזהו נשך did the master see what these rabbinical students are doing – דיהבי דמי אחמרא בתשרי ומבחרי להו בטבת⁵ – They prepay (at a lower price) for the wine during תשרי; even though they do not take it then and they choose unspoiled wine in טבת. It is evident from there as well that תשרי is the time of בציר. תוספות concludes his original question: מכל אלו משמע דבציר הוי בתשרי וכבר כלה הקיץ – It is apparent from all of the above that the בציר of grapes/wine is in תשרי, and the קיץ season has already concluded. תוספות has previously cited the גמרא that the קיץ season is חצי סיון תמוז וחצי אב. The בציר season which is in תשרי is after the קיץ season. Why therefore does the משנה mention כנס את תבואתו which refers to the בציר before כנס את קייצו which takes place before תשרי. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דהא דקרי קיץ לחצי סיון ותמוז וחצי אב לפי שאז עיקר יובש של תאנים באילן – And one may say; that which the גמרא identifies קיץ as the latter half of סיון, תמוז and the first half of אב, it is not referring to the drying of the figs after the harvest, but rather it is called קיץ because that is the main drying period of the figs while they are still on the tree – ומיהו אין קוצצין אותו מן האילן עד לאחר הבציר⁶ – However, they do not harvest the figs from the tree until after the בציר, which is in תשרי. When our משנה says כנס את קייצו it is referring to the harvest of the figs after the בציר. תוספות offers an alternate solution: אי נמי לוקטין אותו קודם חצי סיון ומניחים אותו לייבש – Or you may also say that אב וחצי תמוז סיון חצי, since the גמרא refers to it as קיץ, it means that during those times the figs where actually being dried in the fields, for the would gather the figs from the trees before the latter half of סיון and they would leave the figs to dry during תמוז וחצי אב סיון חצי – ולא⁷ זמן כניסתו לבית עד לאחר תבואת הכרם⁸ – However the time of bringing the dried figs into the house was not until after the work with the vineyard produce. This explains why קייצו את כנס is mentioned last, for they would not bring the figs into the house until after the בציר. תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty with this last explanation: והא דלא הויא לקיטה חזקה כי שמא היו רגילין לייבשן באותו שדה⁹ שגדלו שם – But why is not the harvesting of the figs considered to be a חזקה. Why is it necessary to wait until after the בציר, the חזקה should begin with harvesting the figs and end with זיתיו את ומסק תבואתו את כנס. תוספות responds: for perhaps they were accustomed to dry the figs in that [very] same field in which they grew – ולכך לא הויא חזקה עד שיביאם לביתו – And therefore the harvesting alone is not considered a חזקה until he brings the figs to his house. Merely harvesting and leaving the crops where they were, is not considered a חזקה. It does not show ownership. It is only when one removes the crops and takes them away, only then does he demonstrate ownership. If the figs would be taken to a different field to dry, that would have been a חזקה indeed. However it was customary to have them dried in the same field where they grew; therefore there is no חזקה until he brings the dried figs to his house. In summation; the first answer maintains that the figs were actually harvested from the trees after the grapes and olives; while the second answer maintains that the figs were actually harvested first, however they were not brought into the house until after the wine and oil season. תוספות offers a different approach to this matter: ורבינו חננאל מפרש כנס תבואתו בתשרי ומסק את זיתיו בשבט וכנס קייצו באב הרי זו חזקה- And the ח"ר explains the משנה as follows: he gathered his wine **produce in תשרי (**as mentioned previously, the בציר took place in תשרי); and he harvested his olives in שבט (as תוספות mentioned previously that the oil season was after the wine season); and he gathered his dried figs in אב (as mentioned previously that the קיץ season concludes during אב); this is considered a חזקה. נמצאת חזקה בשנה אחת – It comes out that there is a חזקה in one year; from תשרי till אב. It should be noted that the wine and olives that are harvested in תשרי and שבט are from the previous growing season, while the figs that are harvested in אב are from the following growing season. תוספות addresses this issue: ונקט כסדר זה משום דתשרי הוא תחלת השנה – And the תנא used this type of order even though the figs (in relation to the wine and oil) are the first to be harvested in one growing season, because תשרי is the beginning of the year. The תנא wanted to teach us how in a אילן שדה a חזקה can be made in one year beginning with תשרי – the beginning of the year. תוספות is not satisfied with this interpretation: אבל יותר¹⁰ מיושב אי הוה תני להו כסדר גשמי שנה שהן גדילין עליהן:¹¹ However, it [would be] more appropriate if the משנה would have mentioned the harvesting of the fruits in the order of the yearly rains upon which these fruits grow. It should have mentioned the figs first. For they are the first to ripen from the rainy season which begins in חשון, the grapes and the olives grow from this same rainy season but ripen later. They should be mentioned later after the figs. תוספות does not resolve this difficulty on the ח"ר פירש.

SUMMARY The בציר of wine is in תשרי with the olive oil season sometime thereafter. The figs are either harvested after the oil season, or are harvested during סיון, dried until the middle of אב, but not taken into the house until after the oil season. According to the ח"ר, the figs are taken into the house (immediately) after they are finished being dried in אב. A חזקה requires that the produce be removed from the field (as well).

THINKING IT OVER

1. What are the various advantages (and disadvantages) of תוספות three interpretations?
2. Do תוספות and the ח"ר agree as to the time of הזיתים מסיקת?¹²

footnotes: ¹ תוספות wishes (also) perhaps to establish that תבואתו את כנס refers specifically to wine, as a preface for the upcoming question. ² The תנא was not concerned that we may misconstrue the term תבואה here to mean grain. For since we are discussing the produce of an orchard (אילן שדה), therefore, it is obvious that we are not referring to grain. The (only) תבואה that grows in an orchard is הכרם תבואת. ³ The ברייתא does not actually state 'שמן למכור זמן הגיע'; it is however understood from the sequential order in the ברייתא, that שמן was sold after the wine season. ⁴ See previous תוספות on this שלשה ה"ד עמוד (TIE footnote # 4). ⁵ י"רש explains there, that had they taken the wine in תשרי it may have turned into vinegar by טבת. ⁶ Seemingly תוספות must mean that it is also after the olive oil season as well. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁷ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read ולא הוה זמן. ⁸ See footnote # 6. ⁹ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read שדה עצמה שגדלו. ¹⁰ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read יותר היה מיושב. ¹¹ See א"מהרש. ¹² See footnote # 6.

אי מה שור המועד עד נגיחה רביעית כולי—If you will argue; Just as a forewarned ox, until the fourth goring, etc.; he is not liable

OVERVIEW The תורה writes¹ that if an ox gores another ox he pays half the damage. This is known as a שור תם. However, continues the פסוק that 'או נודע כי שור נגח הוא מתמול שלשם ולא ישמרנו בעליו' וגו' – that ‘if it was known that he is a goring ox from yesterday and the day prior to that and the owner did not watch him, etc.’, then he must pay full damages.² He is considered a שור המועד. We derive from the phrase מתמול שלשום ולא ישמרנו'’, the rulings of a שור המועד. Specifically there is a dispute between אביי ורבא how this is derived from the פסוק. Our תוספות will cite s’רש"י interpretation, elsewhere, of their dispute, and show that our גמרא here refutes s’רש"י interpretation there.

מכאן חזר בו רש"י ממה שהיה מפרש בבא קמא (דף כג,ב ושם דיבור המתחיל ולא) – From the גמרא here, רש"י retracted from that which he interpreted in מסכת ב"ק- גבי³ דפליגי אביי ורבא – concerning the dispute between אביי and רבא – דאמר אביי תמול חד מתמול⁴ תרי שלשום תלת ולא ישמרנו בעליו אתאן לנגיחה רביעית – For אביי said, the word תמול – yesterday, refers to one goring. The additional letter 'מ' in the word (מתמול)**fromyesterday ****refers to a second goring. The word (שלשום) before yesterday refers to a third goring. The פסוק continues, ‘and the owner will not watch their ox’. This phrase comes to teach us a fourth goring. That is when he is a מועד, and pays full damages. This concludes the opinion of אביי. ורבא אמר תמול מתמול חד הוא כולי⁵ – However, רבא maintains the word מתמול, even though it could have been written תמול, nevertheless it refers to only one goring, etc. רש"י there explains that the practical difference between ורבא אביי is as follows: דאביי סבר דעד נגיחה רביעית לא מיחייב ורבא סבר דחייב בנגיחה שלישית⁶ – That אביי maintains that the owner is not liable to pay the full damages of a שור המועד until the fourth goring, while רבא maintains that he is liable for full damages by the third goring;. However רש"י retracted this interpretation – דאם כן הוה מסיק הכא גמרא דלא כהלכתא דקיימא לן כרבא לגבי אביי – for if this interpretation is correct, that רבא maintains that by the third נגיחה he is a מועד, then the גמרא here, that states explicitly that a המועד שור is not liable for full damages until the רביעית נגיחה, this גמרא will have concluded not according to the הלכה; since רבא maintains, according to רש"י, that he is a המועד שור by the third נגיחה, for we (always) establish the law according to רבא when he disputes אביי.⁷ Therefore on account of the גמרא here – וחזר⁸ רש"י⁹ ופירש דמשמעות דורשין איכא בינייהו – י"רש retracted that interpretation. רש"י agrees that according to both ורבא אביי an ox does not become a מועד until the רביעית נגיחה. And רש"י subsequently interpreted that the difference between ורבא אביי, is in the derivation process of the rule of a שור המועד.¹⁰ תוספות offers another explanation, wherein the dispute between ורבא אביי has practical ramifications. והרב רבינו עזרא¹¹ מפרש דודאי לכולא עלמא לא מיחייב עד רביעית אבל בהא פליגי – And עזרא ר"ה explains: that it is certain, that according to everyone; both אביי ורבא agree that the owner is not liable for המועד שור payments until the fourth goring, however they argue as follows – דלאביי דמפיק נגיחה רביעית מקרא דלא ישמרנו – That according to אביי who derives the fourth נגיחה from the פסוק of ולא ישמרנו בעליו; as mentioned previously this פסוק is referring to the fourth נגיחה מועד, then – אם נגח נגיחה רביעית ביום ג' לא מיחייב עד שיגח ביום רביעית – if he gored the fourth נגיחה on the third day; the same day that he gored the third נגיחה תם he is not liable for מועד payments unless he gores on the fourth day; the day after the third תם נגיחת – דלא ישמרנו קאי אימים דומיא דתמול שלשום¹² – For the phrase ישמרנו ולא refers to days, similar to the phrase שלשום תמול – yesterday and before yesterday, which refers to days. אבל לרבא דנגיחה רביעית לא כתיבא בהדיא – However according to רבא, that the phrase בעליו ישמרנו ולא is still referring to the third נגיחה of a תם, it is apparent that the fourth נגיחה is not written explicitly; it is merely inferred; it cannot be compared to שלשום מתמול which are written explicitly. Therefore –

Even if he gored the fourth goring on the third day, that same day that he gored his third נגיחה תם, nevertheless the owner will be liable for מועד payments.

SUMMARY Originally, רש"י maintained that there is a dispute between אביי ורבא whether a שור המועד pays a נזק שלם on the third נגיחה - רבא, or on the fourth נגיחה - אביי. However from our גמרא it is evident that all agree that a שור המועד pays a נזק שלם only at the fourth נגיחה. Their dispute may be whether the fourth נגיחה can be on the same day as the third נגיחה - רבא, or it must be the next day – אביי.

THINKING IT OVER ה"ר עזרא states that according to אביי the fourth נגיחה cannot take place on the same day as the third נגיחה. The reason given is that ולא ישמרנו must be similar to תמול שלשום.¹³ However it seems that there may be a more obvious explanation, as follows: The תורה states clearly, according to אביי, that the three נגיחות תם took place מתמול שלשום, yesterday and the days before, not on the same day as ולא ישמרנו בעליו, the נגיחת מועד. If the fourth נגיחה took place on the same day as the third נגיחת תם, the three נגיחות תם were not תמול שלשום.¹⁴

footnotes: ¹ שמות (משפטים) כא, לה-לו. ² There is another difference between a תם שור and a מועד שור. A תם שור is liable for damages only up to the amount that the תם שור itself is worth (he pays מגופו). By a המועד שור there is full liability regardless of what the המועד שור is worth (he pays העלייה מן). ³ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read, גבי הא דפליגי. ⁴ The תורה writes 'מתמול' – from yesterday. It could have written תמול; therefore from the word 'תמול' we derive one day’s goring, and from the extra 'מ' we derive a second day’s goring. ⁵ We do not derive two gorings from the fact that the תורה could have written תמול and instead writes מתמול. This concludes the quote from the גמרא. According to אביי the phrase 'ולא ישמרנו בעליו' is referencing the fourth goring, and according to רבא it is referring to the third goring. ⁶ For the first three gorings he pays the נזק חצי of a תם שור, and רבא maintains that the owner is liable for שור המועד damages by the third goring. Both ורבא אביי agree, according to this רש"י, that 'ישמרנו ולא' is referring to the goring of a המועד שור. This is how רש"י (in ב"ק) interpreted the מחלוקת between אביי ורבא. ⁷ Except for six cases which are referenced as ם"קג ל'יע. The הלכה therefore should be that he is a מועד by the third נגיחה. Why therefore, according to רש"י, does the גמרא here follow the opinion of אביי and state that he is a המועד שור only by the fourth נגיחה? ⁸ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read, וחזר בו רש"י. ⁹ תוספות (and the commentaries) does not state where this retraction is found. ¹⁰ According to אביי the phrase בעליו ישמרנו ולא is referring to the fourth goring for which the owner is liable for שור המועד payments. רבא, however maintains that ולא ישמרנו בעליו is referring to third goring as a תם. It is after this third goring of בעליו ישמרנו ולא that the owner is liable on the fourth goring for המועד שור payments. Both ורבא אביי agree that שור המועד payments are made only from the fourth goring onwards. There is no difference להלכה between אביי ורבא. They only argue as to how we derive this rule from the פסוק. ¹¹ In ולא ה"ד 'תוס (א,כד) ב,כג ק"ב he is referred to as עזריאל ר"והר. ¹² Therefore just as תמול and שלשום are separate days, so too is ישמרנו ולא, which refers to the רביעית נגיחה, is a separate day. See ‘Thinking it over’. ¹³ See footnote # 12. ¹⁴ If this were the reason for אביי, then it would be much clearer why according to רבא it can be on the same day.

עד נגיחה רביעית לא מיחייב—Until the fourth goring he is not liable

OVERVIEW יוחנן 'ר taught that we derive שנים 'ג חזקת from a המועד שור who is required to gore three times before he becomes a מועד. The גמרא challenges this. A שור המועד has to pay a שלם נזק only after the fourth time that he gores. It stands to reason therefore that a חזקה should be accomplished only after four years. תוספות will discuss two ways how we are to understand the comparison of שור המועד to חזקת ג' שנים, and consequently the soundness of the s’גמרא question.

תוספות asks: תימה לרבינו יצחק דמאי פריך הא הכי יליף משור המועד – It is astounding to the ר"י; for what is the question that the גמרא is asking; that he should not be a מוחזק until the fourth year, just as an ox pays full damages only on the fourth goring – this is not a question! For that which he is deriving from a המועד שור is as follows – מה התם הוחזק נגחן שלש פעמים הכא נמי הוחזק שתקן בשלש שנים¹ – Just as there, by a המועד שור, he is established as a goring ox, if he gored three times, here too, by a חזקה in a field, the previous owner is established as being acquiescent, by not protesting for three years. אם כן משלש שנים ואילך קמה ליה ברשותיה – If that is so; that we deriving from a המועד שור the amount of times that is required to establish a pattern; specifically regarding the intention of the original owner, whether his silence is just a coincidence or it is to be interpreted as admitting to this transfer of ownership, then from three years and onwards, that the original owner did not protest it becomes established in the domain of the מחזיק. We have the necessary proof that the original owner has no claim on this field. This is similar to a המועד שור, where it becomes established that its nature is to gore, after three goring incidents. Why should there be a need for a fourth year?! תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דסלקא דעתיה דמקשה דהכי יליף – And the ר"י says; that the questioner who asked 'וכו רביעית נגיחה עד, he assumed that this is what the גמרא derived from המועד שור – מה התם מכי נגח ג' פעמים נפק ליה מחצי נזק לנזק שלם – just as there, by a המועד שור, when he gored three times he changed his status from a half damage liability into a full damage liability – הכא נמי כיון שאכלה שלש שנים ולא מיחה נפקא ליה מרשות מוכר לרשות לוקח – here too by שנים 'ג חזקת since he consumed the produce for three years and the owner did not protest, the field was removed from the possession of the seller and placed into the possession of the buyer – אף על גב דמילתא בלא טעמא הוא:² Even though this is a concept without a rational basis.

SUMMARY There two ways of understanding how we derive שנים 'ג חזקת from המועד שור.

1. A pattern of behavior is established when something is repeated three times.
2. The rules and laws change when something is repeated three times. Our מקשן assumes the second view.

THINKING IT OVER How are we to understand the תירוץ of the 'וכו השתא הכי ,גמרא?³

footnotes: ¹ The comparison to an ox is as follows. When an ox gores once or twice it does not indicate that he is by nature a goring ox. It is possible that it was a coincidence, and in reality it is a tame ox – תם שור. However when the ox gores three times a pattern has been developed; we do not assume anymore that his goring is a mere happenstance, but rather that he is a goring ox; this is his nature. A pattern is established (only) by a three time repetition. Similarly by a שנים 'ג חזקת when the original owner does not protest for the first or second year we may attribute his silence to other causes; not necessarily that he is forfeiting his right to the field. However when he does not protest for the third year as well, we have established a pattern of silence. He is not protesting, because there is no reason to protest. His silence is a tacit admission, indicating that he sold the field to the מחזיק. ² It seems (from the ר"י) that according to the מקשה we are not discussing patterns of behavior; but rather the status of the laws of the תורה. From שור המועד we derive that three times, changes the status of the law, from חצי נזק to נזק שלם. Similarly, (according to the מקשן) when a buyer and seller are disputing the ownership of property; up to the first three years (of occupation by the buyer) the seller is considered to be in possession - the מוחזק; after three years the buyer is considered to be the מוחזק. [If the seller is the מוחזק, then the onus of proof is on the buyer, that he actually bought the field, and if the buyer is the מוחזק then the seller must prove that he never sold it.] It is difficult to understand the relationship of these two laws that just as the payment changes by a שור after three times, therefore the status of possession changes after three years; that is why תוספות refers to it as a מילתא בלא טעמא. If we are to assume that this is the comparison between שור המועד and חזקה, then the s'גמרא question is more readily understood. The changing of the status of a חצי נזק to a נזק שלם does not take place until the fourth נגיחה; it is only then that he actually pays a נזק שלם. By חזקה, therefore, the law should be the same, that the changing of possession should take place only after the fourth year. Others explain that a שור ceases to be a תם after the third נגיחה; however he is not (completely) a מועד to pay a ש"נ until the fourth time. Similarly by a חזקה after three years the original owner relinquishes his חזקה; however it should not be in the possession of the מחזיק, until after the fourth year. [During the fourth year the דין should be גבר דאלים כל.] ³ See בל"י אות כג.