ואי כורכמא דרישקא¹—And if he sold him a כורכמא דרישקא

OVERVIEW רבא stated that if the buyer claims that he was sold the קרקע as well as the tree and he had a חזקת ג"ש, he acquires the land as well. מר קשישא asked what can a seller do to protect himself if he sells a כורכמא דרישקא (but not the land beneath it or around it), to insure that the buyer will not claim that he bought the land as well. תוספות explains why the גמרא mentioned כורכמא דרישקא specifically; this question seemingly applies to any plant or tree which is sold (without the קרקע).

לכך נקט כורכמא דרישקא שמתקיים בקרקע ג' שנים דהיינו שני חזקה – The reason he mentions כורכמא דרישקא specifically is because it lasts three years in the ground, which are the required חזקה years – ודרך להשהותו בקרקע כמו שיכול להתקיים: And furthermore it is customary to allow it to remain in the ground as long as it can last in the ground. Therefore when one sells a כורכמא דרישקא it is assumed that the buyer will hold on to this plant (in the ground) for three years, and will then have the opportunity to claim that he bought the land as well.

SUMMARY כורכמא דרישקא is kept in the ground for three years, and so there is the concern that he might claim that he bought the land as well.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Seemingly trees last much longer than three years in the ground, so why the need to mention כורכמא דרישקא, when he could have mentioned any tree?²
2. What is must usual (or unusual); a. to sell trees with the land, b. to sell trees without the land, c. to sell כורכמא דרישקא with the land, d. to sell כורכמא דרישקא without the land?³

footnotes: ¹ Others translate this to mean Saffron (from the) Orient; a certain (expensive) plant. ² See נח"מ. ³ This may solve ‘Thinking it over’ # 1.

אלא כדי שיהא באספמיא—Only in order that he should be in אספמיא

OVERVIEW ר' יהודה taught that the reason why a חזקה requires three years, is so there should be sufficient time in a case where the original owner lives in אספמיא, that the מחזיק should make a חזקה for one year and the report will reach him in the second year, and the מחאה will take place in the third year.¹

דעד שם יש מהלך שנה ויותר מכאן אין דרך להרחיק יותר מקרקעו² – For to reach אספמיא it is a walking distance of one year (from ארץ ישראל); however it is not customary for an owner to be further from his property more than a year’s travel³ – ואם הרחיק יותר לא פלוג:⁴ And even if he traveled away from his property further (more than a year’s distance), the חכמים did not differentiate and only gave him up to three years total to make a מחאה.****

SUMMARY People live within a year’s walking distance of their properties; we cannot be concerned about extreme cases.

THINKING IT OVER What would be the ruling according to ר"י if the מערער lived less than one year’s walk away, would the חזקה depend on how far away he lives, or do we say לא פלוג for less than a year⁵ as we say לא פלוג for more than a year?⁶

footnotes: ¹ See later in the גמרא מא,א (and the רשב"ם here ד"ה א"ר יהודה) that according to ר"י if the חזקה is בפני המערער, the rule is that לאלתר הוי חזקה. ר"י (seemingly) does not agree with the סברא of עד ג' שנים מזדהר איניש בשטרא. See ‘Thinking it over’. ² The מערער claims that it is his field, and he never sold it. It is highly unusual that a person should own property (in those days) more than a year’s walking distance from where he currently lives. Therefore we assume that at the most the מערער lives within a year’s distance; therefore a חזקה period of three years is sufficient for the מערער to hear about the חזקה and (come and) be מוחה. ³ See חת"ס who writes that the circumference of the globe is twenty-four thousand מיל, meaning that the furthest distance from a person is twelve thousand מיל. A person can walk in a day (ten פרסאות which is) forty מיל. In three hundred days he can cover twelve thousand מיל. Add the fifty-two שבתים and some ימים טובים (when one cannot walk due to תחומים) and it adds up to a complete year – כפתור ופרח! ⁴ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁵ See footnote # 1 & 4. ⁶ See נח"מ בגמ' ד"ה אר"י and בל"י אות שיג.

מחאה שלא בפניו כולי—A protest not in his presence, etc.

OVERVIEW Our גמרא discusses whether a מחאה שלא בפניו is a valid מחאה or not. תוספות explains why the discussion is regarding the מחאה שלא בפניו and not the חזקה שלא בפניו.

תוספות asks: תימה דבכל דוכתי נקט מחאה ואמאי לא נקט חזקה שלא בפניו הויא חזקה¹ – It is astounding! For in all instances the גמרא always mentions מחאה שלא בפניו, but why does it not discuss whether a חזקה שלא בפניו is a חזקה or not –**** תוספות answers: ויש לומר² לפי שהטעם תלוי במחאה ולא בחזקה – And one can say; because the reason (whether it is a חזקה or not) depends on the status of the מחאה שלא בפניו, and not on the חזקה; תוספות explains – שאדם המחזיק בקרקעותיו של חבירו אית ליה קלא שהוא חוקר ושואל על נכסיו³ – For a person who makes a חזקה in the land of his friend, that חזקה is publicized, for the (original) owner inquires and asks about his properties – אבל המחאה אין לה קול כל כך שאין המחזיק מחזר אם מוחה לו בעל קרקע⁴ – However the מחאה is not publicized so much, for the מחזיק is not searching if the initial owner of the land is protesting against him, and – לפיכך אין חזקתו חזקה כשאין יכול לשמוע מחאתו דמה יועיל שמיחה⁵: And therefore (since the מחאה does not have as strong a קול as a חזקה), his חזקה is not a חזקה, when the מחזיק will not hear the מחאה of the מערער, for of what avail is the מחאה that the מערער will make. The deciding factor, in determining if it is a חזקה or not, depends (only) on whether the מחאה will be heard or not (and even if the חזקה will be heard it will not be a valid חזקה if the מחאה cannot be heard).

SUMMARY The מערער (who is interested in knowing about his distant fields) is more likely to hear about the חזקה, than the מחזיק (who is secure in his purchase) is likely to hear about the מחאה. Therefore we discuss מחאה שלא בפניו instead of חזקה שלא בפניו.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות distinguishes between the publicity of a חזקה and a מחאה; that the מערער is more prone⁶ to hear the חזקה than the מחזיק is prone⁷ to hear the מחאה. Seemingly there is a difficulty; if we are to assume that the מרא קמא actually sold the field (and is lying when he makes the מחאה and ערעור), then why is he interested and inquisitive regarding the חזקה. On the other hand if the מחזיק is there illegally (he did not buy the field), then he will listen carefully if there are any מחאות, in order to protect himself.
2. What changed in our understanding of חזקה and מחאה in this תוספות from the question to the answer?

footnotes: ¹ The relevant issue at hand is whether a חזקה שלא בפניו is considered a חזקה or not; i.e. can the מחזיק retain the field. [Even if we would assume (for instance) that a מחאה שלא בפניו is not a מחאה; it would not be clear what is the ruling if the חזקה was made שלא בפניו, whether it is a valid חזקה, since he did not make a מחאה בפניו, or whether it is not a חזקה, since he could not make a מחאה בפניו (he was in another city; see תוס' כט,א ד"ה אלא). It would be much clearer if the ruling was regarding the חזקה שלא בפניו.] ² See also תוס' כח,ב ד"ה אלא מעתה מחאה. ³ Therefore there is always a greater possibility that the מרא קמא will hear about the חזקה, since the מ"ק is interested to know what is happening with his properties (in distant places). See ‘Thinking it over # 1. ⁴ The מחזיק (in a case where he bought the property) is secure in his knowledge that it is his property, and is not concerned that the מערער will be מוחה, therefore even if there is a מחאה (because the מערער heard of the חזקה), the מחזיק will not hear about it, since he is not inquiring whether there was a מחאה. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁵ The מערער thinks there is no point in my מחאה, since the מחזיק will not hear it (and therefore it will not encourage him to keep the שטר). The lack of מחאה is not a proof of lack of interest on the part of the מערער, but rather his realization of the futility of his מחאה. ⁶ See footnote # 3. ⁷ See footnote # 4.