משנה: נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחֵרָיוּת נִקְנִין בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. וְשֶׁאֵין לָהֶן אַחֵרָיוּת אֵינָן נִקְנִין אֶלָּא בִּמְשִׁיכָה. נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן אַחֵרָיוּת נִיקְנִין עִם נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחֵרָיוּת בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. וְשֶׁאֵין לָהֶן אַחֵרָיוּת זוֹקְקִין אֶת הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֵרָיוּת לִישָּׁבַע עֲלֵיהֶן. MISHNAH: Guaranteed properties470Real estate which normally is sold with a title guarantee. can be acquired by money, or contract, or possession329A slave who becomes ownerless by the death of his intestate owner who dies without heirs can be acquired by anybody who makes him perform a slave’s duties for himself. Also, a person who claims to have bought a slave from another party will have his ownership confirmed by the court if he can show three years of uncontested ownership. Cf. Ketubot 5:4:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.5.4.3">Ketubot 5:5, Note 100.. Not guaranteed properties471Movables. can be acquired only by drawing close472For this Tanna, there is no transfer of possession of movables except by delivery.. Not guaranteed properties can be acquired together with guaranteed properties by money, or contract, or possession473Taking possession of a piece of real estate transfers possession of all things included in the sale.. Not guaranteed properties can force [the owner of] guaranteed properties to swear about them474Monetary claims which cannot be proven or disproved are settled by an oath taken by the defendent. The verse, Exodus.22.8">Ex. 22:8, specifies that the oath is required for “ox, donkey, sheep, garment, or anything lost,” excluding real estate (Mishnah Šebuot 6:7). But if the dispute was about both movables and real estate, since one party has to swear about the movables, it can also be made to include a statement about the real estate..
הלכה: נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחֵרָיוּת כול׳. בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ קוֹנִין בִּשְׁלִיפַת הַמִּנְעַל. הָדָא הִיא דִכְתִיב וְזֹאת לְפָנִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל עַל הַגְּאוּלָּה וְעַל הַתְּמוּרָה שָׁלַף אִישׁ נַעֲלוֹ וגו׳. מִי שָׁלַף. תַּמָּן אָֽמְרִין. רַב וְלֵוִי. חַד אָמַר. הַקּוֹנֶה. וְחַד אָמַר. הַמַּקְנֶה. וְאַתְייָן אִילֵּין פְּלוּגְװָתָא כְּאִינּוּן פְּלוּגְװָתָא. דְּתַנֵּי. בּוֹעַז נוֹתֵן לַגּוֹאֵל. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. הַגּוֹאֵל נָתַן לְבוֹעַז. HALAKHAH: “Guaranteed properties,” etc. In earlier times, transfer of possession was effected by taking off a shoe. That is what is written475Ruth.4.7">Ruth 4:7.: “This was earlier in Israel about redemption and exchange, a person would take off his shoe.” Who took it off? There, they say Rav and Levi476In the Babli, Baba meṣia‘ 47a, the first opinion is attributed to Rav, the second to Levi. In the Babli, the transaction is not considered as archaic but as current practice, meaning that claims can be validly transferred following Rav when the transferrer moves some of the acquirer’s movable property., one said the acquirer, and one said the transferer. It turns out that this disagreement parallels the following disagreement which was stated: Boaz was giving to the redeemer; Rebbi Jehudah said that the redeemer gave to Boaz.
חָֽזְרוֹ לִהְיוֹת קוֹנִים בִּקְצִצָה. מָהוּ בִּקְצִצָה. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה אָדָם מוֹכֵר שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּתוֹ הָיוּ קְרוֹבָיו מֵבִיאִין חָבִיּוֹת וּמְמַלִּין אוֹתָן קְלָיוֹת וֶאֱגוֹזִים וְשׁוֹבְרִין לִפְנֵי הַתִּינּוֹקוֹת. וְהַתִּינּוֹקוֹת מְלַקְּטִין וְאוֹמְרִים. נִקְצַץ פְּלוֹנִי מֵאֲחוּזָּתוֹ. וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה מַחֲזִירָהּ לוֹ הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין כָּך וְאוֹמְרִים. חָזַר פְּלוֹנִי לַאֲחוּזָּתוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אַף מִי שֶׁהוּא נוֹשֶׂא אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת לוֹ הָיוּ קְרוֹבָיו מֵבִיאִין חָבִיּוֹת וּמְמַלִּין אוֹתָן קְלָיוֹת וֶאֱגוֹזִים וְשׁוֹבְרִין לִפְנֵי הַתִּינּוֹקוֹת. וְהַתִּינּוֹקוֹת מְלַקְּטִין וְאוֹמְרִים. נִקְצַץ פְּלוֹנִי מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ. וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה מְגָֽרְשָׁהּ הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין כֵּן וְאוֹמְרִין. חָזַר פְּלוֹנִי לְמִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ. Then they changed it to clipping. 478This paragraph is from Ketubot 2:10:8" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.2.10.8">Ketubot2:11 (כ), Notes 201–203. What is clipping? If a man sold his inherited field, his relatives brought amphoras, filled them with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children were collecting them and saying, X was clipped from his inheritance. When he brought it back, they were doing the same and saying, X returned to his inheritance. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also if a man married an unsuitable woman, his relatives brought amphoras, filled them with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children were collecting them and saying, X was clipped from his family. When he divorced her, they were doing the same and saying, X returned to his family.
חָֽזְרוֹ לִהְיוֹת קוֹנִים בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. בְּכֶסֶף. שָׂדוֹת בַּכֶּסֶף יִקְנוּ. זֶה הַכֶּסֶף. וְכָתוֹב בַּסֵּפֶר וְחָתוֹם אֵילּוּ עֵידֵי שְׁטָר. וְהָעֵד עֵדִים. אֵילּוּ עֵידֵי חֲזָקָה. אוֹ אֵינָן אֶלָּא עֵידֵי שְׁטָר. כְּבָר כָּתוּב וְכָתוֹב בַּסֵּפֶר וְחָתוֹם. Then they changed it to acquisition by money, by document, or by possession. By money: 479This and the following two paragraphs are from Kiddushin 1:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.1.3">Halakhah 3 (ק), Notes 335–346.“Fields will be bought by money,” that is money. “Writing on a scroll and signing”, these are the witnesses on the contract. “And testifying of witnesses,” these are the witnesses to possession. Or maybe these are only the witnesses to the contract? These are already written: “Writing on a scroll and signing.”
רִבִּי יָסָא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי מָנָא בַּר תַנְחוּם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵין קַרְקַע נִקְנֶה בְּפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. מַה טַעֲמָא. שָׂדוֹת בַּכֶּסֶף יִקְנוּ. וּפְלִיג עַל הַהִיא דְאָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. כָּל־שְׁקָלִים שֶׁכְּתוּבִים בַּתּוֹרָה סְלָעִים. וּבַנְּבִיאִים לִיטְרִין. וּבַכְּתוּבִים קִינְטֵירִין. חוּץ מִשִּׁיקְלֵי עֶפְרוֹן. מַה טַעֲמָא. בְּכֶסֶף מָלֵא יִתְּנֶנָּה לִי. וְלֹא דַמְייָא. תַּמָּן כְּתִיב כֶּסֶף וְהָכָא כְּתִיב שְׁקָלִים. הָתִיבוּן. הֲרֵי אוֹנֵס. הֲרֵי אֵין כָּתוּב כָּאן אֶלָּא כֶּסֶף וְאַתְּ אָמַר שְׁקָלִים. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Real estate cannot be bought for less than a peruṭah. What is the reason? “Fields will be bought by money.” This disagrees with what Rebbi Ḥanina said: All šeqalim mentioned in the Torah are tetradrachmas, in the Prophets pounds, and in the Hagiographs centenarii, except for the šeqalim paid to Ephron. What is the reason? “For full money he shall give it to me.” There is no comparison since here it is written “money” but there “šeqalim”. They objected, is there not the rapist, for whom “money” is written and you say “šeqalim”.
וְלֹא כְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר. הִילּוּךְ קוֹנֶה. דְּתַנֵּי. הִילֵּךְ בְּשָׂדֶה לְאוֹרְכָּהּ וּלְרָחְבָּהּ קָנָה עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁהִילֵּךְ. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. לֹא קָנָה עַד שֶׁיַּחֲזִיק. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּמוֹכֵר שְׁבִיל לַחֲבֵירוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִילֵּךְ בּוֹ קְנָייוֹ. מַה טַעֲמָא. קוּם הִתְהַלֵּךְ בָּאָרֶץ וגו׳. This does not follow Rebbi Eliezer, for Rebbi Eliezer said that walking acquires. If one walked across a field in length and breadth, he acquired up to the place he walked, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say that he did not acquire up to the moment he acted in possession. Everybody agrees that if somebody sells a path to another, when the latter went, he acquired. What is the reason? “Arise, walk in the Land, etc.”
בִּשְׁטָר. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה סְבַר מֵימַר. בִּשְׁטָר עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא לִיתֵּן כֶּסֶף. אֲבָל בִּשְׁטָר עַל מְנָת לִיתֵּן כֶּסֶף לֹא קָנָה עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן כֶּסֶף. רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵה תְּרֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרִין. אֲפִילוּ לֹא נָתַן כֶּסֶף קָנָה. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָה לְרִבִּי יוֹנָה וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מָכַר לוֹ עֶשֶׂר שָׂדוֹת כְּאַחַת כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֶחֱזִיק בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן הֶחֱזִיק בְּכוּלָּם. אֲבָל אִם לֹא נָתַן לוֹ אֶלָּא דְמֵי אַחַת מֵהֶן אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא כָתַב לוֹ אוֹנוֹ אֶלָּא עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן לֹא קָנָה אֶלָּא אוֹתָהּ שֶׁמָּכַר לוֹ בִּלְבַד. וְכִי יֵשׁ אוֹנֵי בְּלֹא כֶסֶף. אִין תֵּימַר. בְּשֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ דְמֵי כוּלָּם אֲנָן קַייָמִין. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא. דְּמֵי אֶחָד מֵהֶן. אֶלָּא אוֹ הָדָא אוֹ הָדָא. By document. Rebbi Jeremiah thought to say, by a contract without obligating money480The deed of a gift transfers possession but a sales contract does not. The Kiddushin.26a">Babli, 26a, endorses this opinion in the name of Samuel., but with a contract obligating money he did not acquire until he paid. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both said, he acquired even if he did not pay481If the document mentions the transfer of possession; cf. Sefer Ha‘iṭṭur I, p. 13a, Note 7.. A baraita supports Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose: 482Kiddushin.27a">Babli 27a; Tosephta Baba batra2:12. These texts do not refer to a sale document in the Greek style.“If he sold him ten fields together, when he took possession of one of them, he took possession of all of them. But if he only paid the amount for one or wrote the deed483Greek ὠνή, cf. Gittin 4:6:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.4.6.3">Giṭṭin 4:6, Note 167. The Hellenistic ὠνή was a transfer of title; cf. Taubenschlag (Note 369), pp. 155, 206. It is asserted here that if the transfer was made conditional upon payment, the transfer of title was restricted to the amount paid. only for one of them he acquired only the one which was sold to him.” Does there exist a deed without money484There does, in the transfer of real estate from living parents to children in the form of a fictitious sale; cf. Taubenschlag p. 155. This practice is discussed in the next paragraph.? If you say, we hold that he paid for all of them, did it not say: “the amount of one”? It must be one or the other485The or in the second sentence is an exclusive “or”; the second clause is independent of the first. It follows that if the contract was written for all properties, it transfers possession of all of them..
בְּכֶסֶף. רִבִּי בָּא סְבַר מֵימַר. בְּכֶסֶף עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא יִכְתּוֹב אוֹנֵי. אֲבָל בְּכֶסֶף עַל מְנָת לִכְתוֹב לוֹ אוֹנֵי לֹא קָנָה עַד שָׁעָה שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב אוֹנֵי. רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי פְלִיגִין. אַתְייָא דְּרִבִּי בָּא כִּשְׁמוּאֵל וּדְרַב הוּנָא כְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּרִבִּי בָּא כִּשְׁמוּאֵל. שְׁמוּאֵל שָׁאַל לְרַב חוּנָה. שׁוֹחֵט וְנִתְעַסֵּק בַּקֳּדָשִׁים. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לִרְצוֹנְכֶם. פְּרָט לְמִתְעַסֵּק. כָּתַב מַתָּנָה בִּלְשׁוֹן קִנְייָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אַרְכְּבֵיהּ אַתְּרֵי רִיכְשֵׁי. אָֽמְרָהּ רִבִּי בָּא וְלֹא קִיבְּלָהּ שְׁמוּאֵל. מָהוּ אַרְכְּבֵיהּ עַל תְּרֵין רִיכְשֵׁי בַּרְקֵי. סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר. מַייְתֵי תְּרֵין סוּסְװָן שַׁטְיֵי וּמְרַכְּבִין לֵיהּ עַל תְּרֵיהוֹן וְהַהוּא אֲזִיל בְּדָא וְהַהֵין אֲזַל בְּדָא לֹא אַשְׁכָּח גַּבֵּי כְּלוּם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַמְלְחָייָא. יִיפֶּה כוֹחוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי דְבָרִים. שֶׁיֵּשׁ שִׁיעְבּוּד לִמְכִירָה וְאֵין שִׁיעְבּוּד לְמַתָּנָה. שֶׁהַמּוֹכֵר לֹא מָכַר אֶת הַכֹּל וְהַנּוֹתֵן מַתָּנָה נָתַן אֶת הַכֹּל. וּדְרַב חוּנָה כְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. חַד בַּר נַשׁ מִי דְמִיךְ אָמַר. יִנָּֽתְנוּ כָּל־נְכָסַיי לִפְלוֹנִי. חָזַר וְאָמַר. כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר יָקִים אַעֲלוֹן עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אָמַר. אִם אָמַר. לִזְכוּתוֹ. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל זָכָה. וְאִם לְזַכּוֹתוֹ בִּכְתָב. כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁאֵין אָדָם זוֹכֶה בִּכְתָב לְאַחַר מִיתָה. מִי מוֹדִיעַ. אֶת רְבוּ. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם עֵדִים יוֹדְעִים. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁאֵין שָׁם עֵדִים יוֹדְעִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לְעוֹלָם הַשָּׂדֶה בְחֶזְקַת בְּעָלֶיהָ וּמוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָֽרְאָייָה. “By money.” Rebbi Abba was of the opinion, by money if there was no intention to write a deed. But if money was given with the intention to write a deed for him, possession was transferred only when the deed was written486Since proving title is difficult without a written deed, the buyer has no intention of accepting title without the deed. Therefore, transfer of possession is possible only by delivery of the deed unless one explicitly stipulates otherwise. In the Kiddushin.26a">Babli, 26a, this is a statement of Rav (Rebbi Abba bar Ayvo).. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose disagree487Since they are the collectors of the material in the Yerushalmi, their opinion is accepted as practice; it is not mentioned in the Babli for whom Samuel is the deciding authority in civil law.. It follows that Rebbi Abba parallels Samuel and Rav Huna Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Abba parallels Samuel. Samuel asked Rav Ḥuna: He was slaughtering sacrifices while being occupied488He was occupied in slaughtering profane animals when he also slaughtered an animal dedicated as sacrifice without realizing it. Is this valid slaughter? The scenario is really impossible since the slaughter of profane animals is forbidden in the holy precinct, as is the slaughter of sacrifices outside. A Temple slaughterer has to learn his trade outside the holy precinct.? He answered, “for your intention489Leviticus.22.19">Lev. 22:19. Chullin.13a">Babli Ḥulin 13a,” this excludes one otherwise occupied. If one wrote a gift in the language of a sale490Is a deed valid if it formulates a gift in the language of a fictitious sale? Starting here there is a shortened version, formulated differently, in Bava Batra 8:4:2-4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Batra.8.4.2-4">Baba batra 8:5.? He answered, he made it ride on two racing horses; Rebbi Abba491Since Rav was Rav Huna’s teacher, this reference must be to Rav, in whose name the expression is quoted in Babli Baba batra 152a. said this; Samuel did not accept it. What means “he made it ride on two shining racing horses”? They wanted to say, one brings two crazy horses and makes it ride on both. One goes in one direction and the other in another; he has nothing in his hand492Since sale and gift follow different rules, a gift formulated as sale is invalid.. Rebbi Yose from Mamelia said, he doubly empowered him, for there is a title guarantee in a sale but none for a gift493The seller is required to indemnify the buyer if the latter loses his land because of foreclosure of a mortgage owed by the seller. A gift is given without such guarantee.; the seller did not sell everything but the giver of a gift gave everything494A sale document is interpreted minimally: the seller of a parcel is not presumed to have sold a cistern or any other building on the parcel unless it be mentioned in the deed (Bava Batra 4:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Batra.4.2.1">Mishnah Baba batra 4:2; cf Kiddushin 26a:9:1" href="/Tosafot_on_Kiddushin.26a.9.1">Tosaphot Qiddušin26a s. v. ולמה), but a gift document is interpreted maximally. In this interpretation of Rav, confirmed by the Babli Baba batra 152a, the holder of the deed is doubly privileged. In the Babli, Samuel is quoted as being unable to decide whether the deed is judged as sale or gift. Since Samuel is quoted as disagreeing, he must hold with R. Abba that if a deed is intended, only the deed will transfer possession.. And Rav Ḥuna parallels Rebbi Joḥanan. A person, when he lay dying, said: my property should be given to X. Afterwards he said: write and deliver. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim brought the case before Rebbi Joḥanan who said: If he said to transfer to him, everybody agrees that he entered into possession495If the first time he stated that the person designated should be his heir, the latter will inherit if the dying person made it clear that the deed will only be written as proof of title, not as means of transfer of property.. If the transfer was to be in writing, everybody agrees that nobody transfers rights in writing after his death496If the document was a deed, not a will, intended to convey possession but not delivered during the donor’s lifetime, it cannot be delivered after death (Babli Baba batra 135b).. Who would notify the greatness497If the donor intended his orally conveyed gift to convey possession, how can the recipient prove his title?? Explain it if witnesses know. Think of it, if no witnesses know it? Rebbi Yose said, the field remains in the hand of its proprietors498In this case, the legal heirs.; the burden of proof is on the claimant499Bava Kamma 5:1:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Kamma.5.1.2">Baba qama 5:1 (21b 1. 70), Babli Baba qama 27b,46b, Baba batra 92b..
מְנַייִן לִנְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן אַחֵרָיוּת שֶׁהֵן נִקְנִין עִם נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחֵרָיוּת בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי יוֹנָה רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה תִּרְתָּייָה בְשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה. כְּתִיב וַיִּתֵּן לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם מַתָּנוֹת רַבּוֹת לְכֶסֶף וּלְזָהָב וּלְמִגְדָּנוֹת עִם עָרִים בְּצוּרוֹת בִּיהוּדָה. עַד כְדוֹן כְּשֶׁהָיוּ קַרְקַעוֹת וּמְטַלְטְלִין בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד. הָיוּ קַרְקַעוֹת בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד וּמְטַלְטְלִין בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. אָמַר לָהֶן רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. מַעֲשֶׂה בִּמְרוֹנִי אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה דָּר בִּיְרוּשָׁלֵם וְהָיוּ לוֹ מְיטַלְטְלִין הַרְבֶּה וּבִיקֵּשׁ לְחַלְּקָן. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ אֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן קָנִיתָ קַרְקַע. מֶה עָשָׂה. הָלַךְ וְקָנָה סֶלַע אֶחָד בְּצַד יְרוּשָׁלֵם. אָמַר. חֶצְייָהּ צְפוֹנִי אֲנִי נוֹתֵן לִפְלוֹנִי עִם מֵאָה חָבִיּוֹת שֶׁל יַיִן. חֶצְייָהּ דְּרוֹמִית אֲנִי נוֹתֵן לִפְלוֹנִי עִם מֵאָה חָבִיּוֹת שֶׁלְּשֶׁמֶן. וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְקִייְמוּ אֶת דְּבָרָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. וְלֹא שְׁכִיב מְרָע הוּא. לְפִי שֶׁבְּכָל־מָקוֹם אֵין אָדָם מְזַכֶּה אֶלָּא בִּכְתָב. וְכָאן אֲפִילוּ בִדְבָרִים. לְפִי שֶׁבְכָל־מָקוֹם אֵין אָדָם מְזַכֶּה עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ קַרְקַעוֹת וּמְטַלְטְלִין בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד. וְכָאן אֲפִילוּ קַרְקַעוֹת בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד וּמְטַלְטְלִין בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. לֹא כְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר הוּא. שַׁנְייָא הִיא שְׁכִיב מְרָע דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר הוּא שְׁכִיב מְרָע דְּרַבָּנִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. שְׁכִיב מְרָע דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר כְּבָרִיא דְּרַבָּנִין. 500This paragraph and the following are from Peah 3:8" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.3.8">Peah 3:8, Notes 134–147 (פ). The second paragraph has no connection to the topics discussed here; this shows that the original place of the texts was in Peah. From where that non-guaranteed property may be acquired together with guaranteed property, by money, document, or by possession? Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah; Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥanina Tortaya in the name of Ḥizqiah, it is written (2Chr. 21:3): “Their father gave them many gifts, silver and gold and delicacies, with fortified cities in Jehudah.” So far real estate and movables were at the same place. If real estate was at one place and movables elsewhere? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eliezer said to them, it happened that a man from Meron was dwelling in Jerusalem, who was rich in movables. He wanted to distribute them, to give them as gifts. They said to him, you cannot do that except if you acquire real estate. What did he do? He went and bought a rock near Jerusalem and said: The Northern part I give to X with a hundred amphoras of wine, the Southern part I give to Y with a hundred amphoras of oil. The matter came before the Sages and they upheld his words. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: But was he not bedridden? For in general a person might give property rights only in writing, and here even orally. In general, a person might give only if real estate and movables are at the same place; here, however, the real estate was at one place and the movables elsewhere. He said to him: But is there a difference for Rebbi Eliezer? Is not the sick person for Rebbi Eliezer like the sick person for the rabbis? He said to him: The sick person for Rebbi Eliezer is like the healthy person for the rabbis.
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. קַרְקַע כָּל־שֶׁהוּא חַייָב בְּפֵיאָה וּבְבִיכּוּרִים דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. קַרְקַע כָּל־שֶׁהוּא מַהוּ טָב. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְייָה. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיָה שָׁם מָקוֹם שִׁיבּוֹלֶת אַחַת וּמַרְגָּלִית טְמוּנָה בוֹ. There, we have stated: “Any real estate is subject to peah and first fruits, the words of Rebbi Aqiba.” What is the use of “any” real estate? Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if it had space for one stalk but a pearl was hidden in it.
רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת אַחַת בִּיהוּדָה וְאַחַת בְּגָלִיל. הֶחֱזִיק בְּזוֹ שֶׁבִּיהוּדָה לִזְכוֹת בְּזוֹ שֶׁבְּגָלִיל. אוֹ בְּזוֹ שֶׁבְּגָלִיל לִזְכוֹת בְּזוֹ שֶׁבִּיהוּדָה. קָנָה. וּבְנִיכְסֵי הַגֵּר לֹא קָנָה אֲפִילוּ מֵיצַר בֵּנְתַיִים. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. נִתְכַּווֵן לִקְנוֹת מִן הַמֵּיצַר וּשְׁרַע מִינֵּיהּ. רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר. נִיכְסֵי הַגֵּר. הֶחֱזִיק בִּצְפוֹנָן עַל מְנָת לִזְכוֹת בִּדְרוֹמָן. בִּדְרוֹמָן עַל מְנָת לִזְכוֹת בִּצְפוֹנָן לֹא נִתְכַּװֵן לִקְנוֹת בְּאֶמצָעִיתָן. לֹא קָנָה עַד שָׁעָה שֶׁיִּתְכַּוֵּין לִקְנוֹת בְּאֶמְצָעִיתָן. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב חִסְדָּא. גֵּר שֶׁמֵּת וּבִיזְבְּזוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת נְכָסָיו. הַמַּחֲזִיק בַּקַּרְקַע חַייָב בַּכֹּל. הַמַּחֲזִיק בַּקָּמָה חַייָב בְּלֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵיאָה וּפָטוּר מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. וְאֵין אֲוֵיר מַפְסִיק בֵּין שִׁיבּוֹלֶת לְשִׁיבּוֹלֶת. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. אִם הָיָה מְחוּבָּר לְקַרְקַע וְתָלַשׁ כָּל־שֶׁהוּא קָנָה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. לֹא קָנָה אֶלָּא אוֹתוֹ קֶלַח בִּלְבַד. וְהָֽתְנַן אִם הָיָה מְחוּבָּר לְקַרְקַע וְתָלַשׁ כָּל־שֶׁהוּא קָנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. קִייְמָהּ רִבִּי אֶבודַומָא נְחוּתָא מוֹדֶה שְׁמוּאֵל בְּנִיכְסֵי הַגֵּר. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If two fields were involved502In a real estate transaction; the seller expects the buyer to take possession of both fields; cf. Kiddushin 1:3:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.1.3.5">Note 345., one in Judea and one in Galilee. If he took possession of the one in Judea with the intent of taking possession of the one in Galilee, or the one in Galilee with the intent of taking possession of the one in Judea, he took possession. But in [the case of] property of a proselyte503Who dies intestate without Jewish heirs and whose property now is ownerless. The rules of taking possession of ownerless property are more strict than those of taking possession of what was bought since the agreement of the seller to the transfer of the property is missing. he did not acquire even the boundary strip between them504If the proselyte owned two adjacent fields; the Jew took possession of both of them by doing some agricultural work on both but he did not walk the boundary strip with the intent of acquiring it; the strip is not automatically acquired with the fields since it is not subject to agricultural activities such as ploughing, weeding, or harvesting; cf. Note 353.. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: If he intended to acquire starting from the boundary strip and below505The question is not answered; cf. Peah 2:1:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.2.1.5">Peah 2:1, Note 16. In the Babli, Baba batra 52b, the question is undecided, i. e., anybody laying claim to the strip would have to prove his claim by other means.? Rav Ḥisda said, property of a proselyte which he took possession of in the North with the intent of also acquiring that in the South, or in the South with the intent of acquiring also that in the North, but did not have the intent of acquiring the strip in the middle506I. e., the boundary strip in between., he did not acquire unless he also intended to acquire the middle part507Also quoted in Bava Batra 3:1:2-7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Batra.3.1.2-7">Baba batra 3:1 (13d 1. 55). In the Babli, Baba batra55a, R. Joḥanan states that the boundary strip separates properties of the intestate proselyte. He also states Rav Ḥisda’s position even for commercial real estate transactions (Baba batra53a/b).. A baraita508Tosephta Peah 2:10. disagrees with Rav Ḥisda: If a proselyte died and Jews plundered his property, if one takes possession of the ground he is obligated for everything509Tithes and all obligatory gifts to the poor.. If he took possession of standing grain, he is obligated for fallen stalks, forgotten sheaves, and peah but freed from tithes. Does not the air separate between stalks510Since single stalks can be picked up by the owner, not subject to the law of gleanings reserved for the poor, if the air separates the ownerless stalks the entire crop would be exempt from that law. This contradicts Rav Ḥisda who holds that any ground not taken in possession separates properties of the intestate proselyte.? There, we have stated511Bava Batra 5:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Batra.5.4.1">Mishnah Baba batra 5:9, speaking of a transaction involving a field of flax.: “If he tore off anything connected to the ground, he took possession.” Samuel said, he took possession only of that leaf. But did we not state: “If it was connected to the ground and he tore off anything, he took possession”? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Eudaimon the emigrant512He emigrated from Galilee to Babylonia. confirmed it: Samuel will agree, for proselyte’s property513A proselyte’s standing crop cannot be acquired by harvesting a single stalk, but only by taking the entire crop. Otherwise, it can be acquired only by taking possession of the land and paying taxes on it. In the Babli, Baba batra 87a, Rav Sheshet explains the problem away by postulating that the seller of the crop also sold a peruṭah’ s worth of ground and that the movable crop was taken as possession together with the fictitious real estate..
רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּעֵי. הַמְּטַלְטְלִין מָהוּ שֶׁיִּקָּנוּ בִּגְרִירָה. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. מַה צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ. בְּעוֹרוֹת הַקָּשִׁים. אֲבָל בְּעוֹרוֹת הָרַכִּים לֹא קָנָה עַד שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. הַגוֹנֵב כִּיסּוֹ שֶׁלַּחֲבֵירוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוֹ בַּשַׁבָּת חַייָב. שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַייֵב בִּגְנֵיבָתוֹ שֶׁלְּכִיס עַד שֶׁלֹּא קִידְּשָׁה עָלָיו הַשַּׁבָּת. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה גוֹרֵר בּוֹ וְיוֹצֵא פָטוּר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחָלָה עָלָיו מִיתָה וְתַשְׁלוּמִין כְּאַחַת. הָא אִם לֹא חָלָה עָלָיו מִיתָה וְתַשְׁלוּמִין כְּאַחַת חַייָב. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְייָה. תִּיפְתָּר בְּאִילֵּין כִּיסַּייָא רַבְרְבָייָא דְּאוֹרְחֵיהוֹן מִתְגְּרָרָה. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Can movables be taken into possession by dragging? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, what is his problem? With hard hides514Which are too heavy to be lifted.. But soft hides are not taken into posession until lifted515Movables which can be lifted are taken into possession only by being picked up and then moved; heavy movables can be taken into possession simply by being moved on the ground.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If somebody steals another person’s pouch and removes it on the Sabbath, he is obligated since he already is obligated for the theft of the wallet before he comes in conflict with the holiness of the Sabbath516Tosephta Baba qama 9:19. A person committing two crimes simultaneously can be prosecuted only for the more serious crime even if this prosecution is impossible because of external circumstances (for example, if the rabbinic court has only civil but no criminal jurisdiction, or if the civil offense can be proven by the standards of civil procedure but the criminal act cannot be proven by the stricter standards of criminal law; cf. Terumot 7:1:11-14" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.7.1.11-14">Terumot 7:1, Notes 51–71, paralleled in Ketubot 3:1:7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.3.1.7">Ketubot3:1, Note 30.)
Since the thief incurred the liabilities for his theft the moment he took the pouch in his victim’s room but he violated the Sabbath prohibition only when he left and transported the pouch from a private to the public domain, the capital crime of violating the Sabbath is not connected with the theft. Paralleled in Babli Šabbat 91a, Ketubot.31a">Ketubot31a, where some unconnected problems are raised about the Sabbath prohibition of moving between domains; Baba batra 86a, Sanhedrin.72a">Sanhedrin72a; a different version in Bava Kamma 3:4:2-5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Kamma.3.4.2-5">Baba qama3:4 (3c 1. 58ff.).. But if he was dragging it until he left, he is free since the obligations of capital crime and restitution fall on him simultaneously517Dragging a person’s pouch in that person’s domain does not transfer possession to the person dragging.. Therefore, if the obligations of capital crime and restitution do not fall on him simultaneously he is obligated518If the theft happened on a weekday and the thief only dragged, never lifted, the pouch, he nevertheless is obligated for double restitution. He cannot be liable for double restitution unless he took possession. This seems to contradict R. Abba bar Mamal.. Rebbi Mattania said, explain it with large pouches which usually are dragged519And therefore acquired by dragging. In Baba batra 86a, in the name of Rav Ada bar Mattanah..
מְנַיִין לָֽמְדוּ לְגִילְגּוּל שְׁבוּעָה. מִסּוֹטָה. אָמֵן מֵאִישׁ זֶה. אָמֵן מֵאִישׁ אַחֵר. עַד כְּדוֹן דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן רְאוּיִין לְהַשְׁבִּיעַ. דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְהַשְׁבִּיעַ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. אָמֵן שֶׁלֹּא סָטִיתִי אֲרוּסָה וּנְשׂוּאָה שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם וּכְנוּסָה. אֲרוּסָה וְשׁוֹמרֶת יָבָם רָאוּי הוּא לְהַשְׁבִּיע. אַתְּ אָמַר מְגַלְגְּלִין. וְהָכָא מְגַלְגְּלִין. 520This paragraph and the next are from Soṭah 2:5 (ס, Notes 166–174). In the Babli, the parallel is Kiddushin.27b">Qiddušin 27b. From where did they learn rollover of oaths? From the suspected wife: Amen from this man, Amen from any other man. That refers to subjects he is able to make her swear about. What about subjects he is not able to make her swear about? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, let us hear from the following: “Amen that I was not deviant preliminarily married and married, waiting for the levir and taken in.” Can he make her swear when she is preliminarily married or waiting for the levir? Nevertheless one rolls over.
אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. מַה זוֹ בְּאָלָה וּבִשְׁבוּעָה אַף כָּל־הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּאָלָה וּבִשְׁבוּעָה. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. בְּזוֹ אָלָה וּשְׁבוּעָה וְאֵין כָּל־הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּאָלָה וּבִשְׁבוּעָה. הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר. מָאן דְּאָמַר. מַה זוֹ בְּאָלָה וּבִשְׁבוּעָה אַף כָּל־הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּאָלָה וּבִשְׁבוּעָה נִיחָא. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר. זוֹ בְּאָלָה וּשְׁבוּעָה וְאֵין כָּל־הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּאָלָה וּבִשְׁבוּעָה. לְגִילְגּוּל אַתְּ לָמֵד וְלִשְׁבוּעָה אֵין אַתְּ לָמֵד. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. מַה זוֹ בְּאָמֵן וּבְאָמֵן. אַף כָּל־הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּאָמֵן וּבְאָמֵן. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. זוֹ בְּאָמֵן וּבְאָמֵן. אֵין כָּל־הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּאָמֵן וּבְאָמֵן. הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר. מָאן דְּאָמַר. מַה זוֹ בְּאָמֵן וּבְאָמֵן אַף כָּל־הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּאָמֵן וּבְאָמֵן. נִיחָא. וּמָאן דְּּאָמַר. זוֹ בְּאָמֵן וּבְאָמֵן וְאֵין כָּל־הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין בְּאָמֵן וּבְאָמֵן. כְּלוּם לָֽמְדוּ לְגִילְגּוּל שְׁבוּעָה אֶלָּא מִסּוֹטָה. לְגִילְגּוּל אַתְּ לָמֵד. וּלְאָמֵן אָמֵן אֵי אַתְּ לָמֵד. Some Tannaïm state: Since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath. Some Tannaïm state: This one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath. They wanted to say, the one who said, since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath, is understandable. The one who said, this one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath, can you infer for rollover only but not for oath? Some Tannaïm state: Since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. Some Tannaïm state: This one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. They wanted to say, the one who said, since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen, is understandable. The one who said, this one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen, did one not infer rollover of oaths from the suspected wife? Can you infer for rollover only but not for Amen, Amen?