Bava Batra 42a — the Talmud in English

And we answer: In fact, a sale conducted in the presence of witnesses does not become publicly known. Nevertheless, Rav holds that there is no need to be concerned about the loss of purchasers, because

there—

in the case of one who sells his field in the presence of witnesses—

the purchasers ![](pamud.bmp "

Precise page location")

brought the loss upon themselves [the purchasers themselves caused their loss]. That is to say, had the purchasers investigated the matter, they would have known that the seller was a debtor; since they did not investigate, they suffered the loss. But in the case of three purchasers, it would not occur to the claimant to investigate whether a sale had taken place. On the contrary, he would certainly assume that they were afraid to establish possession for three years in the name of a single person.

The Gemara—the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna—returns to challenge Rav’s statement that one who sells his field in the presence of witnesses collects from property subject to liens:

Гемара снова возражает против слов Рава, который сказал: продавший своё поле при свидетелях взыскивает из обременённых владений:

Could Rav really have said this

[Is it possible that Rav said so]!?

But didn’t we learn in the Mishna: One who lends money to another by means of a document

which becomes publicly known, he

collects from property subject to liens,

but one who lends money to another

by means of witnesses collects

only from unencumbered property, since this loan does not become publicly known, and the purchasers do not know that they must take precautions.

because this loan does not become public knowledge, and the purchasers do not know to take precautions.

If so, the same law should apply to liability for a warranty: if it was not created through a sale recorded in a document, the creditor collects only from unencumbered property. This is therefore a difficulty against Rav!?

And if you would say,

perhaps one might resolve the matter as follows: Indeed, the Mishna proves that the ruling is not in accordance with Rav. Nevertheless,

Rav has the status of a tanna

[he possesses the authority of a tanna]

and disagrees

with the Mishna!?

But Rav

himself

and Shmuel both say

as it is written in the Mishna:

an oral loan—

that is, a loan made before witnesses without a document—

is collected neither from heirs nor from purchasers, because a loan made before witnesses does not become publicly known, and we are concerned that the purchasers may suffer a loss.

because a loan made before witnesses does not become public knowledge, and we are concerned for the purchasers’ loss.

And we answer:

Are you comparing a loan to a sale

[

For

when a borrower takes a loan,

the borrower

takes it discreetly, so that his property will not be devalued because of it, [the borrower borrows only discreetly, so that people will not know that he needs money and pressure him by lowering the price of his land]. Therefore, there is concern that the purchasers may suffer a loss.

and therefore there is concern for the purchasers’ loss.

But

in the case of a sale [a sale],

the opposite is true:

one who sells land sells it publicly, so that the sale will become known, [the seller, on the contrary, tries to publicize the sale so that purchasers will come to buy it]. Therefore, we say that the purchasers brought the loss upon themselves, because had they investigated the matter, they would have learned of the sale.

The Sages taught:

If the father used

the field,

which had been presumed to belong to its owners,

for one year

in the presence of the claimant, and the claimant did not protest,

and the son

of the first holder used it for another

two

additional years; or if

the father used it for two

years,

and the son for one year; or if

the father used it for

one year,

one year,

and the son for one year,

one year,

and the purchaser

who bought from the son by means of a document used it for

one year,

an additional year,

this constitutes a presumption of ownership.

And we challenge this:

Does this mean that a purchaser

from an heir even when he has a document

becomes publicly known [is it indeed so that when one purchases land by means of a document, the sale becomes known, and therefore the claimant cannot say, “I thought you were afraid to establish possession for three years in the name of one person, because you were afraid to establish possession”]!?

And we raise a contradiction

And we challenge this

from the following beraita—a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna:

If the holder used

the property

in the presence of the father

of the claimant

for one year,

and the holder claims that he bought the field from the claimant’s father,

and

used it for another

two years in the presence of the son; or if he used it

for two years in the presence of the father,

two years,

and

for one year in the presence of the son,

one year; or if he used it

for one year in the presence of the father,

one year,

and for one year in the presence of the son, and in the presence of

the

purchaser

from the claimant

for one year, this constitutes a presumption of ownership.

And if it could enter your mind that a purchaser becomes publicly known [a purchaser of a field makes the sale known], then when the claimant sold the field to another purchaser after two years, and sold it by means of a document,

there is no greater protest than this,

for by doing so he declares that the land does not belong to the person holding it.

He said

Rather, certainly a sale does not become publicly known, and this “protest” does not reach the claimant; therefore, it is not a protest. This is consequently a difficulty against what is implied by the first beraita, namely, that a sale recorded in a document does become publicly known!?

He said

he answered,

Rav Pappa:

When that

beraita was taught, from which it apparently follows that a sale recorded in a document does not become publicly known, it was speaking

of one who sells

all

his fields

to a purchaser

without specification,

without specifying which parcels of land he is selling. In general, a document does become publicly known, but this does not count as a protest, because the holder does not know that the claimant is making any claim concerning the particular field that he is holding.

The following Mishna discusses two types of presumed ownership:

The first is a presumption of ownership established through three years of possession, which applies to land and slaves.

The second is a presumption of ownership with regard to movable property. It does not require three years; rather, whatever is in a person’s possession is presumed to belong to him.

Mishna:

The artisans

who receive utensils to repair them, launder them, or dye them, so that utensils belonging to other people were in their possession, and the artisan claims that he acquired them from the owners, while the owners claim that they gave him these utensils in order to repair them or dye them and the like.

And the partners

who were joint owners of land, and one held the entire land for three years, and one claims that he purchased his partner’s share of the land ; while the partner claims that this is indeed the way of partners: one uses the land for three years or more, and after him the other partner uses it in his place.

And the tenant farmers

who receive land to work it, and take as their wage one-half, one-third, or one-quarter of the produce, and it is known that he entered this field as a tenant farmer, and the tenant farmer consumed all the produce of the field for three years, and therefore he claims a presumption regarding the field. Opposite him, the owner of the field claims that the tenant farmer would pay him the value of his share of the produce, or that he recorded it as a loan owed by him.

And the guardians

of orphans and the like—

All of these

have no presumption.

And likewise,

not a man

, a husband who consumes the produce of his wife’s field does not have

a presumption

of three years

regarding the property of [

the fields of]

his wife

, and this is even when he has no right to consume her produce, because a woman is not particular with her husband, as is explained in the Gemara.

And not a woman

, a woman who consumes the produce from her husband’s field does not have

a presumption

of three years

regarding her husband’s property

, because a man is not particular with his wife that she consume the produce of his field.

And

also

not a father

has a presumption

regarding the son’s property

, because he is not particular with him.

And not a son

has a presumption

regarding the father’s property.

In what case are these matters stated

, with regard to all those concerning whom we have now learned that they have no presumption at all, and likewise what we have learned concerning land, that its presumption is a presumption only after three years—

with regard to one who holds

, one who wishes to remain in his possession and claims, on the strength of his possession, that the field is his.

But with one who gives a gift

, who comes to transfer his field to the recipient of the gift,

and

likewise

brothers who divided

their father’s inheritance and now come for each one to acquire his share,

and one who takes possession of the property of a convert

, which is ownerless, and whoever precedes to acquire it acquires it, and a person comes to acquire it—

In all these cases, if he

locked

the field [made a door for it], or

fenced

, made a wall for the field,

and breached [

or breached] an opening in the wall in order to enter through it, even if he did so only

to any extent [

as will be explained in the Gemara]—

this is

an acquisition

through possession.