Bava Batra 51a — the Talmud in English

And the Judges of the Exile

said: One acquires possession.

Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the Judges of the Exile!

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav:

Did

the master retract from his teaching [did you retract]!? For Rav himself said that one does not acquire possession of the property of a married woman, and not in accordance with the Judges of the Exile.

He said to them

Rav:

They spoke reasonably, in accordance with Rav Yosef,

that is, I did not say that the halakha is in accordance with them except in a case where that other person had acquired possession for part of the period of possession during the husband’s lifetime and for three years during the wife’s lifetime, for in this case he has a presumption of ownership, as Rav Yosef said above, on page 49b.

We learned in the Mishna: A man does not have a presumption of ownership with regard to his wife’s property,

nor does a woman have a presumption of ownership with regard to her husband’s property:

And we raise a difficulty: But

it is obvious

that a woman does not have a presumption of ownership with regard to her husband’s property!? For

since she has food, it is food that she is eating

because he is obligated to provide her with food; that is, everyone knows that she enters it only for the produce, for her sustenance, and he need not protest!?

And we answer:

It is necessary

for our Mishna to teach that she has no presumption of ownership only in a case such as

where he designated other land for her sustenance [the husband designated other land for her sustenance]; nevertheless, she has no presumption of ownership with regard to the husband’s property, because the husband is not particular if she eats more than her due!

And we infer from what our Mishna said, that a woman does not have a presumption of ownership with regard to her husband’s property, to prove that she purchased it from him:

this implies that if there is proof—

if she brings other proof that the husband sold it to her—

there is,

she can claim, “It is purchased by me,” that is, the sale is valid; but why!?

But

let him say [let the husband say], “Although she purchased the land from me with money, the money is mine, for whatever a woman acquires, her husband acquires; and although I accepted the money as consideration for the sale, I did not intend to accept it as an act of acquisition, but rather

it was

to reveal money

that she had concealed from me

is what I wanted [I wanted, through the sale that I made, to reveal whether she had concealed money from me], but I did not intend to transfer ownership of it to her”!?

Does

it follow from our Mishna that it follows the view that holds:

from our Mishna that it follows the opinion of the one who holds:

If one sells a field to his wife, she acquires it, and we do not say: It is to reveal money that he wanted?

And we answer:

No,

do not prove this from our Mishna, because

say

in explaining the inference from our Mishna:

this implies that if there is proof,

with proof of

a deed of gift,

but if she brought a deed of sale, indeed it may be said that she did not acquire it, because it is to reveal money that he wanted!

Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna:

Were you not with us last night in the study house at the boundary,

you were not last night with us in our study house at the end of the boundary, when we said excellent novelties!

Rav Huna said to him,

Rav Huna to Rav Naḥman:

What excellent novelties did you say

what were the excellent novelties that you said last night?

Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna: This is what we innovated:

If one sells a field to his wife, she acquires it, and we do not say that it is to reveal money that he wanted!

He said to him,

Rav Huna to Rav Naḥman: But

it is obvious

that this is the law, because

remove the money from here and she acquires it by the deed

even if you remove the acquisition through money from here, surely she acquires the field through the deed!

That is, even if you say that concerning the acquisition through money we say that it is not an acquisition because it is to reveal money that I wanted, nevertheless concerning the acquisition through a deed it is not applicable to say, “It is to reveal money that I wanted,” and

did we not learn

[is it not taught in the Mishna] that a deed acquires land!? For we learned in Kiddushin 26a:

Property that has responsibility

[land]

is acquired with money, with a deed, and through possession!?

Rav Naḥman said to him,

Rav Naḥman to Rav Huna:

And was it not stated concerning it, Shmuel said: They taught—

that land is acquired through a deed—

only with a deed of gift, but with a deed of sale, he does not acquire until he gives him its value!?

And since a deed of sale is not effective without giving the money, it would be possible to say, “It is to reveal money that I wanted,” and she does not acquire!

Rav Huna said to Rav Naḥman:

And

is it

not the case that Rav Hamnuna raised an objection

[is it not the case that Rav Hamnuna challenged] Shmuel’s words from this, as it was taught concerning that Mishna:

With a deed, how

are land properties acquired?

He wrote to him

the seller to the buyer

on paper or on earthenware, even though it is not worth a peruta: “

My field is sold to you, my field is given to you,”

it is sold and given;

it is thus explained that a deed acquires even in a sale, and not as Shmuel said, that a deed acquires only in a deed of gift!?

And since Rav Hamnuna was refuted, and the deed alone acquires, there is no need to teach us that we do not say, “It is to reveal money that he wanted,” in a case where he sold it to her by deed.

Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna:

And

is it

not the case that he raised the objection and resolved it

[is it not the case that we learned that Rav Hamnuna challenged Shmuel and also answered his challenge]: Here, in the beraita of “With a deed, how,” what are we dealing with?

With one who sells his field because of its poor quality

[because it is poor], for in the sale of such a field he certainly resolved to transfer ownership through the deed, while the money would be a debt upon the buyer.

And if so, Shmuel’s words stand: the deed does not acquire until he gives its value; and again, it is not so obvious that we do not say, “It is to reveal money that he wanted,” and therefore we needed to innovate this last night.

And Rav Ashi said

to resolve the difficulty against Shmuel from the beraita of “With a deed, how ... My field is sold to you”:

In fact, this beraita is not dealing with a deed of sale, for in that case he does not acquire until he gives its value, as Shmuel said; and what we learned, “My field is sold to you,” is in truth a deed of gift, and

he wished to give it to him as a gift, and why did he write to him in the language of a sale, “

my field is sold to you”:

in order to improve

the

power

of the recipient, so that if a claimant comes against the field, the giver will be obligated to compensate him—in order that the recipient of the gift not have a grievance against the giver—as he must compensate him when he sells him a field and the buyer gives money; and this is the meaning of the beraita: “With a deed, how: He wrote to him on paper ... My field is sold to you and it will also be given to you,” it is sold, so that its responsibility rests upon the giver according to the law of a seller, and it is also given, with regard to the fact that another cannot come against it by the law of dina de-var metzra, for the law of dina de-var metzra does not apply to a gift.

An objection was raised by

Rav Naḥman, who said: If one sells a field to his wife, she acquires it, and we do not say, “It is to reveal money that he wanted,” from this that was taught:

If he borrowed

the master

from his slave,

his own, and wrote him a loan document by which he encumbered all his property,

and then emancipated him;

or if the husband borrowed

from the woman,

his own,

and divorced her: they have nothing against him,

for the money is not theirs!

But

what is the reason

that he is not obligated to pay them!? Is it

not because we say

that these persons did not intend to encumber their property, but rather

to reveal money—

that of the slave or the woman—

is what he wanted!?

And we answer:

That case is different

in the beraita, which deals with a loan and not with a sale, for we are certain

that it is not pleasing to him—

to the master and to the husband—

to make himself

“

A borrower is a slave to the lender” if he can free himself from this in some manner!

если он может каким-либо образом избежать этого!

Rav Huna bar Avin sent

to the students of the study house:

If one sells a field to his wife:

She acquires it

the woman, and we do not say that it is to reveal money that he wanted,