Bava Batra 52b — the Talmud in English

Since the father was not deemed credible to claim concerning them that they were his, and

as Rav Huna bar Avin sent word: Objects that are made to be lent or rented, and one said

“They were purchased by me,”

he is not deemed credible,

for we say that they came into his possession by way of a loan or rental—

We have thus learned that since the father was not deemed credible, and he died, we remove them from the orphans, and this is unlike the words of Shmuel!?

And we conclude: Indeed,

it is difficult

for the words of Shmuel!

Rav Hisda said:

This was taught—

what Rav said: concerning the brother who conducts business within the household, that he must bring proof—

only

in a case such

that the

brothers

are not divided

in anything in the world, even

in their dough [

in their provisions], which they eat from one place; for then we say: From where does this one have what his brother does not have?—

but

if they

are divided

from one another even only

in their dough, say:

this brother

from his dough,

which was apportioned to him,

saved [

he economized].

Further, we explain this statement of Rav: “He must bring proof”:

Proof of what?

How will the brother bring proof that they are his?

Rabba said: Proof by witnesses,

that he purchased it with his own [money].

Rav Sheshet said: Proof through validation of the document,

that is, he will bring the hanpak [court confirmation that the document is not forged], and we rely on the fact that the court would not have validated the document unless it had investigated the matter and found that he was indeed the owner of the money.

Rava said to Rav Nahman:

Here is Rav, and here is Shmuel; here is Rabba, and here is Rav Sheshet; according to whom do you hold [

Here there are several approaches: the approach of Rav and the approach of Shmuel, and the approaches of Rabba and Rav Sheshet in Rav’s view; and you, according to whose view do you hold?]

He said to him,

Rav Nahman to Rava:

I know a teaching [

I know a beraita]

for it was taught:

One of the brothers who was conducting business within the household, and promissory notes and documents were issued in his name, and he said: “

They are mine, for they fell to me from my mother’s father’s house,”

he must bring proof,

in accordance with Rav; and Rav Nahman did not add an explanation as to whether he held like Rabba or like Rav Sheshet regarding the manner in which he must bring proof.

And likewise the woman,

who was widowed from her husband,

who conducts business within the household [

with the joint property inherited from her husband],

and promissory notes and documents were issued in her name, and she said: “

They are mine, for they fell to me from my father’s father’s house, or from my mother’s father’s house,”

she must bring proof.

And we raise a difficulty:

What is meant by “

and likewise

the woman”? It implies that the tannai came to teach us a novelty, that the law is so even with regard to a woman. And what novelty is there in this matter? What difference is there between her and the brother?

And we explain:

It might enter your mind to say: A woman, since the matter is advantageous to her, [

it is a distinction for her that the court trusts her to appoint her as a trustee over the orphans]—

for people say,

people: “

She is exerting herself before the orphans,”

that is, people also praise her for exerting herself on behalf of the orphans; and if so, we might say:

Presumably,

she did not rob the orphans [

she does not steal from the orphans], since she does not wish to damage her good name, and they must necessarily be hers, and she would not need to bring proof—

it teaches us

the beraita that she too must bring proof.

We learned in the Mishna:

In what case are these matters stated? With regard to one who takes possession; but with regard to one who gives a gift, and brothers who divided,

and one who takes possession of the property of a convert, if he locks, fences, or makes any breach, this is possession:

It implies ]from the wording of the Mishna, “In what case are these matters stated? With regard to one who takes possession, but with regard to one who gives ...,” that this is what it says: If it is a sale and purchase that requires “possessory proof” [when he has no document], then the law is three years; but with regard to one who gives a gift and all the rest, where “possessory proof” is not applicable, but rather “possessory acquisition,” then “if he locks, fences, or makes any breach, this is possession.” And we raise a difficulty concerning it: And is it so that

all

these things that we stated—

one who gives a gift and brothers who divided—

are not capable of possession

for three years

at all!?

And surely it is obvious that possessory acquisition for three years applies even to these, to deem him credible that it is his.

And we answer:

The Mishna is incomplete,

and this is what it teaches:

In what case are these matters stated

when possessory acquisition for three years is required?

With a possession accompanied by a claim,

that is, possession accompanied by a protest, and

such

as where the

seller says: “

I did not sell,”

and the purchaser says: “

I purchased”—

But possession that is not accompanied by a claim [

because it contains no denial],

such as one who gives a gift, brothers who divided, and one who takes possession of the property of a convert, for it is merely for acquisition [

he is taking possession merely for the sake of acquisition], and the owner of the land does not deny his right: if he

locks, fences, or makes any breach,

this is possession

to acquire the field.

Rav Hoshaya taught in the tractate of Kiddushin in the academy of Levi [

in the Tosefta to the tractate of Kiddushin arranged by Levi]:

He locked, fenced, or made any breach, in his presence,

of the seller or the giver of the gift,

this is possession.

And we raise a difficulty: Is it that when it is

in his presence

of the seller,

there is [

indeed it is possession], whereas when it is

not in his presence

of the seller,

there is not

possession!?

He said—

explained

Rava: This is what it says:

If the purchaser fenced or made a breach

in his presence

of the seller,

he does not need

the seller

to say to him

to the purchaser: “

Go, take possession and acquire,”

for once the seller agreed to sell it to him for such and such money, and this one took possession in his presence, it is possession; and because it is convenient for him to sell through this possession, he remained silent—

since the seller had agreed to sell it to him for a certain amount of money, and the purchaser took possession in his presence, this constitutes a presumption of ownership. Since the seller was pleased to sell it through this act of possession, he remained silent—