Bava Batra 53a — the Talmud in English

But if the buyer establishes the ḥazaka

not in his presence

of the seller, then

the seller must

the seller

say to him

to the buyer, "

Go, establish possession and acquire."

Rav asked:

in

the case of a gift, what is the law? The same law applies: Is it also necessary to say to him, "Go, establish possession and acquire"; or perhaps, if the giver merely consented to give him the field as a gift, and the recipient went and established possession of it—he acquired it?

, what is the law? Is the same true, meaning that he must say to him, “Go, establish your holding and acquire it”? Or perhaps, if the giver merely consented to give him the field as a gift, and the recipient went and established his holding in it, he acquired it?

Said

Teima

Shemuel: What is there for Abba to ask about? [What room is there for Rav—whose name was Abba—to be uncertain about this matter?] Surely the matter follows by a kal va-chomer: In the case of a gift, it is necessary to say to him, "Go, establish possession and acquire"—

What room is there for Rav—whose name was Abba—to be uncertain about this? The matter follows by an a-fortiori inference that in the case of a gift he must say to him, “Go, establish your holding and acquire it”:

Now, if in the case of a sale, in which he gives him money [for the buyer intends to give him money for the sale]

and the seller suffers no loss, nevertheless

if

the seller says to the buyer, "

Go, establish possession and acquire"—

yes [he indeed acquires];

—he indeed acquires it;

if he does not

say this to him—

no.

—he does not acquire it.

A gift—

in which the giver suffers a loss—

all the more so

that it should be necessary to say to him, "Go, establish possession and acquire," because there is reason for concern: perhaps by the time this one went to establish possession, the giver had already retracted!?

And Rav, who was uncertain about the matter,

who was uncertain about it,

thought that

for

one who gives a gift,

the giver of a gift, since he gives it out of affection,

gives generously, he gives generously. And since he consented to give him the field as a gift, it is no longer necessary to say to him explicitly, "Go, establish possession and acquire."

—he gives generously. And once he has consented to give him the field as a gift, it is no longer necessary to say explicitly to him, “Go, establish your holding and acquire it.”

And now the Gemara returns to the words of the Mishna, to the law that we learned in it: If he locked, fenced, or breached anything whatsoever, this is a ḥazaka."

And how much

is

“anything whatsoever”?

As stated by Shemuel!

For Shemuel said: If he fenced a fence,

where there was a fence built along the edge of the field, and it was not ten handbreadths high,

and the possessor completed it

the possessor

to

to a height of

ten

handbreadths, at which height strangers would not be able to climb onto the partition and enter the field—

and breached [or he breached]

—or he breached

a breach [an opening] in the fence,

which he widened the breach

so that

through the widening

a person could enter

through it, a person who has a connection to the field,

and leave through it; this is a ḥazaka.

And we raise an objection:

this fence

that he completed to ten, which is considered making a fence “anything whatsoever”

how

is this the case!?

If you say that

even

at first they could not climb it, and now too,

after he completed the fence,

they cannot climb it, [if we interpret it to mean: At first the fence was less than ten handbreadths high, but nevertheless it was impossible to climb it—for example, it was made on a slope or built on a sloping place—and even when he completed it to ten it was impossible to climb it], it cannot be said thus, for if so:

—if we interpret the matter in this way, that initially the fence was less than ten handbreadths high, but nevertheless it was impossible to climb it, for example, because it was built on a slope or on sloping ground, and even after he completed it to ten handbreadths it is impossible to climb it—this cannot be said, because if so:

what did he accomplish [what benefit did he bring]!?

And every construction without need is not a ḥazaka.

Rather,

interpret it

that at first they could climb it [before he raised it, it was possible to climb and enter the courtyard]

at least with difficulty,

and now,

when he raised it,

they cannot climb it

at all; this too cannot be said, for if so:

after all,

he accomplished a great deal [he brought much benefit by raising it]!?

And this is not called “anything whatsoever.”

And we answer:

It is necessary only [to state] that at first they could climb it easily, and now they can climb it with difficulty, [before he raised it, it was possible to climb it and enter the courtyard easily, and through the raising it is still possible to climb and enter, except that the climbing and entering are with difficulty], and in such a case the fence is called “a fence of anything whatsoever.”

We further raise an objection:

this breach

through which one can enter and leave, which is a breach of “anything whatsoever,”

how is this the case!?

If you say that

even

at first,

before he widened the opening,

they were able

to

enter through it [it was possible to enter the field] through the existing breach, it cannot be said thus, for if so:

—it is impossible to say this, because if so:

what did he accomplish [what benefit did he bring], and this is not a ḥazaka!?

? What benefit did he provide? This is not a valid holding!?

Rather,

interpret it:

that at first they could not enter through it

at all,

and now,

through the widening of the opening,

they enter through it [it is possible to enter the courtyard]; this too cannot be said, for if so:

—they can enter the courtyard. This too cannot be said, because if so:

after all,

he accomplished a great deal!?

And this is not called: “he breached anything whatsoever.”

And we answer:

It is necessary only [to state] that at first they could enter through it with difficulty, and now they can enter through it easily, [through the earlier breach it was possible to enter the courtyard with difficulty, and he enlarged the opening until it was possible to enter through it comfortably].

. Through the original breach it was possible to enter the courtyard only with difficulty, and he enlarged the opening until it became possible to enter through it comfortably.

Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

If

he placed a stone

in a hole that was in the fence of a convert's field [

and it benefited

the field through placing the stone, as he explains and proceeds], or

he removed a stone

from the fence in the field [

and it benefited]:

this is a ḥazaka

to acquire the field through this.

And we raise an objection:

What is meant by “[ [נתן]]he placed,”

placed” mean, and

and what is meant by “[ [נטל]]he removed”!?

removed” mean!?

If you say: He placed a stone and blocked water from it; he removed a stone and brought water out of it [by placing the stone he prevented a flood of water from entering the field, and by removing it he drained excess water from the field]—

—by placing the stone he prevented floodwater from entering the field, and by removing it he drained excess water from the field—

If so, why did he acquire it? After all,

this is removing a lion from his fellow's property,

and this is not a ḥazaka through which to acquire it!?

Rather, “he placed a stone”,

means

that he joined

the water to it [he joined the water in the field so that it would not flow outside, so that it would irrigate the field], and this is like irrigating the field, which is a ḥazaka.

—he confined the water in the field so that it would not flow out, in order to irrigate the field—and this is like irrigating the field, which is a valid holding.

And

“he removed a stone”,

means

that he opened it to the water [he opened an opening for water coming from outside to enter the field],

and this is irrigating, which is a ḥazaka.

And

further

Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Two fields

belonging to a convert, adjacent to one another,

and a boundary [it is a deep ditch or a high partition]

—a deep ditch or a high partition—

between them:

If

he established possession in one of them

and intended

to acquire it

alone, and did not think about the second one,

he acquired it

the field in which he established possession; but he did not acquire its fellow, since there is a boundary between them and they are considered two fields.