Bava Batra 53a (נג.) — the Talmud in English

But if the buyer establishes possession

not in his presence

of the seller, then

the seller must

say to him

“Go, establish possession and acquire”

to the buyer.

Go, establish your holding and acquire it.”

Rav asked:

With regard to

a gift, what is the law

? Is it the same law, meaning, is it also necessary to say to him, “Go, establish possession and acquire”? Or perhaps, if the donor merely consented to give him the field as a gift, and the recipient went and established possession of it, he acquired it?

Said

the astonished

Shmuel: Why does Abba need to ask this

[what need does Rav—whose name was Abba—have to be uncertain about this]!? The matter follows by means of a kal va-chomer: With regard to a sale,

where the buyer gives him money

[for the buyer intends to give him money for the sale] and the seller does not suffer a loss, nevertheless,

if he said to him

the seller to the buyer,

“Go, establish possession and acquire”—

yes

[he indeed acquires it];

if not

he did not say this to him—

no.

—he does not acquire it.

With regard to a gift—

where the donor suffers a loss—

is it not all the more so

that it should be necessary to say to him, “Go, establish possession and acquire”? This is because there is concern that perhaps, by the time the recipient went to establish possession, the donor had already retracted his consent!?

And Rav, who was uncertain about the matter,

who was uncertain about it,

thought

that

one who gives a gift,

the donor, since he gives it out of affection,

gives generously,

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

And now the Gemara returns to the words of the Mishna, to the law taught in it: “If he locked, made a fence, or breached [the fence] even slightly, this constitutes possession.”

And how much

is

“even slightly”?

As stated by Shmuel!

As Shmuel said: If he made a fence around a fence,

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

and he completed it

the one establishing possession

to

a height of

ten

handbreadths, at which height strangers could no longer climb onto the partition and enter the field—

and breached

[or he breached]

a breach

[an opening] in the fence, widening the breach

so that

through the widening

a person could enter

who had an association with the field,

and leave through it, this constitutes possession.

And we raise an objection:

This fence

that he completed to ten handbreadths, which is considered making a fence “even slightly”—

what

are the circumstances!?

If you say that

even

initially they could not climb it, and now too

after he completed the fence

they cannot climb it,

[if we explain it as follows: Initially the fence was less than ten handbreadths high, but nevertheless it was impossible to climb it—for example, it was sloped or built on a slope—and even after he completed it to ten handbreadths it was impossible to climb it], this cannot be said, because if so:

What did he accomplish

[what benefit did he provide]!? Any construction that serves no purpose does not constitute possession.

Rather,

explain it

as follows: Initially they could climb it

[before he raised it, it was possible to climb it and enter the courtyard], at least with difficulty,

but now,

once he raised it,

they cannot climb it

at all. This too cannot be said, because if so:

He

accomplished a great deal

[he provided much benefit by raising it]!? And this is not called “even slightly.”

And we answer:

No, it is necessary to state this: Initially they could climb it easily, but now they can climb it only with difficulty

[before he raised it, it was possible to climb it and enter the courtyard easily; through the raising, it remains possible to climb it and enter, but the climbing and entering are difficult], and in such a case the fence is called “a fence even slightly.” We raise another objection:

This breach,

which is made so that one can enter and leave through it, and which is a breach “even slightly”—

what are the circumstances!?

If you say that

even

initially,

before he widened the opening,

they were able

to

enter through it

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

What did he accomplish

[what benefit did he provide]? This is not possession!?

Rather,

explain it

as follows: Initially they were unable to enter through it

at all,

but now,

through widening the opening,

they can enter through it

[it is possible to enter the courtyard]. This too cannot be said, because if so:

He

accomplished a great deal!?

And this is not called “he breached even slightly.”

And we answer:

No, it is necessary to state this: Initially they could enter through it with difficulty, but now they can enter through it easily,

[through the previous breach it was possible to enter the courtyard with difficulty, and he widened the opening until it was possible to enter through it comfortably].

Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

If

he placed a stone

in a hole that was in the fence of a convert’s field

and benefited

the field by placing the stone, as will be explained, or if

he removed a stone

from the fence in the field

and benefited:

this constitutes possession

to acquire the field through this action.

And we raise an objection:

What is meant by

“placed,”

and what is meant by

“removed”?

If you say: He placed a stone and blocked the water from entering it, or removed a stone and let the water out of it

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

if so, why does he acquire it? Is this not

one who drives away a lion from his fellow’s property,

and this does not constitute possession through which to acquire it!?

Rather, “he placed a stone”

means

that he confined

the water for it

[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 constitutes possession.

And

“he removed a stone”

means

that he opened the water for it

[he opened an entrance for water coming from outside to enter the field], and this is irrigation, which constitutes possession.

And

he further

Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

Two fields

belonging to a convert that are adjacent to one another,

and there is

—a deep ditch or a high partition—

one boundary between them

[a boundary is a deep ditch or a high partition]: If he

established possession in one of them

and intended

to acquire it

alone, without considering the second one,

he acquired it

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