Bava Batra 53b (נג:) — the Talmud in English

And if he took possession of it in order

to acquire it and the other field

, it is ineffective; rather,

that

field alone, of which he took possession,

he acquires

, but

he does not acquire the other

, because the boundary strip interrupts between them.

And if he took possession of one of them in order

to acquire the other

alone:

even that

of which he took possession

he did not acquire,

for he did not intend to acquire it, and possession is effective only when done with his intention, since a person does not acquire without his intention.

Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma:

If

he took possession of one of them,

in order

to acquire it, the boundary strip, and the other field, what is the law

—does he acquire all of them?

The Gemara explains the two sides of the uncertainty:

Perhaps we say: This boundary strip belongs to this land

of the field of which he took possession, and when he took possession of the field, he acquired its boundary strip as well—

and this land

of the adjacent field

also belongs to it,

and therefore he will acquire that field as well—

and

it follows that he

acquires

everything.

Or perhaps: This stands by itself, and that stands by itself

the field stands by itself, and the boundary strip stands by itself; and it is not only that he did not acquire the adjacent field, but he did not acquire the boundary strip either.

And we conclude:

teiku.

Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma:

If he took possession of the boundary strip

itself, in order

to acquire

the

two

fields on its two sides,

what is the law?

That is, if you say that one who takes possession of a field does not acquire the boundary strip, this is because the boundary strip does not require the field and has no need for it at all; therefore, possession of the field is ineffective for it. But if he took possession of the boundary strip, the matter is uncertain, because:

Perhaps

this boundary strip is the tether of the land,

for it is subordinate to the field, since it guards it just as a tether guards an animal,

and he acquires

the fields through possession of the boundary strip.

Or perhaps: This stands by itself, and that stands by itself

the field stands alone and the boundary strip stands alone, and he does not acquire the field through possession of the boundary strip.

And we conclude:

And we conclude:

teiku.

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said:

Two houses

one situated behind the other,

and the inner one has the right of passage over the outer one, in order to leave to the public domain by passing through it. Thus, the outer house is subordinate to the inner one. There is a distinction between taking possession of the outer house and taking possession of the inner house:

If he took possession of the outer house:

If it was in order

to acquire it,

and he did not think at all about the inner house:

he acquired it

the outer house alone.

And if he took possession of it in order

to acquire it and

the

inner

house, it was ineffective, and

he acquired the outer house,

but

he did not acquire the inner house,

because the inner house is not at all subordinate to the outer house, such that possession of the outer house should be effective for the inner one.

And if he took possession of it in order

to acquire the inner house

alone:

even

the

outer house also he did not acquire,

since he did not intend to perform an act of possession in it.

If he took possession of the inner house:

If it was in order

to acquire it

alone, and he did not think about the outer house:

he acquired it

the inner house alone.

But if he took possession of it in order

to acquire it and

the outer house: he acquired both,

since the outer house is subordinate to the inner one with regard to the right of passage.

And if he took possession of it in order

to acquire

through it

the outer house

alone:

he did not acquire even the inner house.

And

said

further

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha:

One who builds large palaces

on

the land of

the property of a convert,

and another came and installed doors in them:

The second acquired them,

and not the first.

And we explain:

What is the reason

that the first did not acquire them?

Because

the first merely turned bricks over

the first did nothing more than turn bricks and arrange them one upon the other. That is, it is not the beginning of construction that effects acquisition, but the completion of construction; and the first did not complete the construction, since without doors this is not considered completed construction.

Rav Dimi bar Yosef said that Rabbi Elazar said:

One who finds palaces

already

built in the property of a convert, and plasters on them one square cubit of plaster

plaster with lime

, or makes one design

a carved design on the wall

:

he has

acquired them.

And how much

is the measure of one area of plaster or one design?

Rav Yosef said: One cubit

by one cubit,

the Rashash.

Rav Ḥisda said: And

only provided that that cubit is

opposite the entrance,

that is, on the wall opposite the entrance through which one enters the house, where it is most visible. But if he did this elsewhere, he requires more than one cubit.

Rav Amram said:

This matter

below

Rav Sheshet told us

on his own initiative,

and enlightened

our

eyes from a beraita

and illuminated our eyes to find a proof for it from a beraita. And this is what Rav Sheshet said:

One who spreads bedding

on the ground

in the property of a convert,

and lies upon it, thereby using the convert’s land: he

acquires

the field.

And he enlightened

our

eyes from a beraita—what is it?

From which beraita can a proof be brought for his statement? From this

which was taught: How

is a Canaanite slave acquired

through possession?

If

the slave locks

the slave

for him

for the master

his shoe, or unties for him

his

shoe, or carries

his

utensils

his garments

after him to the bathhouse, and undresses him

or undresses him, and likewise all of them

, and bathes him, anoints him

with oil,

scratches him,

dresses him, and puts on his shoes,

and lifts him

as will be explained below—

acquired him.

as a master acquires a slave.

It is evident from the entire beraita that the use that a master makes of a slave whom he wishes to acquire constitutes ḥazaka; similarly, one who uses land by spreading bedding on it for lying down acquires it.

The Gemara continues by citing the beraita:

Rabbi Shimon said: The ḥazaka shall not be greater

than lifting, for lifting acquires in every place.

And we explain:

What does he mean?

What does the first tanna mean when he said “he lifted him,” without explaining who lifted whom? And what was Rabbi Shimon answering him, since on its plain meaning it appears that Rabbi Shimon was saying the same as the first tanna?

This is what

the first tanna said:

If

he lifted him,

the slave,

for his master —

he acquired him,

since he served him; but if

his master lifted him, he did not acquire him,

because lifting applies only to movable property, as it is not customary to lift human beings.

And concerning this

Rabbi Shimon said

to disagree:

The ḥazaka

of one who put on his master’s shoes, clothed him, washed him, and undressed him

shall not be greater than lifting,

which the master performs for his slave;

for lifting

is indeed more stringent, as it

acquires—

movable property—

in every place,

even in the seller’s domain, whereas pulling does not acquire there; and the master also acquires the slave through lifting.

Rabbi Yirmeya Bir'aah

said that Rav Yehuda said: