Bava Batra 53b — the Talmud in English

And if he took possession of it in order to

acquire it and its fellow

, it was not effective; rather,

that

field alone, which he took possession of,

he acquired

, but

he did not acquire its fellow

, because the boundary interrupts.

And if he took possession of one of them in order

to acquire its fellow

alone:

even that one

of which he took possession

he did not acquire

, for he did not intend to acquire it, and hazaka is only with his knowledge, since a person does not acquire without his knowledge.

Rabbi Zeira raised a question:

If

he took possession of one of them

in order

to acquire it, and the boundary, and its fellow, what is the law

—that he should acquire them all?

And the Gemara explains the sides of the uncertainty:

Do we say: This boundary is that of this land

[of this field of which he took possession], and when he took possession of the field, he also acquired its boundary—

and it is also the boundary of this land

[of the adjoining field]

itself

, and if so, he will also acquire it—

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 stands by itself], and it is obvious that he did not acquire the adjoining field; rather, he did not even acquire the boundary.

And we conclude:

teiku.

Rabbi Elazar raised a question:

If he took possession of the boundary

itself in order

to acquire

the

two

[the two fields on its two sides],

what is the law?

That is to say, if you should conclude: The reason one who takes possession of a field did not acquire the boundary is that the boundary does not need the field and has no need of it at all; therefore possession of the field does not benefit it. But if he took possession of the boundary, there is room for uncertainty, because:

For

this boundary is the rein of the land

, it is subordinated to the field, because it guards it just as a rein guards the animal,

and he acquires

the fields through possession of the boundary.

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

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

And we conclude:

teiku.

Rav Nahman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha:

Two houses

that were

one inside the other

, and the inner one has a right of passage over the outer one, to go out to the public domain through it; thus, the outer one is subordinated 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 one:

If it was in order

to acquire it

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

he acquired it

—the outer one alone.

And if he took possession of it in order

to acquire it and

the

inner

house, it was not effective; and

he acquired the outer house

, but

he did not acquire the inner house

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

And if he took possession of it in order

to acquire the inner one

alone:

even

the

outer house also he did not acquire

, for he did not intend to perform hazaka in it.

If he took possession of the inner one:

If it was in order

to acquire it

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

he acquired it

—the inner house alone.

But if he took possession of it in order

to acquire it and

the outer one: he acquired both

, since the outer one is subordinated to the inner one for 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 one.

And

said

further

Rav Nahman in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha:

One who builds large palaces

on

the land of

the property of a convert

, and another came and set doors in them:

the second acquired

them, but not the first.

And we explain:

What is the reason

that the first did not acquire them?

Because

the first merely turned bricks

[the first did nothing except turn over bricks and arrange them one upon another]; that is, it is not the beginning of the construction that acquires, but the completion of the construction that acquires. And the first did not complete the construction, for without doors there is no completion of construction.

Rav Dimi bar Yosef said in the name of Rabbi Elazar:

One who finds palaces

already

built on the property of a convert, and plasters in them one coating

[plaster with lime]

or one design

[an engraved design on the wall]

one:

behold, he

acquired them.

And how much

is the measure of one coating or one design?

Rav Yosef said: A cubit

by a cubit

, Rashash.

Rav Hisda said: And

only provided that that cubit is

opposite the entrance

, meaning, on the wall opposite the way of entry through the house’s doorway, where it is seen most; but if he did this elsewhere, he requires more than a cubit.

Rav Amram said:

This matter

below

Rav Sheshet told us

on his own,

and illuminated

our

eyes from a beraita

[and illuminated our eyes to find for him a proof from a beraita]; and so Rav Sheshet said:

One who spreads out bedding

on the ground

on the property of a convert

, and lies upon it, so that it is found that the ground of the convert served him: behold, he

acquired

the field.

And he illuminated

our

eyes from a beraita: what is it?

[From which beraita can proof for his words be brought?] From this:

For it was taught: How

is a Canaanite slave acquired

through hazaka

? If

the slave locked

for

him

[for the master] his

shoe, or untied for him

his

shoe, or led

his

utensils

[clothing]

behind him to the bathhouse, and undressed him

[or he undressed him, and likewise all of them],

and bathed him, anointed him

with oil,

scratched him

, and dressed him, and put on his shoes

, and lifted him

[this is explained below]—

Acquired him the master for the slave.

as a master acquires a slave.

It is thus explained throughout the baraita that the use which the master makes of the slave whom he wishes to acquire is considered ḥazaka, and likewise, one who uses land to spread mattresses upon it in order to lie on them acquires it.

And the Gemara continues by bringing the baraita:

Rabbi Shimon said: The ḥazaka shall not be greater

than lifting, for lifting acquires in every place.

And we explain:

What is he saying?

What did the first tanna mean when he said “he lifted him,” since he did not explain who lifted whom? And what did that Rabbi Shimon answer, for according to its plain sense it appears that Rabbi Shimon said the same as the first tanna?

This is what

the first tanna said:

If

he lifted

the slave

for his master —

he acquired him,

for he served him; but if

his master lifted him, he did not acquire him,

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

And concerning this

Rabbi Shimon said

to dispute:

The ḥazaka

of putting on shoes, clothing, washing, and undressing

shall not be greater than lifting

by which the master lifts his slave,

for lifting

is indeed more stringent, since it

acquires—

movable property—

in every place,

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

Rabbi Yirmeya of Beira

said in the name of Rav Yehuda: