Bava Batra 55a — the Talmud in English

If so,

let my master do

[let my master honor me] likewise

according to the other statement of Shmuel! For Shmuel said

above, 54a: If a person came and struck the field with one hoe-blow in order to acquire it,

he acquired only the place of his hoe-blow!

And according to this, the second acquired only the place of his hoe-blow, while I shall establish possession in the rest of the field.

He said to him

Rav Nahman to Rav Huna:

In this matter, I hold like your teaching

[in this matter that you stated, I hold as your teaching]

! For Rav Huna said in the name of Rav

above, 54a: A field bounded by its borders,

once he weeded it with one hoe-blow, he acquired

the

whole of it!

Rav Huna bar Avin sent:

A Jew who purchased a field from a gentile

with money without a document,

and another Jew came and established possession over it, it is not removed from his possession

, in the manner explained above, 54b; and Rav Huna bar Avin added and said:

And so Rabbi Avin, Rabbi Ila, and all our masters were unanimous in the matter.

Rabba said:

These three matters Ukvan bar Nehemiah, the exilarch, related to me in the name of Shmuel

[these three matters Ukvan bar Nehemiah—who was the “exilarch”—told me in the name of Shmuel]:

a.

The law of the kingdom is law.

b.

And the aristuta of the Persians is forty years

[the Persians’ possession is forty years], meaning: Persians who held a field for forty years and sold it to a Jew, and the “first owner” came and claimed that it had been his and that the Persians had robbed it from him—the Jew need not return it to him, for such is the law of the kingdom. c.

And these wealthy estate-owners

who buy land for the taska—

their purchases are valid

[wealthy estate-owners who purchase from the king’s officials the fields of poor people who do not pay the king’s tax, and they pay the tax in their place—their purchase from the king’s officials is a valid purchase, and it cannot be removed from them, for such is the law of the kingdom].

And this applies

that their purchase is valid

for the taska

[when the sellers received the lands because of a land tax that had not been paid by the owners and was paid by those wealthy men],

but for the karga

[when they received them because of a poll tax that had not been paid by the owner of the land]—

not

is the purchase valid.

What is the reason

that for the poll tax it is not?

For

the poll tax

rests upon the heads of the people

[the poll tax is imposed upon the people and not upon their lands], meaning: “the law of the kingdom” does not allow taking their lands from them for a poll tax, but only for the land tax itself; whereas for the poll tax, either they seize him until he pays of his own accord, or he flees the city.

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said:

Even barley in a jug is subject to the poll tax

[even barley in a jug is subject to the poll tax], meaning: all movable property in the world is subject to the king for this tax, and if one purchased from the king’s officials anything that they collected for the tax, his purchase is valid according to the law of the kingdom.

Rav Ashi said: Huna bar Natan told me: Amemar found difficulty

with it

[Amemar found difficulty] with the words of Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua:

If so

, that even barley in a jug is subject to the king,

you have annulled the inheritance

of a double portion of

his firstborn son

of one who died without yet paying the king’s tax!?

For

this

would be

—all the father’s property—“

property destined to come”

[property that the father did not possess at the time of death, but that was destined to come to him], for all his property is subject to the king for that year’s tax, and it is as though it had been collected by the king and is not possessed by the father,

and the firstborn does not take from property destined to come as from possessed property!?

He said to him

Rav Ashi to Huna bar Natan:

If so

, according to Amemar’s difficulty,

even the taska as well

[even the land tax should likewise be a difficulty], meaning: Before Amemar raises his difficulty against Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua that everything is subject to the poll tax, let him raise a difficulty against the land tax, for according to everyone the lands are subject to it; if so, the lands are not possessed by the father so that he can bequeath them to his firstborn son!?

Rather

, necessarily,

what can you say

[what can be resolved]!? You find the inheritance of his firstborn son in the case of a father

who gave the taska and died

[a father who paid his land tax and died];

here too

—with regard to the poll tax—you find the inheritance of a firstborn son in the case of a father

who gave the karga and died

[he already paid the poll tax and afterward died].

Rav Ashi said: Huna bar Natan told me: I asked the scribes of Rava

[Rava’s document scribes],

and they told me: The halakha is like Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua

that everything is subject even to the poll tax.

But the Gemara says concerning this:

It is not so

, for

there they needed to uphold their practice

[the scribes did not say this, but only to uphold their deeds], for they used to write deeds of sale for lands taken because of the poll tax, and therefore they said that this was the halakha.

And

further

Rav Ashi said:

Even

a pardakhta assists the city

[a resident of the city who is idle from work, learning, and proper conduct, and does not engage in the settlement of the world at all; nevertheless, he must participate in the tax imposed by the king upon the community, even though he produces no profit in the city].

And this applies

that he is obligated to give, in a case

where the city saved him

[the city saved him], meaning: He is not liable for the community tax unless a fixed sum had been set that must be obtained from the community, and the king’s officials go to collect from the residents of the city as they see fit until the total of the collection reaches the fixed sum; and the king’s officials went and sought to take much money from him, and the residents of the city saved him from their hands. In that case, what they did not collect from him will be paid by the rest of the community, and therefore he must participate in this tax like everyone else.

But andiski is assistance from Heaven

, meaning: But when the king’s officials collected the tax from the other residents of the city and exempted this person, he need not participate—even though the tax burden was made heavier for the rest of the community—for it is assistance from Heaven that they waived it for him.

Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

The boundary

[a partition ten handbreadths high, or a trench ten deep] between two fields,

and the hatzav

, which is a kind of tree or grass with which Joshua marked out the boundaries of each person’s portion— planted between two fields:

They interrupt

with regard to possession

in the property of a convert

, and one who establishes possession in the field on one side of the boundary or the hatzav does not acquire the field on the other side, for they are like two fields.

But with regard to pe’a and impurity

[this is explained and proceeds]—

not

are they considered like two fields.

When Ravin came

[when Ravin came],

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: Even with regard to pe’a and impurity

they are like two fields.

The Gemara asks:

What is [the case of] pe’a

[with regard to what does the interruption between two fields help concerning pe’a]?

And we explain:

For we learned

in tractate Pe’a: If there is an interruption between the fields, one must give pe’a for each field and each field, as we learned:

And these interrupt with regard to pe’a

, requiring one to give pe’a for each field:

The ravine

, that is, “a steadfast ravine in which one does not work and does not sow,” and it is hard ground filled with gravel and stones, unfit for sowing; and this ground was in the middle of the field across its entire width—

And the streambed

[of rainwater that formed a partition in the middle of the field]—