Bava Batra 55a (נה.) — the Talmud in English

If so,

let my master do it for me

[“Let his honor do it for me”] as well:

in accordance with the other statement of Shmuel! For Shmuel said

above, on page 54a: If a person came and struck the ground of a field with a hoe once in order to acquire it,

he acquired only the place of his hoe!

According to this, the second person acquired only the place of his hoe, and I will establish ownership of the rest of the field.

Rav Naḥman said to him

—to Rav Huna:

In this matter, I hold in accordance with your teaching

[In this case that you mentioned, I hold as stated in your teaching]

! For Rav Huna said that Rav said

above, on page 54a: With regard to a field demarcated by its boundaries,

once he hoed a single stroke in it, he acquired

it

all of it!

Rav Huna bar Avin sent

: A Jew who purchased a field from a gentile

for money without a document,

and another Jew came and took possession of it, it is not removed from his possession

as explained above, on page 54b; and Rav Huna bar Avin added and said:

And Rabbi Avin, Rabbi Ila, and all our Rabbis likewise agreed about this matter

Rabba said

: These three matters were related to me by Ukvan bar Neḥemya, the Exilarch, in the name of Shmuel

[These three matters were told to me by Ukvan bar Neḥemya—who was the Exilarch—in the name of Shmuel]:

a.

The law of the kingdom is law.

b.

And the presumption of ownership of the Persians is forty years

[The presumption of ownership of Persians is forty years], meaning: If Persians 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, as this is the law of the kingdom. c.

And these wealthy landowners

who purchase land for the land tax

—

their purchases are valid

[Wealthy landowners who purchase from the king’s officials the fields of poor people who do not pay the king’s tax, and who pay the tax in their stead—their purchase from the king’s officials is a valid purchase, and the fields cannot be taken from them, as this is the law of the kingdom]. And this applies

when their purchase is valid

for the land tax

[when the sellers received the land in exchange for an unpaid land tax owed by the owners, and those wealthy people paid it].

But for the poll tax

[when they received it in exchange for the poll tax unpaid by the landowner]—

not

is the purchase valid.

What is the reason

that it is not valid for the poll tax?

Because

the poll tax

rests upon the heads of the people

[the poll tax is imposed upon the people and not upon their land]. That is, the law of the kingdom does not allow the king to take their land for the poll tax, but only for the land tax itself. With regard to the poll tax, either they seize the person until he pays of his own accord, or he flees the city.

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said:

Even the barley in a barrel is subject to the poll tax

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

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

with it

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

If so

—that even barley in a barrel is subject to the king—then

you have nullified the inheritance

of the double portion of

the firstborn son

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

For

this

would be

—all the father’s property—

“property due to come”

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

and the firstborn does not take a double portion of property due to come as he does of property in his possession!?

Rav Ashi said to Huna bar Natan

:

If so

, as in Amemar’s objection,

even the land tax as well

[even the land tax should likewise be difficult]. That is, instead of Amemar objecting to Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua that everything is subject to the poll tax, he should object concerning the land tax, to which everyone agrees that the land is subject. If so, the land is not in the father’s possession for him to bequeath it to his firstborn son!?

Rather

, necessarily,

what can you say to resolve this

[what can be resolved]? You can find an inheritance for the firstborn son in the case of one

who paid the land tax and died

[a father who paid his land tax and then died].

Here too

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

who paid the poll tax and died

[who had already paid the poll tax and then died].

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

[Rava’s document scribes],

and they said to me: The halakha is in accordance with Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua

—that everything is subject even to the poll tax.

But the Gemara says about this:

That is not so

, for

there they needed to establish their practice

[the scribes did not say this as a ruling, but only to uphold their own actions], since they were writing deeds of sale for land taken for the poll tax, and therefore they said that this was the halakha.

And

further

Rav Ashi

said:

Even the idle resident assists the city

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

And this applies

—that he is obligated to pay—in a case

where the city saved him

[the city rescued him]. That is, he is obligated in the communal tax only when a fixed sum was required from the community, and the king’s officials went to collect from the townspeople as they saw fit until the total collected reached the fixed sum. If the king’s officials came and sought to take a large sum from this man, and the townspeople rescued him from them, then what they did not collect from him must be paid by the rest of the community; therefore he must participate like everyone else in this tax.

But the amnesty, it is assistance from Heaven

, meaning: When the king’s officials collected the tax from the other townspeople and exempted this man, he need not participate—even though the burden of the tax fell more heavily upon the rest of the community—for it is assistance from Heaven that they pardoned him.

Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

The boundary

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

and the ḥatzav

, a type of tree or grass with which Joshua demarcated the boundaries of each person’s portion— planted between two fields:

separate

with regard to establishing a presumption of ownership

of the property of a convert

, and one who takes possession of a field on one side of the boundary or the ḥatzav does not acquire the field on the other side, since they are like two fields.

But with regard to the corner of the field and ritual impurity

[this will be explained],

they do not

count as two fields.

When Ravin came

[when Ravin came],

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan: Even with regard to the corner of the field and ritual impurity

they are like two fields.

The Gemara asks:

With regard to the corner of the field, what is it

[with regard to what does the separation between two fields matter concerning the corner of the field]?

And we explain:

As we learned

in tractate Peah: If there is a separation between the fields, one must leave the corner of the field for each field, as we learned:

And these separate for the corner of the field

, obligating one to leave the corner of the field for each field:

The stream

, that is, “the enduring stream, which shall not be worked or sown”; it is hard ground filled with pebbles and stones, unfit for sowing, and this ground extended across the entire width of the field in its middle—

And the channel

of rainwater that ran across the middle of the field—