Bava Metzia 108b (קח:) — the Talmud in English

And if not,

if the field that he sold him in the midst of his other fields resembles the other fields surrounding it, we are concerned that the purchaser

is employing a ruse,

and intends initially to purchase the field situated among the seller’s fields, so that he will himself be considered a neighbor with respect to the seller’s other fields, and afterward purchase the other properties by virtue of the law of the neighboring claimant, thereby depriving the original neighboring claimants of their rights. Therefore, we immediately remove him from the field. One who gives his fellow a field

as a gift: the law of the neighboring claimant does not apply to it,

and the neighboring claimants cannot compel the recipient to sell it to them.

Ameimar said: If the giver of the gift wrote for him

the giver of the gift

a guarantee,

and undertook to provide the recipient with another field if creditors were to collect this field from him, we are concerned that in truth he sold it to him and is employing a ruse by writing a deed of gift. Therefore,

the law of the neighboring claimant applies to it.

If he sold

the owner of the field

all his properties to

the purchaser

one person,

and among the properties were also fields adjacent to another person’s boundary, who likewise wished to purchase the field adjacent to him, while the purchaser specifically wished to purchase all the properties together, and if he could not acquire all of them he would not acquire even part of them,

the law of the neighboring claimant does not apply to it.

For the Sages did not institute that the purchaser must act uprightly and fairly toward the neighboring claimant by allowing him to purchase the field adjacent to his own when this would cause a loss to the owner of the field. If he sold a field adjacent to a neighboring claimant’s field

to the original owners

of that field,

the law of the neighboring claimant does not apply to it .

If he purchased

a purchaser purchased a field adjacent to his fellow’s boundary

from a gentile,

the neighboring claimant cannot demand that he sell it to him under the law of the neighboring claimant,

and

likewise

if he sells

a parcel of land adjacent to a Jew’s boundary

to a gentile, the law of the neighboring claimant does not apply to it.

Now the Gemara explains the reason:

If he purchased from a gentile

a field adjacent to a Jew’s boundary, the law of the neighboring claimant does not apply to it, because

he can say to him,

the purchaser can say to the neighboring claimant, “I did you a favor by purchasing the field from the gentile, since

I drove a lion away from your boundary ,

If he sells to a gentile,

the law of the neighboring claimant does not apply, because the law of “you shall do what is upright and good” was not stated with regard to the seller, and he is permitted to sell even to one who is not a neighboring claimant, since if he wishes, he may refrain from selling it altogether. And that

gentile

who purchased it

is certainly not subject to “you shall do what is upright and good.”

Nevertheless, the Sages said that since selling the field to a gentile may cause harm to the Jew adjacent to the boundary,

“I will excommunicate him,”

to excommunicate him

we certainly excommunicate

him,

the seller

until he accepts responsibility for all harm that comes to

the Jew

on his account,

on account of the gentile.

One who lends money to his fellow and takes from him a parcel of land to serve as

a mortgage,

as collateral in his possession against the debt may, if he wishes, purchase the land directly from the borrower. And although that field has neighboring claimants,

the law of the neighboring claimant does not apply to it,

For Rav Ashi said: The elders of Mata Meḥasya said to me [שם מקום]

a place name

What

is the meaning of

“mortgage”? —

That it dwells with him!

For the lender becomes like a neighbor of that land. And necessarily,

what practical difference

is there in calling him a “neighbor,”

with regard to the law of the neighboring claimant,

meaning that he has precedence over everyone else, like a neighboring claimant.

And if the seller wished

to sell

one of his fields that is situated

in a

place

far

from his other fields,

and

with the money he receives for it he could

redeem,

purchase another field

in a

place

closer

than it,

and likewise, if he sells a field

of

ego

poor

quality,

and

with the money he receives in exchange for it he could

redeem it with a better one,

since he needs the money,

the law of the neighboring claimant does not apply to it,

rather, whoever precedes and purchases it acquires it.

For the Sages did not institute that one must wait until the neighboring claimant brings money and purchases the field, because perhaps by the time he brings his money, the nearby land or the better field that the seller wished to purchase will already have been sold. And they said that one must act uprightly and fairly only where there is no loss to the seller.

Likewise, if the seller needs money in order

to

pay

the royal tax,

a tax to the king, and for this reason he sells his land adjacent to the boundary,

and

likewise, if he needs money

for the sustenance

of his wife, which he undertook to provide her in her marriage contract,

or for burial,

as he needs money to bury his dead, since he immediately requires the money,

the law of the neighboring claimant does not apply to it,

and he need not wait until the neighboring claimant comes to purchase the field.

For the Nehardeans say:

orphans to whom their father bequeathed land, who need

to

pay for it

the royal tax,

a tax to the king, or whose land is encumbered

for the sustenance

of the widow,

and

likewise, if money is needed

for the burial

of their father,

we sell

the orphans’ land

without an announcement,

without announcing it to the highest bidder.

And although property belonging to orphans is not sold without an announcement, where money is needed immediately, one does not wait for an announcement; all the more so, the law of the neighboring claimant does not apply where the seller immediately requires money.

One who sells a field adjacent to his fellow’s boundary

to a woman,

the neighboring claimant has no right to claim that field, since it is not customary for a woman to seek out land.

And

likewise, one who sells

to orphans,

the neighboring claimant cannot compel them to sell it to him, since there is no one to help them purchase another field.

And

likewise, a partner who sells

to

one of

the partners

of the field his share in the field,

the law of the neighboring claimant does not apply to it,

and the other partners cannot displace him from the field, since every partner is considered a neighboring claimant with regard to the entire field.

One who has a field to sell, and those who came to purchase it are

neighbors

who live with him in the same

city, and

also

field-neighbors,

who are neighbors of another field belonging to the seller and wish to purchase this one: since neither of them owns a field adjacent to the boundary of this field, the law of the neighboring claimant does not apply here. Nevertheless, good advice and the proper course are to say,

“The city-neighbors have precedence.”

If a

neighbor

of the seller

and a Torah scholar came to purchase the field, the Torah scholar has precedence ,

and likewise, if a

relative

of the seller

and a Torah scholar came to purchase it, the Torah scholar has precedence.

They raised a dilemma:

if

a neighbor and a relative came to purchase it, what

who has precedence?

Come and hear [משלי כז]

Proverbs 27:

“A close neighbor is better than a distant brother,”

so evidently, the neighbor has precedence.

If a neighboring claimant and a purchaser came to purchase the field, and their money differed:

these are good dinars,

whose weight is greater,

and these are sound dinars,

of high quality and readily accepted in commerce,

the law of the neighboring claimant does not apply.

For at times it is more convenient for the seller to receive money of greater weight, and at times he needs currency readily accepted in commerce. Therefore, he may sell it to whomever he wishes.

Likewise, if the neighboring claimant and the purchaser sent their money to the seller of the field, and

these,

the neighboring claimant’s money

was tied,

wrapped in a bundle,

and these,

the purchaser’s money,

was loose,

in an open bundle,

the law of the neighboring claimant does not apply.

The purchaser may purchase the field, since the seller does not wish to open a sealed bundle, as the neighboring claimant might later say to him, “There was more money in it.”

If a neighboring claimant has no money and a purchaser comes to purchase the field, if

the neighboring claimant said

the neighboring claimant:

“I will go and make the effort,”

“I will go to make the effort”

“and bring money,” we do not wait

we do not wait

for him,

and the purchaser may purchase the field.

But if

he said, “I will go and bring money”

that he has at home,

we examine the matter: If he is a man of means, who will go and bring the money, we wait

we wait

for him

until he brings his money and purchases it according to the law of the neighboring claimant.

But if he is not

a man of means,

we do not wait for him.

Land upon which houses were built, where the

land

was owned

by

one person

and the

houses

built upon it were owned

by

one

other

person: If the owner of the houses wished to sell a house to another,

the owner -

the owner of the

land can prevent it,

they say - and

the

owner of the houses must sell him the house according to the law of the neighboring claimant, since it is beneficial for the owner of the land that the building upon his land belong to him.

But if the owner of the land wished to sell his land to another,

the owner of the houses -

the owner of the houses

cannot prevent it, say the owners of the land,

from selling him the land, because the owner of the houses is not considered a neighboring claimant.

Likewise, land upon which date palms grew, where the

land

was owned

by one

and the

date palms

were owned

by one

other: If the owner of the date palms wished to sell his palms,

the owner of the land can prevent it, say the owners of the date palms,

that he must sell him the date palms according to the law of the neighboring claimant. But if the owner of the land wished to sell his land to another,

the owner of the

date palms cannot prevent it, say the owners of the land,

that he sell him the land, since the owner of the date palms is not considered a neighboring claimant. If a purchaser wishes to purchase

land

in order

to

build

houses

on it,

and

the neighboring claimant adjacent to the field wishes to purchase the

land

in order

to sow it,

the law is that

settlement

has precedence, and the law of the neighboring claimant does not apply.

A field adjacent to a field that is being offered for sale, with

a rocky ridge intervening between them,

a projection of rock in a place that cannot be plowed or sown,

or

if there was between the fields

a row of date palms

a dense row of date palms,

we examine: If

the neighboring claimant can

insert

his plow between them and plow

even one furrow with it,

running directly from his field to the adjacent field,

the law of the neighboring claimant applies to it,

since he benefits from purchasing the field adjacent to his own; therefore, he has precedence over everyone.

But if not,

if he cannot plow even one furrow from his field to the seller’s field,

the law of the neighboring claimant does not apply to it.

These four neighboring claimants

whose fields surrounded one field,

if one of them preceded the others and purchased

the field,

his purchase is a valid purchase

and he acquired it.

But if they all came together,

and demanded that the seller sell it to them under the law of the neighboring claimant,

we divide it

among all of them

in

such a manner that each one takes the portion in the shape of a triangle adjacent to his own portion. This division is called

“Go to the corners.” Rashi.