Gittin 58b — the Talmud in English

A beraita in accordance with Shmuel:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If he bought from the woman and then returned and bought from the man, his purchase is valid.

If he bought

from the man, and then returned and bought from the woman, his purchase is void, until she writes him

a document with

guarantee. [

And likewise with the sikrikon].

And the Gemara is astonished:

Shall we say that this is a tiyuvta of Rav

[Does this beraita contradict the words of Rav]!?

And we answer: It is not difficult, for

Rav could say:

What does the word

“guarantee”

also mean,

which is taught in the beraita? It does not mean an undertaking to pay in the event that they remove the land from the purchaser; rather, the very writing of the

document

is the “guarantee” and insurance that the woman will not return and sue the purchaser.

A. One who purchases a field from his fellow and has held it for three years need not preserve his document; even without a document he is believed to say, “I purchased this field,” for if he had not purchased it, how did the owners remain silent for three years and not protest? Their silence is evidence of the purchase.

B. If he held the field for three years without protest, but does not claim that he purchased it from the owners, he must return it to the owners, because this is “possession without a claim,” and it is ineffective to acquire the field.

The Sages taught:

One who

purchased

a field

from the sikrikon, and the purchaser consumed its produce

for

three years in the presence of the owners,

who remained silent and did not protest,

and

afterward

returned and sold it

the purchaser

to another.

The owners have no claim against the second purchaser,

because since the first purchaser held it for three years in the presence of the owners, this is evidence that the owners sold it, and the second purchaser’s purchase from the first is valid.

This implies that if the purchaser held it for three years and did not sell it to another, the purchase would have been void; and because the second purchased it from him, the owners have no claim against him.

And the Gemara is astonished:

What are the circumstances!?

If the second purchaser claims

and

says

to the owners: “

The first purchaser bought it from you,”

who gave you a quarter in accordance with the enactment of the Sages and purchased the field from you:

Then

even the first purchaser

who would make such a claim

also

would be believed, and he would not need to produce the document of purchase, since he held the land for three years, and a person need not be so careful to preserve his document.

And if so, the first purchaser need not sell it to the second in order to be believed with this claim.

And

if

it is speaking in a case such as

where he does not claim and says

the second purchaser: “

The first purchased it from you”:

:

If so,

even

the

second purchaser also cannot

hold the field, because it is possession without a claim of purchase, and “possession without a claim” is nothing, and he must return the field to its owners.

And if so, the question arises: What case is the beraita speaking of!?

Said

[he explained]

Rav Sheshet:

It is always a case where the second purchaser does not claim

to

him

[to the owners] that the first purchased it from them, because he does not know what the first did.

And nevertheless, since presumably the first purchased it from the owners—for he knew that it was stolen property in the hands of the sikrikon, and he would not have spent his money unless the owners agreed—

nevertheless, since presumably the first purchaser bought it from the owners—for he knew that the field was held unlawfully by the sikarikon, and he would not have invested his money unless the owners consented—

It follows that in

such a case

the court makes claims

for

an heir

[if he did not sell it but died], and

the court makes claims

for

the purchaser

the second one, and they say to the owners: Perhaps the first purchased it from you.

But the other one

[the first purchaser himself],

if he claims: “

I purchased it from you,”

there is

[indeed his claim is a valid claim], and the owners cannot remove it from him after he held it for three years.

But if he does not claim

on his own,

they do not

make a claim for him in court, and his purchase is void.

The Sages taught:

A gentile

who comes because of a debt

against a Jew, and the gentile forcibly takes his land for his debt.

And likewise one who comes

because of

extortion,

meaning that the gentile robs him without any debt, and the gentile then returns and sells it to a Jew.

There is not

in this purchase

the

law

of a sikrikon,

and even if it remained with him for twelve months, he cannot retain it, paying its owners a quarter as in the law of a sikrikon; rather, he is obligated to return it to its owners.

For in the case of a “sikrikon,” he fears that the gentile may kill him, and therefore he makes up his mind and transfers ownership to him; but here, since it is merely coercion, he does not resolve to transfer ownership to him. And although twelve months passed in silence, his silence is not evidence of forgiveness, because he awaits a time when he will be able to force him, and that time has not yet arrived.

And the beraita concludes:

And extortion itself must remain for twelve months.

And simply understood, the intention of the beraita is to a gentile who comes because of “extortion,” whose law is that after twelve months the purchaser may retain it, by paying a quarter to its owners.

And the Gemara is astonished:

But you said

at the beginning: One who comes because of

extortion, there is not in it

the law of

a sikrikon,

and it returns to its owners forever, and without payment!?

And we answer: The “extortion” of the conclusion is a sikrikon, and

this is what it says:

And

the sikrikon itself must remain for twelve months,

with the sikrikon; and if it remained less than this, it returns to its owners, if they wish to pay money to the purchaser, and the purchaser cannot retain it by paying a quarter.

Rav Yosef said: We have received

[a tradition is in our hands]:

There is no extortion in Babylonia.

And the Gemara thought that Rav Yosef testified that there is no actual phenomenon of “extortion” in Babylonia, with the practical consequence that if a Jew comes and protests against his fellow, saying, “This land that you purchased from the gentile was mine, and he robbed it from me,” he is not believed.

And the Gemara is astonished:

But we see

[do we not see]

that there is

extortion even in Babylonia!?

And we explain:

Rather, say: There is no

“

law of

[sikrikon]

in Babylonia,”

and the purchaser will not suffer a loss.

And what is the reason

for the matter?

Since there is a government office

[authority],

and the owners do not go

and

appeal

[to complain about the coercion] to the authority,

let us say

[we say] that their silence is evidence that

the owners forgave

it to the purchaser.

There was an incident involving

Gidel bar Reilai

[a man’s name], who

received land for a land tax

[the king’s tax on land] from

the sons of the valley

[the inhabitants of the valley].

For this was their practice: the king would sell one valley to a group of people in order that they give the king a certain sum of tax each year, and these people would divide the fields among themselves; each one would work his portion and give tax according to his portion.

The king’s tax collector did not collect from each one separately; rather, all the inhabitants of the valley gave it to one person, and he gave it to the king’s tax collector.

If one of the field owners departed, the king did not relinquish his portion; rather, the king’s tax collector collected the entire tax in full from the inhabitants of the valley.

Regarding a field whose owner departed and does not pay tax for it, the inhabitants of the valley are permitted to give it to one of them, so that he will pay the tax, and in return consume the produce for as long as its owner does not return.

Here too, the inhabitants of the valley gave the field to Gidel bar Reilai and told him to pay the tax on behalf of the owners, and in return to consume its produce.

Gidel advanced

and

gave

the king’s tax collector

money for three years

[the tax money for three years].

At the end

[of the year]

the original owners came

[the first owners came].

They said to him

the owners to Gidel:

The first year for which you paid

[the year whose tax you paid], you have already

consumed

its produce.

But

now,

[from this point onward],

we will give

the tax of the coming years, and

we will consume

the produce.

They came before Rav Pappa

[they came to Rav Pappa for Torah judgment], because Gidel wanted to receive back what he had given the king for the coming two years.

However, the original owners did not wish to pay him, since the king’s tax collector was demanding that they pay again, because it was the king’s practice to demand the tax anew when the owners changed.

Therefore Gidel sued the inhabitants of the valley, to compensate him for what he lost, but the inhabitants of the valley did not wish to pay.

Rav Pappa thought

that

to write for him

[for Gidel] a document of

collection

[authorization to collect and seize land]

from the inhabitants of the valley

[from the inhabitants of the valley].

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa:

If so,

it turns out that you

have made

the matter as though the king were

a sikrikon! For, according to the later Mishna,

the purchaser from a sikrikon suffers no loss, and the owners return his money to him; or the land remains with him and he gives a quarter to the owners.

Here too you say that Gidel bar Reilai will suffer no loss at all.

But the cases are not equal, for the king did not demand that he pay in advance!?

Rather, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:

Gidel lost his money; figuratively speaking, he is like one who

placed his money on the horn of a deer,

and the deer fled, and he lost his money.

We learned in the Mishna:

This is the first Mishna; the court after them said: One who purchases from a sikrikon gives the owners a quarter:

Rav said:

The purchaser gives the owners

a quarter in land, or a quarter in money.

For the “quarter” that we learned means a quarter of the money that he himself paid; thus, if he paid one hundred, he must give a quarter of one hundred to the owners, or land worth a quarter of one hundred, which is one-fifth of the land.

And Shmuel said: A quarter in land

[from the land itself] he gives him, or the value of a quarter of the land,

which is one-third in money

that he paid, and he proceeds to explain it.

And we explain:

In what do

Rav and Shmuel

disagree? One

—Shmuel—

holds: Subtracting

[a deficiency of]

a quarter, he sells

the sikrikon [the sikrikon sells the field at its full price less a quarter]; and land worth one hundred, he sells for seventy-five.

Therefore, the purchaser must give the owners a quarter of land worth a quarter of one hundred, or a quarter of one hundred—one-third of the money that the purchaser gave the sikrikon.

And the other

—Rav—

holds: Subtracting a fifth, he sells

[the sikrikon sells it for one-fifth less than its full price]; and land worth one hundred, he sells for four-fifths of one hundred.

Therefore, the purchaser must give the owners a quarter of the money he paid, namely one-fifth of one hundred, or land worth one-fifth of one hundred.

A challenge was raised against Shmuel from this, as it was taught:

to Shmuel, from that which was taught:

This is the first Mishna; the court after them said: One who purchases from a sikrikon gives the owners a quarter.

And the owners’ hand has the upper position,

for if

they wish

the owners

to take land, they take

land; and if

they wish to take money, they take

money.

And

when

do they take a quarter?

When they do not have

the owners

the means to purchase; but

if

they have

the owners

the means to purchase, they take precedence over every person.

Rabbi convened a court

concerning the matter

and they voted

and concluded:

If it remained in the presence of a sikrikon for twelve months, whoever is first to purchase acquires it.

But

nevertheless

he gives

he

the owners a quarter in land, or a quarter in money.

But it is explicitly stated in the beraita in accordance with Rav’s words, and it is difficult for Shmuel!?

Said

[he answered]

Rav Ashi:

When that

[what the beraita said] “quarter” [is taught]:

That is, Shmuel's third, and

after money came into his hand

of the owners.

For if he paid three-quarters of a maneh to the sikrikon, and a quarter of a maneh to the owners, it is found that the owners received a “quarter” of what the purchaser expended in total [and to this the beraita intended], and a “third” of what the purchaser paid to the sikrikon, in accordance with Shmuel.