Gittin 58b (נח:) — the Talmud in English

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel:

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

If he

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

a document with

a guarantee.

[And the same applies in the case of a sikarikon.]

The Gemara asks:

Shall we say that this is a refutation of Rav

[Does this beraita contradict the statement of Rav]?

And we answer: This is not difficult, for

Rav could say:

What

guarantee

also

that is taught in the beraita? It does not mean an undertaking to pay in the event that the land is taken from the purchaser. Rather, the very writing of the

document

is the “guarantee” and assurance that the woman will not return and litigate against the purchaser.

A. One who purchases a field from another and possesses it for three years need not preserve his document. Even without a document, he is believed when he says, “I purchased this field,” for if he had not purchased it, why did the owner remain silent for three years and not protest? His silence is evidence of the sale.

B. If he possessed a field for three years without a 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 such possession is insufficient to establish his ownership of the field.

The Sages taught:

One who

purchased

a field

from a sikarikon and the purchaser worked it

the purchaser

for three years in the presence of the owners,

and they remained silent and did not protest,

and

afterward

returned and sold it

the purchaser

to another.

The owners have no claim whatsoever against the second purchaser,

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

It follows that if the purchaser possessed it for three years but did not sell it to another, the purchase would be void; and it is only because the second purchaser purchased it from him that the owners have no claim against him.

The Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances?

If the second purchaser claims

the second purchaser

and says

to the owners: “

The first purchaser purchased it from you,”

meaning, he gave you one-quarter, in accordance with the Sages’ ordinance, and purchased the field from you:

Then

even the first purchaser

who were to make this claim

also

would be believed and would not need to produce the document of sale, since he possessed the land for three years, and a person is not required to safeguard his document indefinitely.

If so, there is no need for the first purchaser to sell it to the second in order to be believed with this claim.

And

if

the beraita is discussing a case such as

where the second purchaser does not claim and say

the second purchaser: “

The first purchaser bought it from you”:

:

If so,

even

a

second purchaser likewise could not

possess the field, because this is possession without a claim of purchase, and “possession without a claim” is of no consequence; he must return the field to its owners.

If so, the difficulty remains: What case is the beraita discussing?

Rav Sheshet said

[explained]

Rav Sheshet:

Actually, it is a case where the second purchaser does not claim

the second purchaser

to him

to the owners that the first purchaser bought it from them, because he does not know what the first purchaser did.

And

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—

Thus, in

a case such as this

the court makes the claim

the court

on behalf of an heir

[if he did not sell it but died],

and it makes the claim

the court

on behalf of the purchaser

the second purchaser, and says to the owners: Perhaps the first purchaser bought it from you.

But as for the other case

the first purchaser himself,

if he claims: “

I purchased it from you,”

yes

[his claim is valid], and the owners cannot take it from him once he has possessed it for three years.

But if he does not claim

on his own,

the court does not

make the claim on his behalf, and his purchase is void.

The Sages taught:

A gentile

who comes on account of a debt

against a Jew, and the gentile forcibly takes his land in settlement of the debt.

And

likewise one who comes

on account of anfarot,

that is, the gentile robs him without any debt, and the gentile subsequently sells it to a Jew.

this purchase contains no

in this purchase

element of

the law of

a sikarikon,

and even if it remained in his possession for twelve months, he cannot retain it by paying its owners one-quarter, as in the law of a sikarikon. Rather, he is obligated to return it to its owners.

For in the case of a sikarikon, the owner is afraid that the gentile may kill him, and therefore resolves to transfer ownership to him. Here, however, where it is merely an act of coercion, he does not resolve to transfer ownership to him. And even though twelve months have passed in silence, his silence is not evidence of forgiveness, because he awaits a time when he will be able to compel him, and that time has not yet arrived.

The beraita concludes:

And anfarot itself must remain for twelve months.

The straightforward meaning of the beraita is that it is referring to a gentile who comes on account of “anfarot,” and its law is that after twelve months the purchaser may retain it by paying one-quarter to its owners.

The Gemara asks:

But you said

at the beginning: one who comes on account of

“anfarot contains no

law of

a sikarikon,

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

And we answer: The “anfarot” in the latter clause refers to a sikarikon, and

this is what it means:

and

the sikarikon itself must remain for twelve months,

in the possession of the sikarikon. If it remained there for less than that, it returns to its owners if they wish to pay money to the purchaser, and the purchaser cannot retain it by paying one-quarter.

Rav Yosef said: We have received the tradition

[This is the tradition handed down to us]:

There is no anfarot in Babylonia.

The Gemara initially understood that Rav Yosef was testifying that the phenomenon of “anfarot” does not exist in Babylonia. The practical consequence would be that if one Jew came and protested against another, saying, “This land that you purchased from the gentile belonged to me, and he robbed it from me,” he would not be believed.

The Gemara asks:

But we see

[do we not see],

that there is

anfarot even in Babylonia!?

And we explain:

Rather, say: There is no “

law of

“anfarot

[sikarikon]

in Babylonia,

and the purchaser will not suffer a loss.

And what is the reason

for this matter?

Since there is a government

[authority],

and the owner does not go

the owner and

protest

[to complain to the authorities about the coercion],

we say

[that his silence is evidence that]

the owner forgave

the purchaser.

There was an incident involving

Gidel bar Reilai

[a man’s name], who

accepted land subject to the royal land tax

[the king’s tax on land]

from the people of a valley

[the inhabitants of a valley].

For this was their practice: The king would sell one valley to a group of people on the condition that they pay the king a specific sum each year. These people would divide the fields among themselves; each one would work his portion and pay tax according to his share.

The king’s tax collector did not collect from each person separately. Rather, all the inhabitants of the valley gave the money to one person, who then gave it to the king’s tax collector.

If one of the owners of the fields left, the king did not waive his share. Rather, the king’s tax collector collected the entire tax from the inhabitants of the valley.

If the owner of a field left and did not pay its tax, the inhabitants of the valley were permitted to give it to one of their number, who would pay the tax and, in return, enjoy its produce for as long as its owner did 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, enjoy its produce.

Gidel advanced

Gidel

and gave

to the king’s tax collector

money for three years

[the tax for three years].

At the end of

[the year]

the original owners came

[the original owners came].

The owners said to him

to Gidel:

As for the first year for which you paid

[the tax],

you already enjoyed

its produce.

But

now

[from this point onward],

we will pay

the tax for the coming years, and

we will enjoy

the produce.

They came before Rav Pappa

[they came before Rav Pappa for a court case, because Gidel wanted to recover what he had paid the king for the following two years].

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

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

Rav Pappa thought

Rav Pappa:

to write him

[Gidel] a document of

authorization to collect

[permission to seize and collect land]

from the people of the valley

[from the inhabitants of the valley].

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

If so,

it follows that you

have treated

the matter as though the king were

a sikarikon!

For according to the later Mishna, one who purchases from a sikarikon suffers no loss: the owners reimburse him for his money, or the land remains in his possession and he gives one-quarter to the owners.

Here too, you are saying that Gidel bar Reilai will suffer no loss whatsoever.

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

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

Gidel lost his money. By way of analogy, he is like one who

placed his money on the horn of a gazelle,

and the gazelle ran away, causing him to lose his money.

We learned in the Mishna:

This is the earlier Mishna; the court of a later generation said: One who purchases from a sikarikon gives the owners one-quarter:

Rav said:

the purchaser gives the owners

one-quarter in land or one-quarter in money.

The “one-quarter” that we learned means one-quarter of the money that he paid. For example, if he paid one hundred dinars, he must give the owners twenty-five dinars, or land worth twenty-five dinars, which is one-fifth of the land.

And Shmuel said: One-quarter in land

[of the land itself] he gives him, or the value of one-quarter of the land,

which is one-third in money

that he paid, as he proceeds to explain.

And we explain:

With regard to what do

Rav and Shmuel

disagree? One—

Shmuel—

holds: after deducting

[less]

one-quarter, he sells

the sikarikon [the sikarikon sells the field for its full value less one-quarter]. Thus, land worth one hundred dinars is sold by him for seventy-five dinars.

Therefore, the purchaser must give the owners one-quarter of the land, worth twenty-five dinars, or twenty-five dinars—the one-third of the money that the purchaser gave the sikarikon.

And the other—

Rav—

holds: after deducting one-fifth, he sells

the sikarikon [he sells it for one-fifth less than its full value]. Thus, land worth one hundred dinars is sold by him for eighty dinars.

Therefore, the purchaser must give the owners one-quarter of the money he paid, namely, twenty dinars, or land worth twenty dinars.

The following beraita raises an objection

to Shmuel, from that which was taught:

This is the earlier Mishna; the court of a later generation said: One who purchases from a sikarikon gives the owners one-quarter.

The owners have the advantage,

for if

the owners wish

the owners

to receive land, they take

land; and if they

wish to receive money, they take

money.

And

when

do they take one-quarter?

When the owners do not have the means

of the owners

to purchase it; but

if

they have the means

of the owners

to purchase it, they take precedence over everyone else.

Rabbi convened a court

on this matter

and they reached the decision

and concluded:

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

But

nevertheless, he

gives

he

the owners one-quarter in land or one-quarter in money.

This beraita explicitly supports the words of Rav, and it is difficult for Shmuel!?

Rav Ashi said

[answered]

Rav Ashi:

When that beraita was taught

[with regard to what the beraita said, “one-quarter”]:

That is, Shmuel’s one-third, and

after the money had come into his possession

of the owners.

For if he paid three-quarters of a maneh to the sikrikon and one-quarter of a maneh to the owners, it follows that the owners received one-quarter of the total amount that the purchaser spent, which is what the beraita intended, and one-third of what the purchaser paid the sikrikon, in accordance with Shmuel.