In what type of a case can brothers be involved together in testimony that would be allowed and in what type of case would it not? The mishna lists types of acts that can create a chazaka of possession in another’s field and in which not. There are a few different explanations given to the specific case discussed in the mishna. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Bena’a make certian recommendations regarding appropriate behavior including: not looking at women when they launder their clothes, how men should dress, how to set the table in a way that will be neat and minimize mess, on which side of the table the ring should jut out so it doesn’t harm others or cause children to play with it and what should one store under one’s bed look (only slippers so it shouldn’t be cluttered).
If there is a border or a sea quill plant in the middle of a field, it separates the field regarding certain halachot but not others. One case it works for is acquiring land that belonged to a convert who died (hefker). One opinion is that is is not considered a separation for carrying on Shabbat and Rava says that it is. The exact details about what this means are described in the gemara. If there is no border, how much of the field goes to the one who acquired it? The gemara then discusses that the sea quill was used by Yehoshua to demarcate borders between the tribes when he conquered Israel. From there the gemara mentions another issue relating to Yehoshua and then one relating to the borders of Israel that Moshe was shown by God right before he died which are the ones that are obligated in tithes. The ones excluded from this are the lands that belonged to other neighbors (not from the 7 nations) – the Kini, Knizi and Kadmoni. There is a 3 way argument about what geographic areas this is referring to. The next mishna and gemara discuss issues regarding testimony about the 3 year chazaka. Can 3 groups of witnesses testify each about a separate year? Is this considered a whole unit of testimony (which is acceptable) or a part of a testimony (which is not acceptable)? What if 2 witnesses testified about all 3 years but disagreed about which type of produce the person benefitted from? Would their testimony be accepted?
The gemara continues to differentiate between different actions whether or not they can affect acquisition. How is it done, how much is done, etc. all help to determine whether or not there was a chazaka. Since laws regarding how one can acquire land are different in Torah law for Jews and non Jews, the can be a situation where a Jew buys land from a non-Jew by paying him (which affects acquisition for non-Jews but for Jews it doesn’t – until there is a document) and before the document is written or the Jew takes possession, one can come along and possess the land by a kinyan chazaka. A question is asked – how can Shmuel who brought this halacha say this when he also holds dina d’malchuta dina – we must abide by the law of the land – which says that one can only acquire land with a document.
If one acquired property he bought or received as a gift through a kinyan chazaka, what exactly does one need to do to acquire the property (so that each side can no longer change their minds)? What type of change, how much needs to be changed, would that type of change work in any situation?
One should not accept to watch over an item given to them by a woman, Caananite slave or child as they are suspected that the item is the husband/owner/father’s. But if one did, it can be returned to the one who gave it to him. If a son is independent from a father, then he can create a chazaka on the father’s property. If one’s brother is in charge of all the inheritance property and there are documents that say he has ownership on part of the property and he claims it came to him through inheritance on his mother’s side, Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether or not the burden of proof lies on him (as he is suspect) or the burden of proof lies on the brothers (as he has a document of ownership).
A woman can’t create a chazaka on her husband’s property. But can she use a document as proof? Are we concerned that she had hidden money that belongs to him and he is using the “sale” as a way to get that money back and really never meant to be giving her the field? In what cases are we concerned about this type of situation – a sale, a loan?
The mishna says that a man can’t create a chazaka on his wife’s usufruct property. This seems to imply that if he brought a document attesting to ownership, he could prove purchase of the land. This is questioned from another mishna (regarding a different case) that a wife can claim she agreed to the sale only because she wanted to make her husband happy and can thus invalidate the document of sale. The gemara explains why that mishna is referring to a different case and would not be relevant here. The inference is also questioned by Ameimar’s statement that a man and woman who sell usufruct property did not do anything – the sale is invalid. 2 possible answers are given. Another question on the mishna itself is brought from Rav who says that a married women needs to protest (otherwise one can create a chazaka on her property). At first the gemara thinks this is referring to her husband and then needs to provide an answer. Rav Yosef explains that it could be referring to another man in which case his statement has nothing to do with our mishna.
What is the status of the sons of those who cannot create a chazaka? The son of a robber is different form the son on a craftsman or a sharecropper. What is the case being discussed and why is the son of a robber different? A robber can’t use proof to show that he purchased land because we are concerned that he forced the owner to sell it to him or to write him a deed of sale. Exactly what kind of proof does or doesn’t work is discussed. Rav Huna says that if one forced another to sell sometihng, the sale is a good sale. The gemara attempts to prove on what basis Rav Huna holds this way. Proofs are brought from a voluntary offering (sacrifice) and from forcing a husband to give a get to his wife.
Raba’s opinion – that a worker (like a launderer) can claim that a contested item in his possession is his own if it was not given to him in the presence of witnesses – is disproved from our mishna. If one gets the wrong item back from the worker, can one use it? What if one takes the wrong jacket after a party? A sharecropper cannot have a chazaka on land even if he received the full produce for 3 years. This case is limited to a sharecroper who has worked on the field for years. Other cases specific sharecroppers and whether or not they can create a chazaka are brought.
Why is one not trusted to testify about liened property he sold to another without guaranteeing the property? If one sold movable property to another and a non Jew claimed rights to it, does the original owner need to compensate or help the buyer prove that it was his? Does it depend on details of how it was taken and whether or not the buyer knew that the item really belonged to the Jew when he bought it (meaning – if it was obvious that the non Jew is falsely claiming rights to it, then the original owner has no responsibility). There is a debate about whether non Jews are always suspected of making a false claim or not. A person who does a service for another does not have rights of ownership to items that one gave them. Raba limits this to a case where one gave it to the laborer with witnesses. Abaye disagrees and claims that it applies also in a case where it was given to the laborer not in the presence of witnesses. Sources are brought to contradict each of the opinions but are resolved.