Bava Batra 47

 Bava Batra  No Responses »
Mar 102017
 

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.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Batra 46

 Bava Batra  No Responses »
Mar 092017
 

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.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Batra 45

 Bava Batra  No Responses »
Mar 082017
 

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.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Batra 39-40a

 Bava Batra  No Responses »
Mar 022017
 

In front of how many people does one need to lodge a protest?  2 or 3?  What is the at the root of the debate?  Is it sufficient to lodge a protest once in the first year or does one need to protest once every 3 years?  What other things require the presence of 2 people and which require 3?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Batra 37

 Bava Batra  No Responses »
Feb 282017
 

If one profits from only 10 out of 30 trees (that are growing in a field of 3 beit seah) each year (and each year a different 10), one can still create a chazaka on the whole field, both according to the rabbis and Rabbi Yishmael.  However there are two limitations to this halacha.  If one sold all one’s property to two people – to one the trees and to the other, the land,  does the one who purchased the trees also acquire the land under/around the trees.  How does that differ from one who sold the rights to the trees in one’s own property?  Or if one sold the land but kept the trees?  How does that case relate to the argument of Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis regarding one who sold a field but kept a pit or cistern for him/herself – did one leave oneself a path to get there or does one need to buy a path from the buyer in order to get there.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Batra 36

 Bava Batra  No Responses »
Feb 272017
 

One who buys from a non Jew who bought originally from a Jew needs to prove that the non Jew bought it from the Jew – either by providing the document or by claiming he/she saw the original sale (in the event that he/she had also lived on the land for 3 years).  But proof that the non Jew lived there for three years without the owner protesting doesn’t help as there is an assumption that one may not protest against a non Jew out of fear.  A number of other assumptions about human behavior are made on this daf.  One generally doesn’t bring tools and harvest in a field that is not one’s own.  One wouldn’t protest land that is unlikely to grow crops or unprotected land whose produce will likely be eaten by the animals, or produce that is forbidden to sell by law (orla, shmita, kelaim).  There is a big debate regarding whether or not plowing would be considered an act of chazaka if the owner did not protest.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Batra 34b-35

 Bava Batra  No Responses »
Feb 262017
 

Two people claimed ownership over a boat, the law of “may the stronger one prevail” kicks in.  If one of them asks the court to seize the property to prevent that law from kicking in to buy time in which he/she can find evidence to support his/her claim, can they?  And if the court does seize it, can they release it in the event that no further proof is found.  If two claim ownership to land but neither can prove it, Rav Nachman says: “the stronger one prevails.”  There are many interpretations explaining the logic behind this law (which seems more like anarchy than a law).  The gemara then compares it to various other cases of doubtful situations where either the law is that it gets split 50/50 or the judges can decide which side gets the item in question.  The gemara now reverts back to the first mishna regarding how long it takes for one to have a chazaka on the land.  It brings an example where one can have a chazaka immediately.  Rav Zevid limits this case and his explanation is questioned by Rav Ashi.  In the end it seems clear that if one had a sharecropper or sold one rights to the fruits of the property, one must make sure that before three years pass, one must state a protest or explain that the person has rights only to the fruits.  Otherwise, the other can claim ownership.  The same is true for land used for collateral where the fruits the lender eats are used to pay back the loan (mashkanta d’sura)

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Batra 33-34a

 Bava Batra  No Responses »
Feb 242017
 

More cases are over doubts about land are brought.  One who was living on property that others claimed belonged to orphans.  Another involved a disagreement about inheritors – who was the closest inheritor.  Since neither had proof, one went to live on the land and when he later admitted he was not the closer relative, there was a debate whether he needed to return all the produce he had eaten or did he just have to return the land from the point of his admission.  If one brings one witness to support his claim that he ate for 3 years, can we turn that witness against him and say that he now needs to pay for the produce that he ate, based on the law that one witness requires him to swear and in this case since he cannot swear (because he already said he ate the produce), he needs to pay?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Batra 32

 Bava Batra  No Responses »
Feb 232017
 

Rav Nachman was not concerned that overturning a ruling of the court based on new testimony would cause a lack fo respect in the future for the courts.  He relied on Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s ruling in a case of a kohen about whom concern was raised that he was the son of a kohen and a divorcee.  The details of the exact case are clarified and lead to the fact that all agree that one can overturn a ruling – the debate was over a different issue – can 2 individual witnesses testify each separately and it can be considered one testimony?  Other cases are brought where one brings a document and the other side accuses him for bringing a false document.  Then the one who brought the document says that the document is a forgery but there was a real document that got lot.  Is the claim valid as a “ma li leshaker” – since he could have lied and said it was a valid docuemnt.  The commentaries disagree as to the exact details of the case – was it really a forged document or was it a shtar amana?  How do we rule in cases like this?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

 Older Entries  Newer Entries