{"id":4006,"date":"2017-03-13T08:49:38","date_gmt":"2017-03-13T06:49:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/?p=4006"},"modified":"2017-03-13T08:49:38","modified_gmt":"2017-03-13T06:49:38","slug":"bava-batra-50","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/2017\/03\/bava-batra-50\/","title":{"rendered":"Bava Batra 50"},"content":{"rendered":"

The mishna says that a man can’t create a chazaka<\/em> on his wife’s usufruct property. \u00a0This seems to imply that if he brought a document attesting to ownership, he could prove purchase of the land. \u00a0This 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\u00a0and can thus invalidate the document of sale. \u00a0The gemara explains why that mishna is referring to a different case and would not be relevant here. \u00a0The inference is also questioned by Ameimar’s statement that a man and woman\u00a0who sell usufruct property did not do anything – the sale is invalid. \u00a02 possible answers are given. \u00a0Another question on the mishna itself is brought from Rav who says that a married women needs to protest (otherwise one can create a chazaka<\/em> on her property). \u00a0At first the gemara thinks this is referring to her husband and then needs to provide an answer. \u00a0Rav Yosef explains that it could be referring to another man in which case his statement has nothing to do with our mishna.<\/p>\n

\n