Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3.5

משנה: הַשּׁוּתָפִין וְהָאֲרִיסִין וְהָאֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין אֵין לָהֶן חֲזָקָה. אֵין לָאִישׁ חֲזָקָה בְּנִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא לָאִשָּׁה בְּנִכְסֵי בַעְלָהּ וְלֹא לָאָב בְּנִכְסֵי הַבֵּן וְלֹא לַבֵּן בְּנִכְסֵי הָאָב. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בַּמַּחֲזִיק. אֲבָל בְּנוֹתֵן מַתָּנָה וְהָאַחִים שֶׁחָלְקוּ וְהַמַּחֲזִיק בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר נָעַל גָּדַר וּפָרַץ כָּל שֶׁהוּא הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה.

MISHNAH: Partners and sharecroppers have no claim of undisturbed possession. A husband has no claim of undisturbed possession in his wife’s property, nor a wife in her husband’s property, nor a father in his son’s property, nor the son in his father’s property. When has this been said? For one who claims undisturbed possession. But if one is given a gift, or brothers distributed the estate, one takes possession of a convert’s property, when he locked, fenced in, or made any breach that is a legal form of taking in possession.

הלכה: הַשּׁוּתָפִין וְהָאֲרִיסִין כול׳. שׁוּתָף. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. לֵית כָּן שׁוּתָף. שׁוּתָף אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. לֹא כֵן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל. שׁוּתָף שֶׁיָּרַד וְנָטַע כְּנוֹטֵעַ בִּרְשׁוּת. הֵן דְּתֵימַר. שׁוּתָף שֶׁיָּרַד וְנָטַע כְּנוֹטֵעַ בִּרְשׁוּת. בְּאוֹתוֹ שֶׁעוֹמֵד שָׁם. וְהֵן דְּתֵימַר. שׁוּתָף אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד שָׁם. מָהוּ מַיְיתֵי תְחוֹתֵיהּ. הָאוּמָּנִין וְהַגּוֹזָלִין אֵין לָהֶן חֲזָקָה. רָאָה עַבְדּוֹ אֶל הָאוּמָן וְכֵילָו אֶל הַכּוֹבֵס. אָמַר לוֹ. תֵּן לִי עַבְדִּי תֵּן לִי כֵילַיי. אָמַר לוֹ. אַתָּה נְתַתּוֹ לִי בְמַתָּנָה אַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי. אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה. אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ לִי לְמוֹכְרוֹ לִי אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ לִיתְנוֹ לִי מַתָּנָה. הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה.

HALAKHAH: “Partners and sharecroppers,” etc. “A partner.” Samuel said, “partner” is not mentioned here. Does the partner not have a claim to undisturbed possession? Did not Samuel say that the partner who went and planted, planted with permission? When you say, the partner who went and planted, planted with permission, if he was there. When you say, the partner has no claim of undisturbed possession, if he was not there. What does he include in his stead? Artisans and robbers have no claim of undisturbed possession. “If somebody saw his slave at an artisan’s, or his garments at the washer’s, and told him, give me my slave, give me my garments, but he answered him, you gave him to me as a gift; you sold him to me; this is no claim of undisturbed possession. You told me to sell him; you instructed to give him to me as a gift, this is a claim of undisturbed possession.”

הָאֲרִיסִים. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר. בָּאֲרִיס לְעוֹלָם. אֲבָל בָּאֲרִיס לְשָׁעָה יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ תְּרֵיהוֹן מָרִין. אֲפִילוּ בָּאֲרִיס לְשָׁעָה אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. דְּנֵימַר. נְחַת רוּחֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ וְשָׁבְקֵיהּ. תַּמָּן אָמְרִין. אֲרִיס אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. בֶּן אֲרִיס יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמְרִין. אַף אֲרִיס וּבֶן אֲרִיס אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. דְּנֵימַר. נְחַת רוּחֵיהּ מֵאָבוֹי וּשְׁבַק בְּרֵיהּ. דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֲרִיס שֶׁהוֹרִיד אֲרִיס אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ אֲרִיס לְהוֹרִיד אֲרִיס.

“Sharecroppers.” Rav Huna said, a permanent sharecropper, but a temporary sharecropper has a claim of undisturbed possession. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both teach that even a temporary sharecropper has no claim of undisturbed possession, for we may say that he is satisfied with him and let him have it. There, they say that a sharecropper has no claim of undisturbed possession but a sharecropper’s son has a claim of undisturbed possession; Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, neither a sharecropper nor a sharecropper’s son have a claim of undisturbed possession, for we may say that he was satisfied with his father and let the son have it. As Rebbi Joḥanan said, a sharecropper who engaged another sharecropper has no claim of undisturbed possession since it is common for sharecroppers to engage sub-sharecroppers.

אֲבָל אָדָם שֶׁמְפַקֵּחַ עַל נִיכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה. שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ הַבְּעָלִים לְפַקֵּחַ עַל נִיכְסֵי נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן. אֵין לָאִישׁ חֲזָקָה בְּנִיכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ. בְּחַיֵּי אִשְׁתּוֹ. אֲבָל אַחַר מִיתָתָהּ יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה. וְלֹא לָאִשָּׁה בְּנִיכְסֵי בַעְלָהּ. בְּחַיָּיו. אֲבָל לְאַחַר מוֹתוֹ יֵשׁ לָהּ חֲזָקָה. וְלֹא לַבֵּן בְּנִיכְסֵי הָאָב. בְּחַיָּיו. אֲבָל לְאַחַר מִיתַת הָאָב יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה. וְלֹא לָאָב בְּנִיכְסֵי הַבֵּן. בְּחַיָּיו. אֲבָל לְאַחַר מִיתַת הַבֵּן יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה.

In truth, should a man supervising his wife’s properties have a claim of undisturbed possession, since usually husbands supervise their wife’s properties? “A husband has no claim of undisturbed possession in his wife’s property” during her lifetime. But after her death he has a claim of undisturbed possession. “Nor a wife in her husband’s property” during his lifetime. But after his death she has a claim of undisturbed possession. “Nor a son in the father’s property” during his lifetime. But after the father’s death he has a claim of undisturbed possession. “Nor the father in his son’s property” during his lifetime. But after the son’s death he has a claim of undisturbed possession.

רַב אָמַר. בְּפוֹחֵת מֵעֲשָׂרָה אוֹ מוֹסִיף עַל עֲשָׂרָה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ פָרַץ מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִפְרוֹץ וְגָדַר מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִגְדוֹר הֲרֵי זֶה חֲזָקָה.

Rav said, if he lowered it below ten [handbreadths] or increased above ten. Samuel said, even if he made a breach at a place where a breach was irrelevant or a fence where a fence was irrelevant, it is legally taking possession.

וְהָתַנֵּי. הָמּוֹכֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְנִתְעַצֵּל לוֹקֵחַ וְלֹא הֶחֱזִיק בָּהּ וְיָרַד הַמּוֹכֵר וְהֶחֱזִיק בָּהּ. בִּיטְּלָה הַחֲזָקָה אֶת הַמֶּכֶר וְאֶת הַמַּתָּנָה.

As we have stated: If somebody sells a field to another but the buyer was lazy and did not enter into possession when the seller went and legally took possession, the taking possession invalidates the sale or the gift.