Jede Chazaka, die nicht von einer Behauptung begleitet wird [die das Halten (was einmal war) des Nachbarn) rechtfertigt, ist keine Chazaka. Wie? Wenn er zu ihm sagte: "Was machst du in dem, was mir gehört?" und er antwortete: "Niemand hat jemals etwas zu mir gesagt", dies ist keine Chazaka. Aber wenn er sagte: "Du hast es mir verkauft", "Du hast es mir als Geschenk gegeben", "Dein Vater hat es mir verkauft", "Dein Vater hat es mir als Geschenk gegeben", das ist eine Chazaka. Und Was durch das Erbe entsteht, [nachdem er es drei Jahre lang als Erbe seines Vaters gehalten hat und es am Tag seines Todes seinem Vater gehört hat], erfordert keinen Anspruch [rechtfertigt das Halten seines Vaters. Es ist jedoch ein Beweis dafür erforderlich, dass sein Vater gelebt hat dort (mindestens) eines Tages.] Handwerker, Partner, Pächter und Hausmeister haben keine Chazakah. [Handwerker, die Schiffe reparieren, haben keine Chazakah. Wenn sie die Schiffe anderer halten, können sie nicht behaupten, sie erworben zu haben. selbst wenn es sich nicht um die Art von Schiffen handelt, die nicht verliehen oder vermietet werden. Dies, wenn das Schiff vor uns in der Hand des Handwerkers liegt. Aber wenn das Schiff nicht vor uns in der Hand des Handwerkers liegt, sondern eines kam und behauptete, er habe dem Handwerker ein Schiff zur Reparatur gegeben und um Rückgabe gebeten, und der Handwerker antwortete, er habe es, aber dass der andere es ihm verkauft hatte, wird der Handwerker mit einem Miggo geglaubt, nämlich. Hätte er es gewünscht, hätte er bestritten, es jemals erhalten zu haben; oder er hätte behaupten können, er hätte es zurückgegeben. Wenn der Handwerker behauptet, der andere habe zugestimmt, ihm einen bestimmten Betrag zu zahlen, und der andere sagte, es sei weniger, wenn das Schiff vor uns in der Hand des Handwerkers liegt, wird der Eigner des Schiffes geglaubt. Und wenn nicht, wird dem Handwerker ein Eid geglaubt, auch wenn er (der Besitzer) ihn ihm mit Zeugen gegeben hat—miggo: Hätte er es gewünscht, hätte er sagen können: "Ich habe es dir zurückgegeben." ("Partner" :) Wenn zwei Land in Partnerschaft halten und einer von ihnen drei Jahre lang alle Früchte gegessen hat, ist dies keine Chazaka. Dies, wenn es kein Gesetz der Teilung für das Land gibt (siehe 1: 6); aber wenn es das gibt und einer von ihnen drei Jahre lang gegessen hat, ist es eine Chazaka. ("Pächter-Bauern" :), die (um einen Teil davon) des (Erzeugnisses des) Landes herunterkommen—eine halbe, eine dritte oder eine vierte. Wenn sie drei Jahre lang alle Früchte gegessen haben, ist dies keine Chazaka. Und das nur mit den Pächtern der Väterhäuser, die wie Hausmeister für die Kinder sind. Aber andere, die die Besitzer selbst (ins Land) gebracht haben—Wenn sie drei Jahre lang alle Früchte gegessen haben, ist es eine Chazaka.] Ein Mann hat keine Chazaka im Besitz seiner Frau. [Auch wenn er ihr schrieb, während sie noch verlobt war: "Ich habe weder Rechte an Ihrem Eigentum noch an dessen Erzeugnissen." In diesem Fall isst er die Früchte nicht von Rechts wegen und brachte dann den Beweis, dass er drei Jahre lang Früchte gegessen hat Es ist keine Chazaka. Denn Frauen neigen dazu, ihren Männern zu erlauben, die Früchte ihres Eigentums zu essen, ob zu Recht oder nicht zu Recht.] Und eine Frau hat keine Chazakah im Eigentum ihres Mannes. [Auch wenn er Land für ihren Lebensunterhalt beiseite gelegt hat und sie drei Jahre lang Früchte aus anderen Ländern ihres Mannes gegessen hat, ist es dennoch keine Chazaka. Denn Männer neigen dazu, ihren Frauen zu erlauben, von ihrem Eigentum zu essen, auch wenn sie kein Recht darauf haben.] Und ein Vater hat keine (Chazakah) im Eigentum seines Sohnes und einen Sohn im Eigentum seines Vaters. [Denn sie sind wie Hausmeister einander gegenüber.] Wann ist das so? [dass es keine Chazaka ist] Mit dem Halten, [dh mit dem Halten unter Protest, sein Nachbar behauptet, es sei gestohlen worden.] Aber einer, der ein Geschenk gibt [(vor uns und sagt zum Empfänger: "Geh, ergreife und erwerben, "etc.) Alle oben in der Mischna erwähnten Personen, die keine Chazaka haben, wenn sie (das Objekt)" ergreifen ", sind sie wie alle Empfänger von Geschenken; sie erwerben, und der Geber kann sich nicht zurückziehen. Und eine Frau, die ihrem Ehemann ihr Melog-Eigentum gab oder verkaufte (siehe Yevamoth 4: 3)—Wenn der Ehemann es "ergreift", erwirbt er es und sie kann nicht sagen: "Ich habe meinem Ehemann nur Freude gemacht." Denn nur mit Zon-Barzel-Eigentum oder mit Land, das ihr Ehemann für ihre Kethuba reserviert hat, sagen wir, dass ihr Verkauf kein Verkauf ist und ihr Geschenk kein Geschenk, da sie sagen kann: "Ich habe meinem Ehemann nur Freude gemacht . " Denn ihr Mann hat eine gewisse Verbindung zu diesen Ländern. Aber mit Melog-Eigentum, mit dem er überhaupt keine wesentliche Verbindung hat, kann sie nicht sagen: "Ich habe meinem Mann nur Freude gemacht." Ebenso ein Mann, der einen Teil seines Eigentums an seine Frau verkaufte—Wenn das Geld, mit dem sie es erworben hat, nicht "mit ihr abgesondert" wurde, steht der Verkauf; Das Eigentum fällt auf die Frau zurück, und der Ehemann isst Früchte. Und wenn dieses Geld mit ihr abgesondert wurde, ist der Verkauf nichtig. Denn er kann sagen: "Ich habe den Verkauf nur erfunden, um das mit ihr abgesonderte Geld aufzuspüren."] ("Aber einer, der ein Geschenk gibt") und Brüder, die teilen (das Erbe), [(jeder, ") das Ergreifen "seines Anteils, kann sich nicht zurückziehen.)] und einer, der das Eigentum eines Proselyten" ergreift ", [(der ohne Erben gestorben ist, in welchem Fall derjenige, der zuerst sein Eigentum ergreift, es erwirbt)]— Wenn er etwas aus einer Tür, einer Wand oder einem Bruch gemacht hat, dann ist dies eine Chazaka.
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
כל חזקה שאין עמה טענה – that he will make the claim why does the person who possesses that which belongs to his fellow is not valid possession.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra
Introduction
In the previous two mishnayoth we began to learn the laws of establishing ownership through possession. In mishnah three we learn what a “possessor” must say to the other person who claims ownership, in order for the “possessor” to establish ownership through possession. We also learn in mishnah three that certain people who possess land cannot claim ownership, even though they possessed for three years.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
והבא מחמת ירושה – that he held possession of it for three years through the strength of the inheritance of his father, for it was his father’s on the day of his death.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra
An act of possession without which there is no claim [on the ownership of the property] is not valid possession [to establish ownership]. How is this so? If he said to him: “What are you doing on my property? And the other answered: “No one ever said anything to me”, this is not valid possession [to establish ownership]. [If he said to him]: “You sold it to me”, “You gave it to me as a gift”, “Your father sold it to me”, “Your father gave it to me as a gift”, this is valid possession [to establish ownership]. He who holds possession [for three years] due to inheritance [from the previous owner], does not need to make a claim. Section one In order for a person to claim ownership through possession he must claim that the counter claimant sold it to him. For instance Reuven comes to Shimon and claims that the land that Shimon possesses is Reuven’s. Reuven brings a deed or witnesses to prove that the land is his. We can now be sure that Reuven once owned the land and the question is does he still own the land. If Shimon says that from the time he possessed the land no one said anything to him, the land will go back to Reuven. Since Shimon does not have a logical explanation for how he received the land, he cannot keep it. If, however, Shimon were to claim that Reuven sold him the land or gave it to him as a gift, or that Reuven’s father had done so, than we can assume that the land now belongs to Shimon. Since he occupied the land for three years without Reuven protesting, we assume that Shimon received the land from Reuven or his father and lost his documentation. The one exception to this rule is the one who received his land as part of an inheritance from his father. If he can prove the land was his as inheritance he need not prove how his father received the land.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
אין צריך טענה – to prove how it came to his father’s hand. However, proof is required when the saw his father live it in one day.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra
Craftsmen, partners, sharecroppers and guardians cannot establish ownership through possession. A man cannot establish ownership through possession of his wife’s property, nor may a wife establish ownership through possession of her husband’s property, nor a father of his son’s property, nor a son of his father’s property. Section two The people listed in section two by definition will use other people’s property. For instance craftsmen may come and do work on another person’s property. This is not a sign that they own the property and therefore they cannot establish ownership through possession. So too a spouse cannot claim title to his/her spouses property through possession, since husbands and wives regularly make use of each other’s property without protesting. Finally, the same is true of parents and children: they too cannot claim title to the other’s land due through possession.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
האומנים – when they repair utensils –
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra
When is this so [that one needs three years to establish ownership]? When the person attempts to acquire the land through possession. But, when the property was given as a gift, or when brothers shared a piece of their inheritance, or when one claimed title by possession to the property of a convert [who died without inheritors], then if the claimant has shut in, walled up or broken down anything, this counts as securing ownership through possession. Section three We learn here that it takes three years to establish ownership, only when the property is in dispute. However, if someone gives property to another person, or brothers split the property left to them in inheritance, or a person comes to take property that has no owners, all he must do is show minimal use on the property and it belongs to him. The example of minimal uses is that he changes a part of the outside wall, by making a lock, by adding onto the fence or even by breaking the fence. In these three ways a person can establish immediate ownership and the three years are not necessary.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
They don’t have a claim of possession – If they were in possession of utensils of others, they are not able to claim that there were purchased in his hand and even if they are utensils that are not normally lent or rented out. And these words [refer] to when the utensil is found before us in the hand of the artisan. But if the utensil is not found before us in the hand of the artisan, but rather, that someone comes from the marketplace and claimed to the artisan: “I have a utensil with you that I gave you to repair. Return it to me.” And the artisan claimed: “It is true that it (i.e., the utensil) is with me, but you sold it to me,” the artisan is believed through an oath with מיגו/a legal rule according to which the deponent’s statement is accepted as true on the ground that, if he had intended to tell a lie, he might have invented one more advantageous to his case (see Talmud Bava Batra 31a). For if he wanted, he could have said “that nothing had ever taken place [between us]” or “I returned it to you.” And similarly, the artisan made the claim that is what you fixed a price with a charge for the repair.” But the other can say, “I did not make that arrangement other than for less.” If the utensil is found before us in the hand of the artisan, the owner of the utensil is believed. But if the utensil is not found before us in the hand of the artisan, the artisan is believed with an oath, and even if he transferred it to him with witnesses with the מיגו (see above) that if he had wanted, he could have said, “I had returned it to you.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
והשותפים – they have property held jointly and one of them consumed all the produce for three years, it is not considered a presumption of possession. And these words are when the land does not have the law of division. But if the property has the law of division, and one of them consumed for three years, that is considered possession.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
והאריסים – he goes down into the land for one half, for one-third or for one-fourth, and consumed all the produce for three years, it is not considered presumption of possession. And especially with regard to hereditary land-tenants for he is like an אפוטרופוס/a guardian for the son but the tenant farmer who was brought down by the owner of the land himself and he consumed all the produce for three years, he does have presumption of possession.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
ואין לאיש חזקה בנכסי אשתו – and even if he wrote to her while she was still his betrothed an unequivocal judgment: “I have nothing with regard to your property, nor the fruits of it, for now, he does not consume its produce from the law, and afterwards brought a proof that he ate produce for three years, that is not considered presumption of possession, for it was the manner of the wife to allow her husband that he can consume the fruits of her property, whether by law or not by law.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
ואין לאשה חזקה בנכסי בעלה – and even if he designated for her land for her food and she consumed produce from another land belonging to her husband for thee years, even so, this is not a presumption of possession, for it is manner of a man to allow his wife that she may consume from his property, even with something that she does not have authority.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
ולא לאב בנכסי הבן [ולא לבן וכו'] – Because they are like guardians one for the other.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
במה דברים אמורים – that they are not a presumption of possession.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
במחזיק – when he is possessing something where there is a protest/evidence of illegitimacy or disqualification (see Talmud Bava Batra 31b), for his fellow makes the claim that what is in your hand was stolen.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
אבל הנותן מתנה – in our presence and stated to the recipient: “this gift is for you, take possession and acquire it.” All of these [things] that are stated above in our Mishnah lack presumption of possession, when they took possession like others who received a gift and acquired it, that the giver cannot retract. But the woman who gave or had sold to her husband her usufruct (i.e., that which belongs to the wife’s estate that the husband can use without responsibility for loss or deterioration), and when he took possession of it, the husband acquired it, and she cannot say: “I gave pleasure/gratification to my husband,” and specifically for mort-main (i.e., the wife’s estate is held by her husband, which, the case of her death or divorce, he must restore in specie, being responsible for all his landed property for loss or deterioration), or property that her husband designated for her in the Jewish marriage contract, we say that her sale is not a sale, and her gift [to someone] is not a gift, because she can claim: ‘I did it give my husband pleasure,” because her husband has an attachment to them. But her usufruct, which her husband, in principle, has no attachment to them, she cannot say: “I gave pleasure/gratification to my husband. But similarly, the man who sold to his wife from his property, if the monies that the wife purchased them are not that property, they are not hidden/preserved with her. The sale goes is established, and those properties belong to the woman and the husband can eat the produce, and if those monies were hidden with her, the sale is void, for he can say, “[it was done] to reveal monies that were hidden/preserved with her. I stated that I am selling to her.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
והאחין שחלקו – and each one held possession of his portion and they cannot retract.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
והמחזיק בנכסי הגר – [the convert] who died and he no inheritors. And whomever comes first to take possession of his properties, takes possession.
