Talmud for Bava Batra 3:1
חֶזְקַת הַבָּתִּים וְהַבּוֹרוֹת וְהַשִּׁיחִין וְהַמְּעָרוֹת וְהַשּׁוֹבָכוֹת וְהַמֶּרְחֲצָאוֹת וּבֵית הַבַּדִּין וּבֵית הַשְּׁלָחִין וְהָעֲבָדִים וְכָל שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה פֵרוֹת תָּדִיר, חֶזְקָתָן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם. שְׂדֵה הַבַּעַל, חֶזְקָתָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים, וְאֵינָהּ מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁלֹשָׁה בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה וּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ בָאֶמְצַע, הֲרֵי שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, חֹדֶשׁ בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וְחֹדֶשׁ בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה וּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ בָּאֶמְצַע, הֲרֵי אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בִּשְׂדֵה לָבָן. אֲבָל בִּשְׂדֵה אִילָן, כָּנַס אֶת תְּבוּאָתוֹ, מָסַק אֶת זֵיתָיו, כָּנַס אֶת קֵיצוֹ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים:
The chazakah (possession period regarded as evidence of ownership) for houses, boroth, shichin, and ma'aroth (see 2:1), dove-cotes, bath-houses, an olive-press, an irrigated field, bondsmen, and all things which produce fruit constantly — their chazakah is three years, from day to day. [If one lost his bill (of purchase), and he brought witnesses that he was in possession in each of the instances adduced in our Mishnah, he is believed to state that he is the purchaser, and he is not told: "Bring your bill of purchase." For up to three years one takes care of his bill (of purchase), but not longer than that. And the claimant is told: If you had not sold it to him, you should have protested before two (witnesses): "Know that that man is 'eating' my land in theft," and the matter would have come to his ears, and he would have been heedful with his bill (of purchase). For "Your friend has a friend, and your friend's friend has a friend." And since you did not protest, it is your loss. ("an irrigated field":) Since it is constantly superintended for purposes of irrigation, it is constantly productive. And the chazakah of something which is constantly productive is three years from day to day. ("bondsmen":) And though we rule: "Godroth (sheep, as in Numbers 32:16: 'gidroth tzon,' (i.e., sheepfolds) have no chazakah," and the same applies to all living things — it is an immediate chazakah that they do not have. That is, if the sheep or the bondsman were known to belong to one man and they entered the house of another, and the second claimed that he had bought them and was in possession of them, this is no chazakah, for they are accustomed to go from house to house. But if he held a bondsman for three years, this is a chazakah and he needs no bill of purchase.] The chazakah of a rain-fed field, [which is productive only once a year] is three years, [not requiring "from day to day."] R. Yishmael says: Three months the first (year), three months the last, and twelve months in the middle — eighteen months. [For there is produce which grows in three months, such as barley, oats, and lentils — so that one may eat three crops in eighteen months.] R. Akiva says: One month in the first, one month in the last, and twelve months in the middle — fourteen months. [Some things grow in thirty days, such as young corn and greens. Therefore, if he ate from it fourteen months, it is a chazakah.] R. Yishmael said: [(R. Yishmael holds that the eating of young corn and greens does not establish a chazakah, but only the eating of real grain and fruit.)] When is this so? [that eighteen months are needed for a rain-fed field?] With a grain field, [all of whose produce is picked in one period, for which reason three years are required.]; but with a tree field, [whose fruits are picked in different periods: grapes, in one period; olives in another; and figs, in another], if he gathered in his produce [grape-wine], harvested his olives, and gathered in his figs [i.e., If he harvested them, dried them, and brought them into his house], this is [a chazakah, as if it were] three years. [The halachah is neither in accordance with R. Akiva nor with R. Yishmael.]
Jerusalem Talmud Peah
There is a similar problem in Baba Batra, dealing with real estate left by a convert to Judaism who failed to start a Jewish family. Since by conversion the convert severed his ties to his former family, in the absence of a will his property becomes ownerless at his death and can be acquired by actual possession. Then the question is whether two adjacent fields can be acquired if one performs an act of possession (such as weeding) on one of them. In the Yerushalmi (Baba Batra 3:1, fol. 13d), R. Yasa states in the name of R. Joḥanan that if one weeded on one of two adjacent fields with the intention of thereby acquiring both fields but did not have the explicit intent to acquire the boundary strip also, he acquired only the field he weeded but no more. Then it is reported that R. Zeïra asked R. Yasa about somebody working on the boundary strip only (whether he would acquire both fields), and R. Yasa avoided answering. In the Babli (Baba Batra 55a), R. Assi states in the name of R. Joḥanan that boundary strip and ḥaẓab are dividers in respect to the property of a convert but not for peah whereas Ravin (Rebbi Abun) declares in the name of R. Joḥanan that it is not a divider for peah. For the Yerushalmi, R. Assi himself was not sure whether R. Joḥanan followed the opinion ascribed to himself in the Babli, or that ascribed to R. Abun.? He avoided answering him. The opinions of Rebbi Yasa are contradictory since we have stated there (Mishnah 3:2): “The sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba about someone who sowed dill or mustard in three places17The Mishnah deals with someone who spot-harvests his field, cutting at separate places and letting the rest grow for an extended period of time. Rebbi Aqiba requires that each time and at each place peah be given, but the sages require only one peah for the whole field, except for (expensive) spices..” (The Mishnah means: dill in three places or mustard in three places.) Samuel said, because the first of them does not wait for the last18Obviously, one plot is harvested at one time; otherwise, there would be no obligation for peah. Samuel asserts that spice plants can be harvested at greatly varying times.. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they are usually sown in separate beds19Spices are never grown in large fields since they belong to intensive agriculture.. And here he says so20In fact, he refuses to say what he should say, viz., that the boundary strip is never sown intentionally and therefore cannot be counted as peah.? It is obvious for him that it separates21This is the opinion ascribed to R. Abun in the Babli.. What he could not decide is whether it does become sanctified as peah or maybe it does not become sanctified22Since peah is exempt from terumah and tithes, the status of the grain growing on the boundary strip remains in limbo.! Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: If someone gave peah from one field for another one, it does not acquire holiness. One understands that this means even the boundary strip23Again supporting the opinion ascribed to R. Abun in the Babli. (In the Babli, Rabin is reputed to give the correct interpretations of sentences of R. Joḥanan.).
Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia
Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit
One may remove stones25From his field. until the New Year. One cuts26Really “nibbles”, in an unsystematic way. “Pruning” means eliminating unwanted new shoots, “shaping” means eliminating dead wood., prunes, and shapes until the New Year. Rebbi Joshua says, like the pruning and shaping of the fifth year27When there are no time limits on any agricultural work., so is that of the sixth. Rebbi Simeon says, any time that I may work the tree I may shape it.
Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit
R. Abraham ben David (Ma‘aser Šeni 1:10) deduces from the Mishnah that מוריות, מריעות are instances of irrigation; R. S. Lieberman reads the words as derived from מרביעות “fertilizations,” but it might be better to take the word from מרויות “waterings”. בעל fields of produce other than grains, while not irrigated permanently, are watered occasionally (Mishnah 9).
Maimonides, followed by the commentators of his Code and J. Levy, translates מורביות (or מרביות in the Rome ms.) as “trimmings”; that meaning is found in the Babli (Sukkah 45a, Tamid29a). R. Abraham ben David wonders why Maimonides in his Code follows an unclear Tosephta instead of a clear Mishnah., the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say three.