Toute chazakah non accompagnée d'une réclamation [justifiant sa possession (ce qui était autrefois) celle de son voisin] n'est pas une chazakah. Comment? S'il lui disait: "Que fais-tu dans ce qui est à moi?" et il répondit: "Personne ne m'a jamais rien dit", ce n'est pas une chazakah. Mais s'il disait: "Tu me l'as vendu," Tu me l'as donné en cadeau "," Ton père me l'a vendu "," Ton père me l'a donné en cadeau ", c'est une chazakah. Et ce qui passe par l'héritage, [il l'a détenu pendant trois ans comme héritage de son père, il a appartenu à son père le jour de sa mort] ne nécessite aucune réclamation [justifiant que son père le détienne. Cependant, la preuve est requise de la vie de son père. il (au moins) un jour.] Les artisans, les associés, les fermiers et les gardiens n'ont pas de chazakah. [Les artisans, qui réparent les vaisseaux, n'ont pas de chazakah. S'ils détiennent les vaisseaux des autres, ils ne peuvent pas prétendre les avoir acquis, même s'ils ne sont pas du type de vaisseaux qui sont habituellement prêtés ou loués. Ceci, lorsque le bateau est devant nous entre les mains de l'artisan. Mais si le bateau n'est pas devant nous entre les mains de l'artisan, mais un est venu et a affirmé qu'il avait donné à l'artisan un bateau à réparer et a demandé qu'il lui soit rendu, et l'artisan a répondu qu'il l'avait, mais que l'autre lui avait vendu, l'artisan est cru avec un miggo, à savoir. S'il l'avait voulu, il aurait nié l'avoir jamais reçue; ou il aurait pu prétendre qu'il l'avait retourné. De même, si l'artisan prétendait que l'autre avait accepté de lui payer un certain montant et que l'autre disait que c'était moins, si le navire est devant nous entre les mains de l'artisan, le propriétaire du navire est cru. Et sinon, l'artisan est cru avec serment, même s'il (le propriétaire) le lui avait donné avec témoins—miggo: S'il l'avait souhaité, il aurait pu dire: "Je vous l'ai rendu." ("partenaires" :) Si deux détiennent des terres en partenariat et que l'un d'eux a mangé tous les fruits pendant trois ans, ce n'est pas une chazakah. Ceci, quand il n'y a pas de loi de division pour le pays (voir 1: 6); mais s'il y en a, et l'un d'eux a mangé pendant trois ans, c'est une chazakah. ("fermiers" :) qui descendent (pour obtenir une partie) des (produits de la) terre—un demi, un troisième ou un quatrième. S'ils ont mangé tous les fruits pendant trois ans, ce n'est pas une chazakah. Et ce, uniquement avec les métayers des maisons des pères, qui sont comme les gardiens des enfants. Mais d'autres, que les propriétaires eux-mêmes ont fait descendre (à la terre)—S'ils ont mangé tous les fruits pendant trois ans, c'est une chazaka.] Un homme n'a pas de chazaka dans la propriété de sa femme. [Même s'il lui a écrit alors qu'elle était encore fiancée: "Je n'ai aucun droit sur votre propriété ni sur ses produits", auquel cas il ne mange pas les fruits de droit, puis il a apporté la preuve qu'il a mangé des fruits pendant trois ans , ce n'est pas une chazakah. Car les femmes ont tendance à permettre à leurs maris de manger les fruits de leur propriété, que ce soit de droit ou non.] Et une femme n'a pas de chazakah dans la propriété de son mari. [Même s'il a mis de côté des terres pour sa subsistance et qu'elle a mangé des fruits d'autres terres de son mari pendant trois ans, ce n'est pas encore une chazakah. Car les hommes ont tendance à permettre à leurs femmes de manger de leur propriété même si elles n'y ont aucun droit.] Et un père n'a pas de (chazakah) dans la propriété de son fils, et un fils, dans la propriété de son père. [Car ils sont comme des gardiens les uns des autres.] Quand est-ce ainsi? [que ce n'est pas une chazakah] Avec détention, [c'est-à-dire avec sa détention sous protestation, son voisin prétendant qu'il a été volé.] Mais celui qui fait un cadeau [(devant nous et dit au receveur: "Allez, saisissez et acquérir, "etc.) Tous ceux mentionnés ci-dessus dans la Mishna comme n'ayant pas de chazakah, lorsqu'ils" s'emparent "(de l'objet), ils sont comme tous les receveurs de dons; ils acquièrent et le donateur ne peut pas se rétracter. Et une femme qui a donné ou vendu à son mari sa propriété melog (voir Yevamoth 4: 3)—quand le mari «s'en empare», il l'acquiert et elle ne peut pas dire: «Je faisais juste plaisir à mon mari». Car c'est seulement avec la propriété tzon-barzel, ou avec la terre que son mari a mise de côté pour sa kethubah que nous disons que sa vente n'est pas une vente et que son cadeau n'est pas un cadeau en ce qu'elle peut dire: "Je faisais juste plaisir à mon mari . " Car son mari a un lien avec ces terres. Mais avec la propriété melog avec laquelle il n'a aucun lien essentiel, elle ne peut pas dire: "Je faisais juste plaisir à mon mari". De même, un homme qui a vendu une partie de sa propriété à sa femme—Si l'argent par lequel elle l'a acquis n'a pas été «caché avec elle», la vente tient; la propriété revient à la femme et le mari mange des fruits. Et si cet argent a été caché avec elle, la vente est nulle. Car il peut dire: "J'ai" concocté "la vente uniquement pour" dénicher "l'argent sécrété avec elle."] ("Mais celui qui fait un cadeau") et les frères qui se partagent (l'héritage), [(chacun, " s'emparant "de sa part, ne peut se rétracter.)] et celui qui" s'empare "des biens d'un prosélyte, [(décédé sans héritiers, auquel cas celui qui prend possession en premier de ses biens l'acquiert)]— S'il a fait en quelque sorte une porte, ou un mur, ou une brèche [dedans], c'est une chazakah.
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.
