skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A gift document written in secret cannot be used to collect the gift. The giver may have already given the property to someone else, and is now hiding from the first recipient, and then the gift is not his to give. Or, he may write this gift document to fool all later recipients of this property. Because of these suspicions, a secret gift document is considered void.
One woman said to a man, “I will marry you only if you give me all your property.” His son wanted a share. The man then told witnesses, “First hide yourself and write a gift of all my property to my son.” Both gifts were annulled: to the woman – because it was given under duress, to the son – because it was only for subterfuge.
If the original owner merely tells two witnesses, “So-and-so is a thief,” this is not an effective protest. If, however, he says, “So-and-so is a thief, for he has taken possession of my land through an act of theft and tomorrow I shall claim it from him in court,” this is an effective protest. The threat to sue is not really necessary, but this is how people usually conclude their protest.
If the protester tells the witnesses, “Don't tell the occupant that I lodged a protest,” we assume that he means not to tell him directly, but they may tell others. Thus, this protest is effective. If the witnesses promise on their own, “Not a word of protest will leave our mouths,” there is still a chance that they will reveal it inadvertently. Only if they are told, “Keep this completely confidential,” can they be relied upon to keep it secret.
Presumptive ownership (chazakah) is only valid in the absence of the alleged owner's protest. If the owner protests at least once in three years, the occupant is put on notice, and his chazakah is ineffective. In other words, if the occupant really bought the field, he should keep the deed, and his negligence to do so in inexcusable in the face of a protest, thus his three years of occupancy don't help.
It is sufficient to protest in front of two witnesses, without the occupant present. These witnesses have friends, their friends have friends, and the word travels till it reaches the occupant. If, however, the owner is in a province that has little communications with the province where his field is, he will not bother to protest, since his protest can't reach the occupant anyway, and thus the chazakah can't be established at all. Example of such regions are Judea and Galilee, which at the time had little travel between them.
If one sold his land and retained the trees on it for himself, he has a certain amount of land around the trees, so that if his trees die, he is entitled to plant others.
Does this not contradict Rabbi Akiva's ruling that a seller sells generously, which we have learned from the following: when one sells a house or a field, but not a well located in its midst, then Rabbi Akiva says that he sells the entire house, leaving himself no right-of-way in it at all?
In fact, even Rabbi Akiva would agree to the ruling about trees. The tree weakens the surrounding soil, and the seller worries that if the tree dies, the buyer may tell him, “Uproot your tree and be gone!” and thus the seller reserves land around the trees for himself.
When one plows somebody else's field, and the other one does not protest, is this indicative of the presumptive ownership of the one who plows?
Some say “yes,” because a man would not see another plow his land and remain silent. Some say “no,” because the owner may be saying to himself that the more the occupant plows, the softer the soil becomes and the better crop he, the owner, will be able to produce from the fields when he returns to it.
Rav Ashi said, “I asked all the great scholars of the generation, and they said to me that plowing establishes chazakah.” Rav Nachman bar Yitzhak answered, “Is it proper to rule based on a poll? There are others who don't think this way.” And the final decision is that plowing does not establish chazakah.
In a case where ownership of a property is disputed – for example, one side says, “It belonged to my forefathers” and the other side says, “It belonged to my forefathers,” but neither litigant can prove his claim – the court withdraws and allows the litigants to fight over possession of the property.
Once one gets the object, can the other one take it back? Some say “no” - because the court would not allow a perpetual feud. Others say that “yes, he can take it back.”
One rational for this principle is that the true owner would eventually come up with the proof of his claim. Furthermore, the true owner would strive more vigorously to retain his property, while the thief would not, knowing that his victory may be short-lived, because the owner may subsequently prove his claim.
A certain man snatched a silver ingot from his fellow. There was one witness to the snatching, but the defendant said, “Yes, I snatched it, but it was my ingot that I snatched!”
Rabbi Ami considered the case:
* Should he be required to pay? But there aren't two witnesses!
* Exempt him based on “Why would he lie?” – he could deny having snatched it altogether? This argument is weakened by the witness.
* Make him swear that he did not snatch it? But he himself admits that he did!
* Make him swear that the ingot was his? We can't concoct oaths!
Rav Abba offered a solution. The snatcher is obligated to take an oath but can not do so, and all such people must pay.
A rumor emerged involving Rava Bar Sharshum that he was using land that belonged to orphans. Abaye said to him, “Tell me, what are the circumstances?”
Rava explained, “I was holding their father's land as security for loan repayment and collecting the harvest. When the loan was thus completely paid, I still kept the land, because their father owed me another loan.”
“Had I returned the land, I would be able to collect the second loan only with an oath, and it is proper to avoid even truthful oaths. You should believe me on the strength of the 'Why would he lie?' argument, for I could have said a better lie, that I bought that land.”
Abaye ruled, “The rumor functions as protest and ruins your chazakah, the three years of which count only without protests. Therefore, return the land.”
One man said to the other, “What are you doing on this land?” The other one replied “I bought it from you and here is the deed.” The challenger said “It is a forged deed and, as you don't claim to have chazakah, you must vacate the property.”
The occupant leaned over and whispered to Rabbah, “Yes, it is a forged document. However, I originally had a valid deed, and it got lost. I wanted to bring some document to court.”
Rabbah said, “Why would he lie?” He could have said that the deed was valid and he would be believed (either the forgery was very good, or the deed was given before the sale).
Generally “Why would he lie?” is believed, but the claimant must take a Rabbinically imposed oath that he is saying the truth.
Two litigants were disputing ownership of a property. One said, “It was the land of my forefathers,” and produced witnesses to that effect. The other one produced witnesses that he used the land for three years, needed to establish chazakah.
Rabbah said, “Why should he lie?” The current occupant could have kept the land claiming that he bought it, so we should believe him when he says that he inherited it. But Abaye said that “Why should he lie?” can't be used to contradict witnesses.
The current occupant then changed his claim, saying “Yes, the land indeed belonged to your forefathers, but I bought it from them, and I feel as secure as if it were my forefathers'” and this claim was accepted.
The general rule is: one cannot enter a claim that completely contradicts his previous claim, but he can add information or amend the previous claim by reinterpreting it.
One man told the other, “What are you doing in this house?” The occupant replied, “I bought it from you, and I have used it for three years needed to establish chazakah.” The original owner replied, “I was residing in the inner rooms all this time.”
The litigants came before Rav Nachman, who said to the occupant, “Prove your exclusive use of the house by producing witnesses that you lived there alone, and you will have established chazakah.”
Rava said to Rav Nachman, “Is that the law? The burden of proof rests upon the one who seeks to exact payment from his fellow, that is, on the previous owner!” - but the law is like Rav Nachman, since his view always prevails over Rava's.
Presumptive ownership of houses, ditches, and bathhouses - or any other property that yields benefits continually - is established after three years of uncontested occupancy from day to day. For other properties it depends on their normal use, for example, a presumptive ownership for a field is established after harvesting three crops.
Why three years? For three years after purchasing a property, a person is careful with his deed, but longer than that he is not careful to keep his deed unless his occupancy of the property has been challenged. Therefore, after three years of the unchallenged use of a property, we do not insist that the occupant produce documentary proof of his ownership; rather, we rely on his very occupancy as proof.
When a person seeks to exact property from another one, the burden of proof is on the claimant. In other words, it is logical to presume that the one who currently holds the object in his possession is the rightful owner.
In the case of real property, physical “possession” of it is impossible. Current occupancy is also inconclusive, since it it impossible to prevent people from ever entering one's property. Rather, presumptive ownership is assigned to the last person known to have held the property. Thus, when that person claims that the current occupant is an illegal squatter, the burden of proof is on the occupant. If, however, the current resident established a “chazakah,” usually by continuous uncontested occupancy for three years, the burden of proof is shifted to the previous owner.
Ulla said: “A tree that is within sixteen amot (~30 feet) of a boundary is a 'thief,' because it draws nutrients illegally from a neighboring field." One does not bring first-fruit from it – because it should be “...from your field...” and because stolen produce in unfit for Temple service.
Question against Ulla: Rabbi Akiva said, “Even a minute measure of land is subject to the requirements of first-fruit, and it is fit to write prosbul on its account.
Ulla answers: “Rabbi Akiva is talking about wheat, not a tree.” Only wheat can grow on a minute measure of land.
However, one of Yehoshua's conditions when dividing Israel was that the practice of planting trees near the border should be tolerated by neighbors, thus making the first-fruit fit.
The previous ruling dealt with planting a tree in a location where its roots might damage a neighbor's pit. This one discusses a field with plants but without a pit.
One must not plant a tree near his neighbor's field unless he distances the tree four amot (6 feet) from his neighbor's boundary. This distance is needed to provide sufficient space for the cultivation of his planting without encroachment on his neighbor's property. If there is a fence, no distance is required.
If the roots of the tree extended into the neighbor's property, the neighbor may excavate three hand-breadths deep and remove the roots, to facilitate his plowing. If the neighbor was digging a pit and came upon roots, he may cut downwards to whatever depth he finds necessary.
One must distance animal carcasses, graves, and a tannery fifty amot (100 feet) from a town, so as not to disturb the town's residents with their foul order.
One must distance a flax pool from vegetables and mustard seeds from the bees of his neighbor. Water from soaking flax is toxic to the vegetables. Bees digest mustard, and it causes the honey to become pungent. Alternatively, it causes the bees to consume the honey.
Rabbi Yosi allows damaging agents to be put in one's property when the damage is indirect, like in the case of flax and mustard, putting on the damaged party the obligation to protect itself, and his view becomes law.
If a young dove was found within fifty amot (100 feet) of a dovecote, it belongs to the owner of the dovecote; if farther than fifty amot – it belongs to the one who found it. Rabbi Yirmiyah asked, “What if one of its legs is within fifty amot but the other leg is outside of fifty?” - and for asking this question the Sages ejected Rabbi Yirmiyah from the house of study.
One must distance a permanent granary fifty amot from a city, and a temporary granary must be far enough from his neighbor's saplings or from his plowed field, so that the chaff that flies from the granary not cause them any damage.
One who causes indirect damages is not liable to pay, but it is nevertheless forbidden, and one is liable for them in the Heavenly court. He may lose the same amount or he may be reincarnated to pay this karmic debt. This is known from the following case.
Rav Yosef had date palms, under which blood-letters used to let blood. The ravens would come and eat blood, then smear it on dates. Rav Yosef demanded that the blood-letters go elsewhere. Abaye took up their defense:
A. But this is only indirect damage!
Y. Doing indirect damage in still forbidden.
A. By being there for three years they have established squatters' rights
Y. There are no squatters' rights for damages.
A. Only for offensive damages such as smoke or an outhouse.
Y. I have a delicate nature, so for me blood on dates is just as offensive.
A tradesman who resides outside of a town in which his type of business has already been established can be barred from plying his trade in that town.
Rav Dimi, a Sage, brought his figs to a town which wanted to give him exclusive trading rights. They sent Rav Adda bar Abba to test him. He asked, “If an elephant swallows a willow-reed basket and then ejects it through its rectum, is it susceptible to ritual impurity or is it like manure? Rav Dimi didn't know, so Rav Adda patronized him. Rav Dimi's figs spoiled, and Rav Adda died. Every Sage involved took the blame for Rav Adda's death on himself – because they wanted to discharge their karmic debt.
One who builds a wall opposite the windows of his neighbor's house must ensure that the wall is either higher or lower than the windows, so that he can't stand up on it nor hang from it to look inside.
If a courtyard resident has set up a store in the courtyard, one of the other residents can block him by claiming, “I cannot sleep due to the noise of your customers who go in and out of the courtyard.”
But a courtyard resident may manufacture utensils in his home and go out and sell them in the marketplace, and one cannot block him by claiming, “I cannot sleep due to the noise of the hammer,” or “I cannot sleep due to the noise of the children.”
Why can the children go in and out, while the customers can't? These are school children coming to learn Torah. This ruling was taught after Yehoshua ben Gamla, a high priest, mandated the installation of teachers in every town, and he is remembered for good for preserving Torah study.
A wall can separate from a ritual impurity of a corpse lying on the other side, but if there is an opening more than a hand-breadth, the impurity goes through. If, however, some object is put into the opening, making it smaller, the wall again separates from impurity. These objects can be growing grass, small scraps of fabric, flesh dangling from an animal, a bird, an idolater, salt, or a Torah scroll. But one is not allowed to plant grass near the wall! - its root is far from the wall.
One is not allowed to set up an oven in a house unless there are 4 amot (6 feet) from it to the ceiling. If after observing all precautions listed, he damages the property of another, he must pay for the damage. Rabbi Shimon says, “The Sages stated all the precautions with their measurements to make him exempt.”
Rabbah bar bar Chanah said: “A person is permitted to urinate at the side of his fellow's wall.” It is thus written “...in the house of Achav every one who urinates against a wall...”, meaning every male, which implies that this is a normal practice.
But we have learned a rule that a person may not pour water or urine at the side of his fellow's wall closer than three hand-breadths from the wall! Answers Rabbah: pouring from a pot is not allowed, but urinating is.
But another rule states that a person may not urinate next to his fellow's brick wall closer than 3 hand-breadths and 1 hand-breadth from a stone wall! Rabbah is disproved. But he quoted a verse! The verse is saying that Achav will not even have dogs.
When one observes certain distance between his potentially damaging objects and his neighbor's wall or pit, does he have to do it only when the wall or pit are already there, or is it true even before the wall is built or the pit is dug out? Abaye says, “Only when it's there.” Rava says “Even before it's there.”
Question against Rava from a previous ruling: Olive press refuse... must be distanced three hand-breadths from a neighbor's wall, which implies that the wall must be there! Rava answers: “No, this is true even before the wall is there, and this ruling is still needed to teach us that these materials are harmful to a wall.”
Art: Eastman Johnson - Five Boys on a Wall
Rabbi Meir: “If Abraham had a daughter, he would not want her to marry in Canaan, and he would not want her to go away, for everywhere they served idols. He did not have a daughter, and in his case it was a blessing." Rabbi Yehudah: ”He did have a daughter, and her name was 'Everything' (bakol).”
To prevent damage to a neighbor's pit, one may not dig in his own property near it a pit, ditch, vault, irrigation channel, or laundering pool – unless he distances it at least three hand-breadths from his neighbor's pit and apply lime to the walls of his pit.
Olive press refuse, manure, salt, lime, and flint stones must be distanced at least three hand-breadths from the brick wall of one's neighbor, or one must apply lime to the wall.
When Satan was allowed to inflict extreme pain on Job's body without allowing him to die, it was most difficult for him, similar to a servant told by his master, “Break a keg of wine but save the wine within it.”
The intentions of Satan were for the sake of Heaven. When Satan saw that the Holy One, Blessed be He, was partial to Job, he said to himself, “God forbid that He will forget the mercy He has for Abraham.” Therefore he set out to demonstrate Job's failings.
Rav Acha bar Yakov taught this in the town of Papunia, and the Satan came and kissed his feet in appreciation.
Moses wrote his book (the Pentateuch) and the Book of Job; Joshua wrote his book and the last eight verses of the Pentateuch, which describe events that took place after Moses' death. Samuel wrote his book, and the Book of Judges and Ruth. David wrote the Book of Psalms, where he included the work of ten other authors; Hezekiah and his assistants wrote the books of Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes; the Men of the Great Assembly – a group of 120 Sages active during the first years of the Second Temple – wrote the Books of Ezekiel, the Twelve Prophets, Daniel, and the Scroll of Esther.
The Torah scroll should preferably be written on thick parchment, and its ideal proportions are such that its height and circumference are the same, and the height is six hand-breadths, because that was the size of the Tablets on which the Ten Commandments were engraved.
Rav Huna wrote seventy Torah scrolls in his lifetime, and only one turned out to be a scroll whose height and circumference were the same. Rav Acha wrote one Torah scroll on calfskin (which is thicker and thus it is harder to make it ideal size), and it turned out to be a scroll whose height and circumference were the same. The Rabbis cast their eyes on him in disbelief and he died.
When brothers inherit fields of differing quality, for an equitable division they receive a portion in each field. If they later want to exchange the portion, they are treated as buyers from each other.
How does one divide a field that is bordered by a river on one 
side and a canal on the other? It is divided into eight sections, and each brother takes every other section, as shown in diagram 1.
All the properties that are not large enough to be divided, what can one partner do if he still wants to separate? One of them sets the price, and the other is given an option of either buying his partner's share, or selling his share at this price.
How large does a jointly owned field has to be in order for one partner to compel the other to dissolve the partnership? - Each partner must receive at least an area that takes a full day to plow; a field must be at least that large to be cultivated profitably. Oxen had to be rented for a full day even if they were needed for only part of the day. It was thus unprofitable to rent them for less than a full day's work.
After the Temple was destroyed, prophecy was taken from the prophets and given to young children.
Partners may not divide a jointly owned courtyard against the will of one of them – unless there are four amot left in the courtyard for each, which is an area of about six feet by six feet. In addition, there must be four amot in front of each one's door, for unloading animals.
The general rule is: anything that after division retains its name (such as a cloak if after division it becomes two small cloaks, and not two pieces of a garment) may be forcibly divided. However, partners may not divide scrolls of the Holy Scripture, even if both agree to it, since cutting them in court would be a disgraceful act.
When a person seeks to exact property from another one, the burden of proof is on the claimant. In other words, it is logical to presume that the one who currently holds the object in his possession is the rightful owner. 
When Satan was allowed to inflict extreme pain on Job's body without allowing him to die, it was most difficult for him, similar to a servant told by his master, “Break a keg of wine but save the wine within it.”
Moses wrote his book (the Pentateuch) and the Book of Job; Joshua wrote his book and the last eight verses of the Pentateuch, which describe events that took place after Moses' death. Samuel wrote his book, and the Book of Judges and Ruth. David wrote the Book of Psalms, where he included the work of ten other authors; Hezekiah and his assistants wrote the books of Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes; the Men of the Great Assembly – a group of 120 Sages active during the first years of the Second Temple – wrote the Books of Ezekiel, the Twelve Prophets, Daniel, and the Scroll of Esther.
The Torah scroll should preferably be written on thick parchment, and its ideal proportions are such that its height and circumference are the same, and the height is six hand-breadths, because that was the size of the Tablets on which the Ten Commandments were engraved.
When brothers inherit fields of differing quality, for an equitable division they receive a portion in each field. If they later want to exchange the portion, they are treated as buyers from each other.
side and a canal on the other? It is divided into eight sections, and each brother takes every other section, as shown in diagram 1.
How large does a jointly owned field has to be in order for one partner to compel the other to dissolve the partnership? - Each partner must receive at least an area that takes a full day to plow; a field must be at least that large to be cultivated profitably. Oxen had to be rented for a full day even if they were needed for only part of the day. It was thus unprofitable to rent them for less than a full day's work.
Partners may not divide a jointly owned courtyard against the will of one of them – unless there are four amot left in the courtyard for each, which is an area of about six feet by six feet. In addition, there must be four amot in front of each one's door, for unloading animals.
