Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Bathra

Folio 53a

but [if the act is] not [done] in his presence, he must say, Go, occupy and acquire ownership. Rab inquired: What is the rule in the case of a gift? Said Samuel: What is Abba's¹  difficulty? Seeing that in the case of a sale where the purchaser gives money, if the seller says to him, 'Go, occupy and acquire ownership,' he does acquire ownership but otherwise not, how much more so in the case of a gift?²  — Rab, however, was of opinion that a gift is usually made in a liberal spirit.³

How much is meant by 'anything at all'? — [The answer is given] in the dictum of Samuel: If a man raises a fence already existing to ten handbreadths⁴  or widens an opening so that it allows of entry and exit, this constitutes effective occupation.⁵  How are we to picture this fence? If we say that before [the man touched it] people could not climb it and now too they cannot climb it, what has he done?⁶  If again we say that before people could climb it but now they cannot, he has done a great deal!⁷  — We must therefore say that before it could be climbed easily but now it can only be climbed with difficulty. How are we to picture the opening? If we say that before people could get through it and now too they can get through it, what has he done?⁶  If again we say that before people could not get through it but now they can, he has done a great deal!⁷  We must therefore say that before people got through with difficulty, but now they get through easily.

R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: If [in the estate of a deceased proselyte] a man by placing a pebble or removing a pebble confers some advantage, this action gives him a title to the land. How are we to understand this placing and removing? If we say that by placing the pebble [there] he stops water from overflowing the field⁸  or by removing the pebble he allows water to run off from the field,⁹  he is merely in the position of 'a man who chases a lion from his neighbour's field'!¹⁰  — We must say therefore that in placing the pebble he conserves the water¹¹  and in removing the pebble he makes a passage for the water.¹²

R. Assi further said in the name of R. Johanan: [If the estate of a deceased proselyte consists of] two [adjacent] fields with a boundary between them, then if a man takes possession¹³  of one of them with the idea of becoming owner, he acquires ownership of that one;

1. Rab. v. supra p. 214, n. 9.
2. I.e., a fortiori, if the recipient of the gift does not take possession in the donor's presence, the latter must use this formula to make the gift valid.
3. V. infra 71a. And therefore he was doubtful whether the formula was necessary even in this case.
4. This was reckoned the minimum height which would act as a barrier.
5. Because something has been done to alter the character of the property and improve it.
6. To improve the property.
7. And we should not call it 'anything at all'.
8. And so damaging it.
9. Which was waterlogged.
10. I.e., he merely performs a neighbourly action which is incumbent on any man.
11. Where it was required.
12. Allowing it to enter and water the field.
13. By means of some appropriate action.

if with the idea of becoming owner of both, he becomes owner of that one but not of the other;¹  if with the idea of becoming owner of the other, he does not acquire ownership even of that one.²  R. Zera put the following question: Suppose he takes possession of one of them with the idea of becoming owner of that one and of the boundary and of the other one, how do we decide? Do we say that the boundary goes with this field and with that³  and so he acquires the whole, or do we say that the boundary and the fields are separate?⁴  This question must stand over.

R. Eleazar put the question: Suppose he takes possession of the boundary with the idea of becoming owner of both fields, how do we decide? Do we say that the boundary is as it were the bridle of the land⁵  and so he acquires ownership, or are boundary and field separate? — This question [also] must stand over.

R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: If there are [in a house] two rooms, one of which can only be reached through the other,⁶  then if a man takes possession of the outer room with the idea of becoming its owner, he acquires ownership of it; if with the idea of becoming owner of both rooms, he acquires ownership of the outer room but not of the inner one; if with the idea of becoming owner of the inner room, he does not acquire ownership even of the outer one. If he takes possession of the inner one with the idea of becoming its owner, he acquires ownership of that one; if with the idea of becoming owner of both, he does acquire ownership of both;⁷  if with the idea of becoming owner of the outer one [only], he does not acquire ownership even of the inner one.⁸

R. Nahman further said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: If a man builds a large villa on the estate of a [deceased] proselyte and another man comes and fixes the doors, the latter becomes owner. Why is this? Because the first one merely deposited bricks there.⁹

R. Dimi b. Joseph said in the name of R. Eleazar: If a man finds a villa already erected on the estate of a [deceased] proselyte, and he adds one coat of whitewash or mural decoration, he acquires ownership.¹⁰  How much must he whitewash or decorate? R. Joseph says: A cubit. To which R. Hisda added: And it must be by the door.¹¹

R. Amram said: The following dictum was enunciated to us by R. Shesheth, and he showed us the proof of it from a Baraitha:¹²  If a man spreads mattresses on the floor of a proselyte's estate [and sleeps on it], he thereby acquires ownership.¹³  How did he 'show proof of this from a Baraitha'? — [By citing the following passage] which has been taught: How is ownership [of a slave] acquired by 'taking possession'?¹⁴  If the slave fastens or undoes his master's shoe, or carries his clothes behind him to the bath, or undresses him, washes him, anoints him, scrapes him, dresses him, puts his shoes on¹⁵  or lifts him up, he becomes his owner.¹⁶  R. Simeon said: possession of this kind cannot be more effective than lifting up, seeing that it confers ownership in all cases. What does this mean? — We must understand the passage thus: If the slave lifts his master up, the latter acquires possession, but if his master lifts him up, he does not. R. Simeon said: possession cannot be more effective than lifting, seeing that it confers ownership in all cases.¹⁷

R. Jeremiah Bira'ah said in the name of Rab Judah: If a man

1. Because the boundary makes them two distinct fields.
2. Because he cannot acquire ownership without the deliberate intention of doing so.
3. Lit., 'the boundary of the land is one'. Rashb. reads: 'The boundary belongs to this field and to that.' The meaning is that if the boundary goes with the field, his intention to acquire the boundary secures him the boundary, and his acquisition of the boundary secures him the second field, with which it also goes.
4. And he acquires only the first field, and not the boundary.
5. If a man buys ten animals and takes hold of the bridle of one, he becomes the owner of all ten (Kid. 27b). If then we compare the boundary to a bridle, possession of it should confer ownership of both fields.
6. Lit., 'one within the other'.
7. Because the right of way from the inner room through the outer makes the latter subsidiary to the former.
8. V. supra p. 218, n. 5.
9. I.e., so long as the building is not completed, it is regarded merely as a heap of bricks.
10. Because he has done something to improve the building.
11. Where it will have its maximum effect; otherwise more than a cubit would be necessary.
12. Lit., 'he enlightened our eyes from a Baraitha.'
13. Because, although he does not improve the estate in any way, he derives some service from it.
14. The rule is that ownership of a slave (as of land) is acquired by the handing over of money or of a deed, or by 'taking possession' (hazakah).
15. This follows naturally on 'dresses him' though it has already been mentioned once.
16. And R. Shesheth compares the ground to a slave in the matter of service.
17. If a man buys an article and lifts it up, he immediately becomes owner, even if he is on ground belonging to the seller, whereas if he merely pulled it towards him (v. infra 76b), he would not in this case thereby become owner. Hence R. Simeon says that if the master lifts up the slave, this action also confers ownership.