Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra

Sefaria · Mishnah > Rishonim on Mishnah > Bartenura > Seder Nezikin · 487 sections

2.13.3
החרוב והשקמה – that their shade is great and difficult for the field.
2.13.4
כנגד המשקולת – cuts everything that hangs over into his field. משקולת/plummet is a threat that those who build walls suspend from it the weight of lead.
2.13.5
ואם בית השלחין היא – a land thirsting for water.
2.13.6
כל האילן כנגד המשקולת – even if it is not a carob or sycamore tree, he cuts as measured by the plummet, for the shade is bad for a field requiring irrigation.
2.13.7
אבא שאול אומר וכו' – he is referring to the first part [of the Mishnah], as the first Tanna/teacher stated, “he cuts them off as far as the ox-goad protrudes [over the plough] and even if it is a tree that bears no fruit, except for a carob [tree] and sycamore [tree] and Abba Shaul said to him: Any non-fruit bearing tree may be cut by measuring with the plummet. But the Halakha is not according to Abba Shaul.
2.14.1
אילן הנוטה לרה"ר – cut the lowest branches in order that the camel and its rider can pass by.
2.14.2
גמל טעון פשתן – and there is no need to cut in order that the camel and its rider, for the rider bends and passes by underneath him.
2.14.3
מפני הטומאה – lest the branches form a roof/tent on an olive’s bulk from a dead person, and similar matters, and the person who passes there will become ritually defiled. But the Halakha is according to the first Tanna/teacher alone.
3.1.1
חזקת הבתים – whomever has lost his document [of sale] and brought witnesses that he has taken possession for three years with all of those things that are written in our Mishnah, he is believed to state that they were purchased property in his hand and we don’t say to him, “bring the bill of sale that it it was sold to you for up to three years, people are careful with documents; more than three years, they (i.e., people) are not careful. And we say to the individual that is against him if you have [proof] that you didn’t sell it, you should have protested and state before two [witnesses]: “know that so-and-so consumed my land through theft” and the matter would reach his ears and he would be careful with his document, for your friend has a friend, and the friend of your friend has a friend, and if you don’t
3.1.2
שובכות – where they raise/grow doves there.
3.1.3
בית הבדים – that they press olives in them to produce oil.
3.1.4
בית השלחין – for since there is a spring in it that waters the field from it always and produces fruits frequently and anything that produces fruits frequently, its presumption of claim based upon undisturbed possession [during a legally fixed period] is three years from day to day.
3.1.5
והעבדים – and even though that we hold that animals living in folds (i.e., moving livestock, which they leave in the daytime) is no evidence of ownership (as they may have come over by accident – see Talmud Bava Batra 36a), meaning to say that sheep from the language "גדרות צאן"/fenced in sheep, have no presumption of ownership (as they may have come over by accident), and the same law applies to all living creatures; that is, a presumption immediately that they lack this if it was known that the sheep and/or the slaves belonged to someone else, and entered the house of the other person. But this one claims that they entered into his house that they were purchased in his hand: “Behold I am known to hold them in possession. This is not a presumption of ownership because it is their manner to go from house to house. But if he held/took possession of a slave for three years, that is claim based upon an undisturbed possession and there is no need [to produce] a bill of sale.
3.1.6
שדה הבעל – it is supplied from rain water and doesn’t produce fruits other than once a year.
3.1.7
חזקתה שלש שנים – and it doesn’t have to be from day to day.
3.1.8
רבי ישמעאל אומר שלשה חדשים – there is grain that grows in three months such as barley and oats and lentils and it is found that one eats three grains in eight months.
3.1.9
רבי עקיבא אומר – there is something that grows in thirty days such as corn at the earliest stage/low growth and vegetables. Therefore, if one ate it for fourteen months that is considered a presumption of ownership. But Rabbi Yishmael holds that the eating of corn at the earliest stage and vegetables are not considered presumption of ownership.
3.1.10
במה דברים אמורים – that one needs eighteen months for a field sufficiently watered by rain and requiring no artificial irrigation.
3.1.11
בשדה לבן – [a bright, vegetable or grain field that lacks shade] where all of its fruits are collected at one time, therefore, it requires three [complete] years.
3.1.12
אבל בשדה האילן – that whose fruits are collected at periods – grapes at one period and olives at another period and figs at another period.
3.1.13
כנס את תבואתו – wine of grapes.
3.1.14
כנס את זיתיו וכנס את קיצו – he harvested figs and dried them, and brought them into his house, that is a presumption of ownership, as if it is three years, but the Halakha is not according to either Rabbi Akiva nor Rabbi Yishmael.
3.2.1
שלש ארצות לחזקה – three [distinctive] lands in the Land of Israel are divided each from the other concerning the matter of presumption of claim of ownership. For if he had taken possession in one of these [distinctive] lands, and the owner of the land is in the other, his presumption of ownership is not a presumption, because the caravans are not ae not found from one to the other, and even though it is not an emergency or [time of] war, it is similar to an emergency. But if the owner of the land would renounce, there would not be someone to inform the other who has taken possession. Therefore, it was appropriate to the one taking possession to be careful with his document, and since he was not careful, he would lose.
3.2.2
עד שיהא עמו במדינה – that both of them would be in Judea, or both of them beyond the Jordan River and even though this one was in one city and that one was in another city, because there were caravans found, he could protest, and since he did not protest, he lost out.
3.2.3
אמר ר' יהודה וכו' – for Rabbi Yehuda holds that the reason for presumption of ownership is not because until three years because people are careful with their documents, [but] more [than this], they are not careful, but the reason for his presumption of ownership is because people will not leave [someone, a usurper] consuming his own land even for one hour and remain silent. But this one that distanced himself for three years in order that if he was in Spain, etc. But if he was with him in the city, immediately, there would be presumption of ownership and in these three [distinct] lands [of the Land of Israel] where caravans are not found, during the three years, however, he would have presumption of ownership. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
3.3.1
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.
3.3.2
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.
3.3.3
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.
3.3.4
האומנים – when they repair utensils –
3.3.5
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.”
3.3.6
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.
3.3.7
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.
3.3.8
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.
3.3.9
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.
3.3.10
ולא לאב בנכסי הבן [ולא לבן וכו'] – Because they are like guardians one for the other.
3.3.11
במה דברים אמורים – that they are not a presumption of possession.
3.3.12
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.
3.3.13
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.”
3.3.14
והאחין שחלקו – and each one held possession of his portion and they cannot retract.
3.3.15
והמחזיק בנכסי הגר – [the convert] who died and he no inheritors. And whomever comes first to take possession of his properties, takes possession.
3.3.16
נעל – that he made a door.
3.3.17
וגדר –[or] he made a wall.
3.3.18
ופרץ – or made a breach in it.
3.4.1
משלשין ביניהם – each band pays one-third, for they are three bands for the three years (i.e., two plotting/scheming witnesses for each year).
3.4.2
שלשה אחים – for each year, one brother, and another person with the brother, and that other person testifies with all of them and there three [distinct] testimonies, for what this one testifies, the other did not testify, and therefore, their testimony is valid.
3.4.4
והן עדות אחת – regarding the conviction of false witnesses, if they were found to be refuted, they divide up the cost between them, and they are not made false witnesses until all of them are proved to be false witnesses.
3.5.1
שיש להם חזקה – if he had taken possession of his fellow land for this purpose for three years, it is considered possession.
3.5.2
היה מעמיד במהתו בחצר – this Tanna/teacher is speaking of a jointly owned courtyard, where they are not strict with each other concerning keeping cattle [in the courtyard] and other similar things. And because of this, it is not considered a presumption of possession even though he had possessed that thing for three years.
3.5.3
אבל אם עשה מחיצה וכו' – for in such a manner, he is definitely strict. If he had been silent about this for three years and didn’t protest, it is considered possession. But Rabbi Moshe ben Maimonuni commented that a joint owner who is strict about making a partition and no one protested immediately is considered possession. But even though he made a partition, as a mere individual and no one protested, it is not considered possession until after three years.
3.6.1
מרזב – a small spout, that they place it at the end of the large spout that goes all around the perimeter of the roof.
3.6.2
אין לו חזקה ויש למקומו חזקה – if there was a there a spout and the owner of the courtyard came to uproot it completely, so that the water of he roof would not spill into his courtyard, he is not able to do so, for he already has possession for this that the root waters spill via that spout, but if he comes to reverse it, that it was placed in the southern direction and he comes to place it in the northern direction, the owner of the movable tube attached to the roof gutters cannot delay it, for it is not something that causes him loss, and he lacks possession, for it will always stand in that direction.
3.6.3
מרזב – the place where the drop of rain water flows from it. [The word] מר /bitter is a טפה/droop, like (Isaiah 40:15): “The nations are but a drop in a bucket.”
3.6.4
מזחילה – a large spout that supports all the length of the roof. This is a something fixed, therefore it has presumed possession.
3.6.5
סולם [המצרי] – small and is not fixed, and no one is strict about it if one puts it into the courtyard of his fellow in order to ascend on it to his roof or to the dovecote. Therefore, it does not have presumption of possession.
3.6.6
חלון המצרי – a small window where the head of person cannot enter it,
3.6.7
he has no presumption of possession, but if the owner of the courtyard wanted to build opposite the widow and to close it up, the owner of the window cannot say: “I have already taken possession of it and you cannot close it up.” And he said to him this: “You were not appeased other than that I didn’t have any damages in it, and even so, if he had wanted from the outset, when he opened it up, he could have delayed it that he would not open it. And even if it was higher than four cubits, for he could have said to him, lest you place a small bench near the window so that you can look at me, and after he placed it [also] he opened it, he has no presumption of possession.
3.6.8
ולצורית יש לו חזקה – a window where the head of a person can enter into it, and even where it is higher than four cubits, or a window that is made of for its light, and even if it is very small, or a window which is lower than four cubits, each one of these three windows, if he left it and opened it, he has possession, but furthermore, he is not able to build opposite it and close it up, for there is possession for damages except for fumigating and dust and the bathroom, meaning to say, bad smell, for these three [things] do not have presumption of possession, even if he held them several years. But damage is a proof that he has possession, and he doesn’t need possession for damages for three years but when damage occurs, in order that he can say to the one who suffered damage: “you already knew of this damage and didn’t protest, this is possession.
3.6.9
מלבן – a building from outside like a kind of lintel from above or a lower door-sill from below.
3.6.10
זיז – wood or stone that projects out from its wall to the airspace of his fellow’s courtyard. If it has a handbreadth or more, he has possession and the owner of the courtyard opposite to him cannot build to close the projection [serving as a shed over the entrance], after he has taken possession of it.
3.6.11
ויכול למחות בו – when the owner of the wall comes to remove the projection which has a handbreadth or more, the owner of the courtyard can protest it that he should not remove it.
3.6.12
פחות מטפח – this is not a matter of being fixed. Therefore, he does not have possession, and he can build opposite him and close it up, and when the owner of the wall comes to remove it ab initio, the owner of the courtyard cannot prevent it.
3.7.1
לחצר השותפים – into a courtyard which has joint ownership of it, and all the more so, to the courtyard of his fellow because of the damage of sightlines.
3.7.2
לקח בית מחצר אחרת – that is next to his this courtyard which has joint ownership, he should not open for himself a door to that courtyard, for there is a great deal of foot traffic from those who dwell in that house.
3.7.3
בונה חדר לפנים מביתו – which does not add anything, but divides his home into t, for without this, he could fill his house with inhabitants/tenants if he wanted.
3.7.4
פתח כנגד פתח – as it states in the Biblical verse (Numbers 24:2): “As Balaam looked up and saw Israel encamped tribe by tribe.” What did he saw? He saw that their openings [of the tents] were not directed one opposite the other (allowing people to see inside each other’s tent).
3.7.5
קטן לא יעשנו גדול – for he said to him: “with a small opening, I can be private (i.e., protect myself) from your gaze; with a large opening, I cannot be private (i.e., protect myself) from your gaze (see Talmud Bava Batra 24aa and 60a).
3.7.6
אחד לא יעשנו שנים – for he said to him; with one opening I can be private (i.e., protect myself); with two, I cannot be private (i.e., protect myself).
3.7.7
אבל פותח הוא לרשות הרבים – for he said to him, that finally, you are able to be private from the members of the public domain.
3.8.1
אין עושין חלל תחת רשות הרבים – even if he accepted upon himself every blast/wind that comes from the consequences of this, for people do not want to cause damage and to go to court to judge on the matters of their money.
3.8.2
רבי אליעזר מתיר – as long as they cover it with force in order that a wagon carrying stones will travel upon it, and we should not worry lest sometimes the covering will be ruined. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.
3.8.3
זיזין – small floor beams.
3.8.4
גזוזטראות – large beams lest the members of the public domain stumble against them.
3.8.5
כונס לתוך שלו – brings into his land like the measure of the removal of the small floor beams and take them out.
3.8.6
הרי זו בחזקתה – we load them for the purchaser and we state that the person who sold it to him and brought them into his own [home].
4.1.1
המוכר את הבית. היציע – like a kind of room that they make around the walls of the house from the outside, like what was in the Temple, as it is written (I Kings 6:6): “The lowest story was [five cubits wide],” and there are those who make it in the thickness of the wall. But even though that it is open to the house and its usage is within, even so, it is not sold. And it is four cubits, but if it is not four cubits, it is not considered [separate] and it is sold with the house.
4.1.2
ולא את החדר שלפנים – from the house, and even though it is open to the house and it is tread upon.
4.1.3
בזמן שיש לו מעקה גבוה עשרה – it is considered by itself and not nullified in regard to the house.
4.1.4
רבי יהודה אומר וכו' – The Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
4.2.1
בור – a pit in the ground.
4.2.2
דות – a building of stones on top of the ground made like a pit.
4.2.3
אף על פי שכתב לו עומקא ורומא – He did not purchase a cistern/pit or a subterranean masoned storeroom since their usages are separate from the house, and they are not made other than to draw out water, until he writes: “from the lower portion/bottom of the depths until the heights of the sky.”
4.2.4
וצריך – the seller
4.2.5
to purchase for him a path/right-of-way, from the purchaser to walk to the pit and the building of stones of top of the ground made like a pit, because the seller sells with good will, and doesn’t leave anything to himself.
4.2.6
וחכמים אומרים אינו צריך – for they hold that he sells ill-will/selfishness/envy and when he sold the house, he retained for himself a path that he can walk to the pit/cistern and the subterranean masoned storeroom.
4.2.7
בזמן שאמר חוץ מאלו – except for a pit and a subterranean masoned storeroom, for it is a condition that that it is not for any need for he comes to add a pathway.
4.2.8
מכרן לאחר – he sold the pit and the subterranean masoned stoneroom to another, and left the house to himself.
4.2.9
רבי עקיבא אומר אין הלוקח צריך ליקח ממנו דרך – Because the seller sells with good will, and when he sold him the pit and the subterranean masoned storeroom, he also sold him a right-of-way/path. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.
4.3.1
המוכר את הבית – undefined.
4.3.2
מכר את הדלת – because all of the fixed implements of the house are included in the house.
4.3.3
אבל לא את המפתח – because it is something movable.
4.3.4
המכתשת – that is fixed in the ground.
4.3.5
האיצטרובל – a circle of wood that they place the millstone on it and it is fixed.
4.3.6
הקלת – the hopper/grain-receiver (on top of the millstone) that they make around the millstone to receive the ground flour that it will not fall to the ground and it is movable.
4.3.7
ולא את התנור ולא את הכירים – for they are movables. And there are books which have the textual reading:"מכר תנור, מכר כירים"/if he sold the oven, he sold the double-stove also and it is speaking of something permanent and attached to the ground.
4.3.8
הרי כולם מכורים – all of these are implements of the house, but the rest of kinds of utensils are not sold, even if he (i.e., the seller) stated: “and everything that is inside it” – he did not include other than implements unique to the house like a key and a hopper/grain-receiver and things like that.
4.4.1
מכר את הבתים – that are open to the courtyard.
4.4.2
ובורות שיחין ומערות – that are within the houses and even though the person selling a house did not sell the cistern, the trench and the cave/vault, but regarding the courtyard, however, they cease to exist.
4.4.3
בין כך ובין כך – even if he said, “everything that is within it,” he did not sell the bathhouse, etc. because they are not part of the courtyard.
4.4.4
רבי אליעזר אומר וכו' – But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.
4.5.1
מכר את הים – the stone that they place the olives into at the time of their grinding.

Bartenura on Mishnah, trans. by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: http://sefaria.org Licence: CC-BY. Source.