לְדִידִי אֲמַר לִי גּוֹי דְּמִינָּךְ זַבְנַהּ מְהֵימַן מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּאִילּוּ גּוֹי אָמַר לָא מְהֵימַן וְאִילּוּ אָמַר יִשְׂרָאֵל מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּגוֹי מְהֵימַן The gentile told me that he purchased a field from you, this claim is deemed credible. The Gemara asks: Is there any case where if a gentile says it he is not deemed credible, but if a Jew said it in the gentile’s name he would be deemed credible?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא אִי אָמַר יִשְׂרָאֵל קַמֵּי דִּידִי זַבְנַהּ גּוֹי מִינָּךְ וְזַבְּנַהּ נִיהֲלִי מְהֵימַן מִיגּוֹ דְּאִי בָּעֵי אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֲנָא זְבֵינְתַּהּ מִינָּךְ Rather, Rava said: If a Jew said to the prior owner: A gentile purchased a field from you in my presence, and then he sold it to me, this claim is deemed credible, since if he wanted to, he could have said to the prior owner of the land: I purchased it from you.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה הַאי מַאן דְּנָקֵיט מַגָּלָא וְתוּבַלְיָא וְאָמַר אֵיזִיל אֶיגְזְרֵהּ לְדִקְלָא דִפְלָנְיָא דִּזְבֵנְתֵּיהּ מִינֵּיהּ מְהֵימַן לָא חֲצִיף אִינִישׁ לְמִיגְזַר דִּקְלָא דְּלָאו דִּילֵיהּ The Gemara records a series of halakhot pertaining to presumptive ownership. And Rav Yehuda says: This one who is holding a sickle and rope and says: I will go cull the dates from the date tree of so-and-so, from whom I purchased it, is deemed credible. The reason for this is that a person is not so brazen that he would cull the dates from a date tree that is not his.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה הַאי מַאן דְּאַחְזֵיק מִגּוּדָא דַעֲרוֹדֵי וּלְבַר לָא הָוֵי חֲזָקָה מַאי טַעְמָא מֵימָר אָמַר כֹּל דְּזָרַע נָמֵי עֲרוֹדֵי אָכְלִי לֵיהּ And Rav Yehuda says: With regard to this one, who possesses a field only from the fence built to prevent the entry of the wild donkeys and outward toward the public property, this conduct is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. What is the reason? The owner says to himself: Everything that he sows, the wild donkeys will eat as well, and cannot establish the presumption of ownership for him, as he is not profiting from the land as an owner would.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אֲכָלָהּ עׇרְלָה אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי אֲכָלָהּ עׇרְלָה שְׁבִיעִית וְכִלְאַיִם אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה And Rav Yehuda says: With regard to one who profited from the land by consuming produce from the first three years after it was planted [orla], during which time one is prohibited from deriving benefit from the produce, this conduct is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. This is also taught in a baraita: With regard to one who profited from the land by consuming orla produce, or profited from the land by consuming produce of the Sabbatical Year, or consumed produce that was prohibited as it was of diverse kinds, this conduct is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף אַכְלַהּ שַׁחַת לָא הָוֵי חֲזָקָה אָמַר רָבָא וְאִי בְּצַוַּאר מָחוֹזָא קָיְימָא הָוֵי חֲזָקָה Rav Yosef says: With regard to one who profited from the land by consuming fodder, i.e., produce that has grown stalks but is not yet ripe, this conduct is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. Rava said: But if the land was located in the neck of Meḥoza, a valley where it was common to harvest unripe produce to feed animals, this conduct is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן תַּפְתִּיחָא לָא הָוֵי חֲזָקָה אַפֵּיק כּוֹרָא וְעַיֵּיל כּוֹרָא לָא הָוֵי חֲזָקָה Rav Naḥman says: Consumption of produce of land that is fissured is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. This is due to the fact that produce does not grow well there, and therefore, owners do not bother to protest if a trespasser uses the land. Therefore, their silence should not be understood as an admission that it belongs to the possessor. Similarly, consumption of produce of land where one expends a kor of seed to sow and retrieves a kor of produce when harvesting it, is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. Here, too, the owners do not bother to protest, as the land is of inferior quality.
וְהָנֵי דְּבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא לָא מַחְזְקִי בַּן וְלָא מַחְזְקִינַן בְּהוּ: Rav Naḥman continues: And these members of the household of the Exilarch do not establish the presumption of ownership in our land, as people are afraid to lodge a protest against them, and we do not establish the presumption of ownership in their land, as, due to their wealth, they might not lodge a protest against one who trespasses on their land.
וְהָעֲבָדִים וְכוּ׳ עֲבָדִים יֵשׁ לָהֶם חֲזָקָה וְהָאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ הַגּוֹדְרוֹת אֵין לָהֶן חֲזָקָה אָמַר רָבָא אֵין לָהֶן חֲזָקָה לְאַלְתַּר אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהֶן חֲזָקָה לְאַחַר שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים § The mishna teaches: And of slaves, presumption of ownership of them is established by using them for a duration of three years from day to day. The Gemara asks: With regard to slaves, is there presumptive ownership of them? But doesn’t Reish Lakish say: With regard to livestock [hagoderot], possession of them does not establish the presumption of ownership, since they wander from place to place. Therefore, one cannot claim that his mere possession of livestock demonstrates ownership as one can with regard to other movable items, because it may have wandered into his property on its own. The same halakha should apply with regard to a slave. Rava said: It is true that possession of them does not establish the presumption of ownership immediately, but there is presumptive ownership of them after three years.
אָמַר רָבָא אִם הָיָה קָטָן מוּטָּל בַּעֲרִיסָה יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה לְאַלְתַּר פְּשִׁיטָא לָא צְרִיכָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ אִימָּא מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא נֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא אִימֵּיהּ עַיֵּילְתֵּיהּ לְהָתָם קָמַשְׁמַע לַן אִימָּא לָא מְנַשְּׁיָא בְּרָא Rava said: If the slave in question was a small child placed in a cradle, possession of him does establish the presumption of ownership immediately, as it does with regard to other movable items. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious, since he cannot move on his own? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where he has a mother. Lest you say: One should be concerned that perhaps his mother brought him up to there, and his being on another’s property does not indicate that the latter is his master. Therefore, Rava teaches us that there is no concern about this possibility, since a mother does not forget her son. Therefore, possession of the infant slave does establish the presumption of ownership.
הָנְהוּ עִיזֵּי דַּאֲכַלוּ חוּשְׁלָא בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא אֲתָא מָרֵי חוּשְׁלָא תַּפְסִינְהוּ וַהֲוָה קָא טָעֵין טוּבָא אֲמַר אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל יָכוֹל לִטְעוֹן עַד כְּדֵי דְּמֵיהֶן דְּאִי בָּעֵי אָמַר לְקוּחוֹת הֵן בְּיָדִי וְהָאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ הַגּוֹדְרוֹת אֵין לָהֶן חֲזָקָה שָׁאנֵי עִיזֵּי דִּמְסִירָה לְרוֹעֶה The Gemara relates: There were these certain goats that ate peeled barley [ḥushela] in Neharde’a. The owner of the peeled barley came and seized the goats, and was claiming a large sum of money for the barley from the owner of the goats. Shmuel’s father said: He is able to claim up to the value of the goats, since if he wants to, he could say: The goats are purchased and that is why they are in my possession. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Reish Lakish say: With regard to livestock, possession of them does not establish the presumption of ownership? The Gemara answers: Goats are different, as they are given to shepherds, and do not wander on their own.
וְהָא אִיכָּא צַפְרָא וּפַנְיָא בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא טַיָּיעִי שְׁכִיחִי וּמִיְּדָא לִידָא מְשַׁלְּמִי: The Gemara challenges: But there is morning and evening to consider, when the goats are unsupervised when traveling between the owner and the shepherd, and during those times this halakha of livestock should apply with regard to them. The Gemara explains: The case under discussion took place in Neharde’a, and Arabs [tayya’ei] who steal animals are common in Neharde’a, and goats there are delivered from hand to hand and are never left unsupervised.
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וְכוּ׳ לֵימָא נִיר אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר נִיר לָא הָוֵי חֲזָקָה וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר נִיר הָוֵי חֲזָקָה § The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yishmael says: Three months of possession in the first year, three months of possession in the third year, and twelve months of possession in the middle, which are eighteen months, suffices to establish the presumption of ownership. Rabbi Akiva disagrees, and says that one month in the first and third year, in addition to the full middle year, is sufficient. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that the difference between them is whether plowing the land is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership? As Rabbi Yishmael holds that plowing is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership, and three months are needed for the crop to grow, and Rabbi Akiva holds that plowing is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership, and therefore one month is sufficient.
וְתִסְבְּרָא לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַאי אִירְיָא חוֹדֶשׁ The Gemara asks: And how can you understand their opinions this way? If so, according to Rabbi Akiva, why specifically require a full month?