מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ כּוּרְכְּמָא דְרִישְׁקָא זַבֵּינִי לָךְ עֲקוֹר כּוּרְכְּמָא דְרִישְׁקָא וְזִיל אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא בְּבָא מֵחֲמַת טַעֲנָה Rava objects to this ruling that the buyer of the tree acquires the land beneath it: And let the seller say to him: I sold you only the saffron crocus, a small plant normally uprooted by the buyer and taken with him. Therefore, uproot the saffron crocus and go. Rather, Rava said: This ruling is stated with regard to one who comes to court with a specific claim that the seller had stipulated that he would acquire the land. Without this specific claim he does not acquire the land beneath the tree.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר קַשִּׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי וְאִי כּוּרְכְּמָא דְרִישְׁקָא זַבֵּין לֵיהּ מַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֶעְבַּד אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמַחוֹיֵי Mar Kashisha, the son of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: And if, in fact, the seller sold him the saffron crocus, what was there for the seller to do to prevent the buyer from claiming the land beneath the tree, as the buyer could claim that there had been an explicit stipulation that he receive it? Rav Ashi answered: He should have protested during the first three years and publicized that the land was not included in the sale.
דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי הָנֵי מַשְׁכְּנָתָא דְסוּרָא דִּכְתִב בְּהִי הָכִי בְּמִישְׁלַם שְׁנַיָּא אִלֵּין תִּיפּוֹק אַרְעָא דָּא בְּלָא כְּסַף אִי כָּבֵישׁ לֵיהּ לִשְׁטַר מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא וְאָמַר לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי הָכִי נָמֵי דִּמְהֵימַן מְיתַקְּנִי רַבָּנַן מִילְּתָא דְּאָתֵי בַּהּ לִידֵי פְסֵידָא אֶלָּא אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמַחוֹיֵי הָכָא נָמֵי אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמַחוֹיֵי: The assumption that lodging a protest would be effective must be correct, since if you do not say so, then in the case of these mortgages according to the custom in Sura, a city in Babylonia, the debtor will not have a way to prevent the creditor from keeping his land. As in mortgages of that type it is written like this: At the completion of these years this land will be released to its prior owner without any need for the prior owner to give money. If the creditor were to hide the mortgage document in his possession and say: This land is purchased and that is why it is in my possession, here is it also the case that he would be deemed credible? That cannot be, as is it reasonable that the Sages would institute a matter, such as this type of arrangement, that people can be led by it to suffer a loss? Rather, in the case of the mortgage the debtor should have protested, and by not protesting, he causes his own loss. Here too, in the case of the tree, the owner should have protested.
מַתְנִי׳ שָׁלֹשׁ אֲרָצוֹת לַחֲזָקָה יְהוּדָה וְעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן וְהַגָּלִיל הָיָה בִּיהוּדָה וְהֶחֱזִיק בַּגָּלִיל בַּגָּלִיל וְהֶחֱזִיק בִּיהוּדָה אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא עִמּוֹ בִּמְדִינָה אַחַת אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לֹא אָמְרוּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא בְּאַסְפַּמְיָא וְיַחְזִיק שָׁנָה יֵלְכוּ וְיוֹדִיעוּהוּ שָׁנָה וְיָבֹא לְשָׁנָה אַחֶרֶת: MISHNA: There are three independent lands in Eretz Yisrael with regard to establishing presumptive ownership: Judea, and Transjordan, and the Galilee. If the prior owner of the field was in Judea and another took possession of his field in the Galilee, or if he was in the Galilee and another took possession of his field in Judea, the possessor does not establish presumptive ownership until the one possessing the field will be with the prior owner in one province. Rabbi Yehuda says: The Sages said that establishing presumptive ownership requires three years only in order that if the owner will be in Spain [Aspamya], and another possesses his field for a year, people will go and inform the owner by the end of the next year, and the owner will come back in the following year and take the possessor to court.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי קָסָבַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא אִי קָסָבַר מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה אֲפִילּוּ יְהוּדָה וְגָלִיל נָמֵי אִי קָסָבַר מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו לָא הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה אֲפִילּוּ יְהוּדָה וִיהוּדָה נָמֵי לָא GEMARA: What does the first tanna hold in ruling that the prior owner and the field need be in the same province in order for the possessor to establish presumptive ownership? If he holds that a protest that is lodged not in the presence of the one possessing the field is a valid protest, even in the case where one is in Judea and one is in the Galilee, the protest should be valid as well. If he holds that a protest lodged not in his presence is not a valid protest, even in the case where one is in Judea and the other one is in Judea, the protest should not be valid as well.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל אָמַר רַב לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה וּמִשְׁנָתֵינוּ בִּשְׁעַת חֵירוּם שָׁנוּ וּמַאי שְׁנָא יְהוּדָה וְגָלִיל דְּנָקֵיט Rabbi Abba bar Memel says that Rav says: Actually, the tanna holds that a protest lodged not in his presence is a valid protest, and the Sages taught our mishna with regard to a period of crisis, when travel is perilous and information cannot be transmitted between Judea and the Galilee. Therefore, although no word of a protest was received, the possessor does not establish presumptive ownership of the field. The Gemara asks: But if it is due only to the exigent circumstances that word of the protest does not reach the one possessing the field, what is different about Judea and the Galilee that the tanna cited? Ostensibly, even within one of the three lands, if travel and communications are restricted the same halakha would apply.
הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן The Gemara answers: The tanna, by citing specifically a case where each is located in a different land, teaches us this: