כְּדִשְׁלַח רַב הוּנָא בַּר אָבִין דְּבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִן לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר וְאָמַר לְקוּחִין הֵן בְּיָדִי אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן קַשְׁיָא: As Rav Huna bar Avin sent a ruling: If one other than the one previously established to be the owner is in possession of items that are typically lent or rented, and says: They are purchased, and that is why they are in my possession, he is not deemed credible. In this case as well, as the father of the orphans could not be awarded these documents without bringing proof, the same should be true of his orphans. Why, then, would Rav concede to Shmuel? The Gemara concedes: This is difficult.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא דְּאֵין חֲלוּקִין בְּעִיסָּתָן אֲבָל חֲלוּקִים בְּעִיסָּתָן אֵימוֹר מֵעִיסָּתוֹ קִימֵּץ Rav Ḥisda says: They, i.e., Rav, taught his ruling, that the brother must bring proof that he owns the property listed in the documents that appear under his name, only when they do not divide any of their property, even with regard to their dough, i.e., they share everything, even their food. But if they divide with regard to their dough, say that this brother removed money from his dough, i.e., reduced his expenses for food, thereby amassing his own property.
רְאָיָה בְּמַאי רַבָּה אָמַר רְאָיָה בְּעֵדִים רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר רְאָיָה בְּקִיּוּם הַשְּׁטָר With regard to the requirement that proof be brought, the Gemara asks: With what is one considered to have brought proof? Rabba says: Proof is brought with the testimony of witnesses that he purchased the property listed in the document or granted the loan with his own money or that he inherited it from his mother’s family. Rav Sheshet says: Proof is brought with the court’s ratification of the document in which his name appears.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן הָא רַב וְהָא שְׁמוּאֵל הָא רַבָּה וְהָא רַב שֵׁשֶׁת מָר כְּמַאן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֲנָא מַתְנִיתָא יָדַעְנָא דְּתַנְיָא אֶחָד מִן הָאַחִין שֶׁהָיָה נוֹתֵן וְנוֹשֵׂא בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת וְהָיוּ אוֹנוֹת וּשְׁטָרוֹת יוֹצְאִין עַל שְׁמוֹ וְאָמַר שֶׁלִּי הֵן שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לִי מִבֵּית אֲבִי אִמָּא עָלָיו לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה Rava said to Rav Naḥman: This is the opinion of Rav and this is the opinion of Shmuel; this is the opinion of Rabba and this is the opinion of Rav Sheshet. In accordance with whose opinion does the Master hold? Rav Naḥman said to him: I know a baraita, which is the source of my opinion, as it is taught (Tosefta 9:2): In a case where there was one of the brothers who was engaging in commerce in the house, managing the family finances, and there were bills of sale and other documents circulating with his name appearing as the owner of the property or as a lender, and that brother said: The money and property are mine, as they fell to me as an inheritance from the house of the father of my mother, who is not the mother of the other brothers, it is upon him to bring proof of ownership.
וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא נוֹשֵׂאת וְנוֹתֶנֶת בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת וְהָיוּ אוֹנוֹת וּשְׁטָרוֹת יוֹצְאִין עַל שְׁמָהּ וְאָמְרָה שֶׁלִּי הֵן שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לִי מִבֵּית אֲבִי אַבָּא אוֹ מִבֵּית אֲבִי אִמָּא עָלֶיהָ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה The baraita continues: And similarly, in the case of a woman, i.e., a widow, if her husband’s heirs see that she is engaging in commerce in the house with the property that had belonged to her husband, and there were bills of sale and other documents circulating with her name appearing on them as the owner, and she said: The money and property are mine alone, as they fell to me as an inheritance from the house of the father of my father or from the house of the father of my mother, and did not belong to my husband, it is upon her to bring proof. Rav Naḥman consequently holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav.
מַאי וְכֵן מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא אִשָּׁה כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁבִיחָא לַהּ מִילְּתָא דְּאָמְרִי קָא טָרְחָא קַמֵּי יַתְמֵי לָא גָּזְלָה מִיַּתְמֵי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: Having quoted the baraita, the Gemara seeks to clarify it, and asks: What is the purpose of the clause of the baraita that begins: And similarly, where the halakha appears to be identical to that of the first clause? Lest you say that in the case of the woman, since the matter is laudable for her, in that people say: She is toiling on behalf of orphans; she would not steal from the orphans, and is therefore deemed credible if she says that the property in the documents that bear her name is her own, the baraita teaches us that this assumption cannot be relied upon, and she must bring proof of ownership.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּמַחְזִיק אֲבָל בְּנוֹתֵן מַתָּנָה וְהָאַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ וְכוּ׳ אַטּוּ כֹּל הָנֵי דְּאָמְרִינַן לָאו בְּנֵי חֲזָקָה נִינְהוּ § The mishna teaches: In what case is this statement, that one establishes the presumption of ownership after profiting from the property for a certain duration, said? It is said in a case of one who has mere possession of the property, which does in some cases serve as proof of ownership. But in a case of one who gives a gift, or brothers who divided their inheritance, or one who takes possession of the property of a convert who died without heirs and his property is now ownerless, as soon as one locked the door of the property, or fenced it or breached its fence even a bit, this is considered taking possession of the property, and effects acquisition. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that all of these whom we previously said possessed the field for three years are not subject to the halakhot of taking possession of property in this manner?
חַסּוֹרֵי מְחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בַּחֲזָקָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהּ טַעֲנָה כְּגוֹן מוֹכֵר אוֹמֵר לֹא מָכַרְתִּי וְלוֹקֵחַ אוֹמֵר לָקַחְתִּי The Gemara responds that the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to possession that is accompanied by a claim, i.e., when the possessor has a claim to counter that of the claimant, such as where the seller, i.e., the claimant, says: I did not sell, and the buyer, i.e., the possessor, says: I purchased. In that case, working and profiting from the land for three years establishes the presumption of ownership.
אֲבָל חֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ טַעֲנָה כְּגוֹן נוֹתֵן מַתָּנָה וְהָאַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ וְהַמַּחְזִיק בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר דִּלְמִקְנֵי בְּעָלְמָא הוּא נָעַל גָּדַר פָּרַץ כׇּל שֶׁהוּא הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה But with regard to possession that does not need to be accompanied by a claim, as the prior owner concedes that the one in possession is the owner, such as a case where another person gives one a gift, or there are brothers who divided their property, or there is one who takes possession of the property of a convert who died without heirs, where the function of possessing the item is only to acquire it and not to establish the presumption of ownership, if one locked the door of the property, or fenced it or breached its fence even a bit, this is considered taking possession of the property.
תָּנֵי רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא בְּקִדּוּשִׁין דְּבֵי לֵוִי נָעַל גָּדַר פָּרַץ כׇּל שֶׁהוּא בְּפָנָיו הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה בְּפָנָיו אִין שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו לָא אָמַר רָבָא הָכִי קָאָמַר בְּפָנָיו לָא צְרִיךְ לְמֵימַר לֵיהּ לֵךְ חֲזֵק וּקְנִי Rav Hoshaya teaches in the baraita of tractate Kiddushin that was taught in the school of Levi: If one locked the door of the property, or fenced it or breached its fence even a bit, if this was done in the presence of the seller, this is considered taking possession of the property. The Gemara asks: One could infer that in his presence, yes, he acquires it; but not in his presence, no, he does not acquire it. Why not? In any event he has taken possession. Rava said that this is what Rav Hoshaya is saying: If the act was performed in the seller’s presence, the seller need not say to him: Go, take possession, and thereby acquire the property. Since the buyer is performing the act in the seller’s presence, there is no need for the seller to specify that he consents to the buyer’s acquiring it.