שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו צָרִיךְ לְמֵימַר לֵיהּ לֵךְ חֲזֵק וּקְנִי But if the act was performed not in the seller’s presence, the seller must say to him: Go, take possession and thereby acquire the property for him to acquire it.
בָּעֵי רַב מַתְנָה הֵיאַךְ אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מַאי תִּבְעֵי לֵיהּ לְאַבָּא הַשְׁתָּא וּמָה מֶכֶר דְּקָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ זוּזֵי אִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ לֵךְ חֲזֵק וּקְנִי אִין אִי לָא לָא מַתָּנָה לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן וְרַב סָבַר מַאן דְּיָהֵיב מַתָּנָה בְּעַיִן יָפָה יָהֵיב Rav raises a dilemma: How does one acquire a gift, i.e., is it necessary for the giver to say: Go, take possession and thereby acquire? Shmuel said: What dilemma is raised to Abba, i.e., Rav? Now one could say the following: And what is the halakha with regard to a sale, where the buyer is giving money to the seller? If the seller says to the buyer: Go, take possession and thereby acquire the property, the acquisition does take effect, but if he did not say this, it does not. Therefore, with regard to a gift, where no money is given to the seller, is it not all the more so reasonable that the acquisition not take effect without a clear directive from the seller? The Gemara answers: And Rav holds that it is possible to say that one who gives a gift gives it generously, and would allow the acquisition even absent a clear directive.
וְכַמָּה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל גָּדַר גָּדֵר וְהִשְׁלִימוֹ לַעֲשָׂרָה וּפָרַץ פִּרְצָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס וְיֵצֵא בָּהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה § The mishna teaches that taking possession can be performed by building a fence or breaching a fence even a bit. The Gemara clarifies: And how much is the measure of a bit? It is in accordance with the statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: If one had previously built a fence, and now completed it to a height of ten handbreadths, which is the height of a halakhically significant barrier; or similarly, if one had previously breached a breach, and now expanded it in order that it be large enough that a person can enter and exit through it, this is considered taking possession.
הַאי גָּדֵר הֵיכִי דָמֵי אִילֵּימָא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לָא הֲווֹ סָלְקִי לַהּ וְהַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי לָא סָלְקִי לַהּ מַאי עֲבַד וְאֶלָּא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא הֲווֹ סָלְקִי לַהּ וְהַשְׁתָּא לָא סָלְקִי לַהּ טוּבָא עֲבַד לָא צְרִיכָא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא הֲווֹ סָלְקִי לַהּ בְּרַוְוחָא וְהַשְׁתָּא קָא סָלְקִי לַהּ בְּדוּחְקָא The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this fence? If we say that initially one could not climb over it to enter the field, and now too one still could not climb over it, what did he accomplish? Nothing has changed through his completing the height of the fence. And alternatively, if it was such that initially one could climb over it to enter the field, and now one could not climb over it, he has accomplished a great deal, and the mishna should not have referred to this addition as: A bit. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this ruling if the height of the fence was such that initially one could climb over it with ease, and now one could climb over it only with effort.
הַאי פִּרְצָה הֵיכִי דָמֵי אִילֵּימָא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא הֲווֹ עָיְילִי בַּהּ וְהַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי עָיְילִי בַּהּ מַאי עֲבַד וְאֶלָּא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לָא הֲווֹ עָיְילִי בַּהּ וְהַשְׁתָּא קָא עָיְילִי בַּהּ טוּבָא עֲבַד לָא צְרִיכָא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא הֲווֹ עָיְילִי בַּהּ בְּדוּחְקָא וְהַשְׁתָּא עָיְילִי בַּהּ בְּרַוְוחָא The Gemara similarly asks: What are the circumstances of this breach? If we say that initially, one could enter the field through it, and now too one could enter the field through it, what did he accomplish? Nothing has changed through his expanding the breach? And alternatively, if it was such that initially one could not enter the field through it, and now one could enter the field through it, he has accomplished a great deal, and the mishna should not have referred to this as: A bit. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this ruling if the size of the breach was such that initially one could enter the field through it with effort, and now one could enter the field through it with ease.
אָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן נָתָן צְרוֹר וְהוֹעִיל נָטַל צְרוֹר וְהוֹעִיל הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה מַאי נָתַן וּמַאי נָטַל Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one placed a stone and it helps to serve some objective, or if one removed a stone and it helps to serve some objective, this act is considered taking possession. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of placed, and what is the meaning of removed?
אִילֵּימָא נָתַן צְרוֹר וּסְכַר מַיָּא מִינַּהּ נָטַל צְרוֹר וְאַפֵּיק מַיָּא מִינַּהּ הַאי מַבְרִיחַ אֲרִי מִנִּכְסֵי חֲבֵרוֹ הוּא אֶלָּא נָתַן צְרוֹר דְּצַמֵּד לַהּ מַיָּא נָטַל צְרוֹר וְאַרְוַח לַהּ מַיָּא If we say that he placed a stone in the fence and stopped the water from flooding the field, or he removed a stone from the fence and thereby fashioned an opening that released water that had been flooding the field, this is analogous to one who chases away a lion from another’s property. In other words, these acts prevent damage to the field, which one is obligated to prevent even in the case of the property of another, and accordingly, they do not constitute a demonstration of ownership. Rather, it means that he placed a stone that connected water to the field and irrigated it, or he removed a stone and enhanced the flow of water to it.
וְאָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן שְׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת וּמֶצֶר אֶחָד בֵּינֵיהֶן הֶחְזִיק בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן לִקְנוֹתָהּ קְנָאָהּ § The Gemara cites another statement of the same amora with regard to taking possession. And Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If there were two fields with one boundary between them, and one took possession of one of the fields in order to acquire it, he has acquired it.