משנה: שָׁלֹשׁ אֲרָצוֹת לַחֲזָקָה יְהוּדָה וְעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן וְהַגָּלִיל. הָיָה בִיהוּדָה וְהֶחֱזִיק בַּגָּלִיל בַּגָּלִיל וְהֶחֱזִיק בִּיהוּדָה אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא עִמּוֹ בַּמְּדִינָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה לֹא אָֽמְרוּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים אֶלָּא כְדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא בְאִיסְפַּמְיָא וְיַחֲזִיק שָׁנָה וְיֵלְכוּ וְיוֹדִיעוּהוּ שָׁנָה וְיָבוֹא לַשָּׁנָה הָאַחֶרֶת. MISHNAH: There are three regions for claims of undisturbed possession: Judea, Transjordan43According to some interpretations, the region between the Judean foothills and the Mediterranian; cf. Ševi‘it 9:2, Note 39., and Galilee. If he was in Judea and somebody claimed undisturbed possession in Galilee, or in Galilee and somebody claimed undisturbed possession in Judea, it is not undisturbed possession unless he be in the same province44If the original owner can prove that he was not in the province during the claimant’s occupation of the land, a claim of undisturbed possession will be disallowed and the claimant evicted unless he has documentary proof of his claim.. Rebbi Jehudah said, they said three years only for the case that if he8The original owner of the land. is in Spain45Or Apamea in Phrygia; that would be presupposed in R. Ismael’s and R. Aqiba’s interpretations., he9The squatter. should be in possession for one year; they went and told him during one year, and he8The original owner of the land. returns within one year.10This means that intrinsically R. Jehudah only requires one year of undisturbed possession. If the institution of חֲזָקָה is based on R. Jehudah’s teaching, it is only a tenuous analogy, without any claim of Biblical origin.
הלכה: שָׁלֹשׁ אֲרָצוֹת לַחֲזָקָה כול׳ רַב אָמַר. בְּשָׁעַת הַחֵירוּם שָׁנוּ. HALAKHAH: “There are three regions for claims of undisturbed possession,” etc. Rav said, this was taught in emergency situations46That a person being in a different province of the same country cannot claim undisturbed possession only applies in wartime or similar circumstances when there is no regular communication between the regions. In the Babli, 38a, this opinion is explained as following Rav’s opinion that the injured party may protest anywhere, not necessarily in the presence of the person in actual possession..
אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. שְׁנֵי עָרְלָה בֵּינֵיהוֹן. Rebbi Ḥanina said, the years of ‘orlah are in dispute between them47This refers to Mishnah and Halakhah 2. For Samuel, a new orchard which may not be harvested can never be acquired by a claim of undisturbed possession; for Rav it may be acquired after three full years. It also is possible that the statement refers to the dispute between R. Aqiba and R. Ismael. Since R. Aqiba only requires minimal preparation for a harvest, he will recognize years in which the trees cannot be harvested as included in the time required for a claim of undisturbed possession. R. Ismael, who requires extensive preparations, will not recognize those years..
רַב אָמַר. אֵין חֲזָקָה לַבּוֹרֵחַ וְלֹא מֵאֶרֶץ לְאֶרֶץ. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. יֵשׁ חֲזָקָה לַבּוֹרֵחַ וְיֵשׁ חֲזָקָה מֵאֶרֶץ לְאֶרֶץ. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. קַרְייָא מְסַייֵעַ לְמַה דָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל. וַיִּתֵּן לָהּ הַמֶּלֶךְ סְרִיס אֶחָד וגו׳. Rav said, there can be no claim of undisturbed possession from a fugitive, nor one made from one country to another. Samuel said, there can be a claim of undisturbed possession from a fugitive, and a claim of undisturbed possession made from one country to another48As the Babli points out, 38b, this statement by Rav contradicts the earlier one that the rule of the Mishnah only applies to emergency situations. Samuel’s position is clear; he holds that a protest can be made before any court which will sign a dated statement which may be used before the court at the place of the disputed real estate without time limit. For the position of Rav, two explanations are given there. One is that he holds that a protest must be made in person and that his statement about the Mishnah was to explain the thinking of the Tanna, not his own. Another is that he also holds that a protest can be submitted in any court but that such an appearance in a distant court can be expected only from a fugitive because of nonpayment of taxes or other debt but not from a person accused of a capital crime. Also, the choice of the word “country” instead of “province” refers to a country outside the Roman Empire, such as Persia or India, from where any communication might be difficult or impossible.. Rav Naḥman bar Rav Isaac48*The identity of this Amora is not clear. The fourth generation Amora Rav Naḥman bar Isaac never is quoted as Rav Naḥman bar Rav Isaac. said, a verse supports what Samuel said: “The king gave her an adjutant,492K. 8:6. Since the Ṣhunamite woman needed the king’s intervention after an absence of 7 years in the Land of the Philistines it follows that she could get no relief in the regular courts since a claim of undisturbed possession could be made against a proprietor living in another country.” etc.
אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. וַאֲפִילוּ שְׁתֵּי אבטיניות כְּגוֹן שלומי ונבירו וְהַיַּרְדֵּן מַפְסִיק בֵּנְתַיִים וְעוֹמֵד שָׁם וְרוֹאֶה אֶחָד הַמַּחֲזִיק בַּשָּׂדֶה וּמַחֲזִיק בְּשֶׁלּוֹ אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה עַד שֶתְּהֵא עִמּוֹ בְּאוֹתָהּ הָעִיר וּבְאוֹתָהּ הַמְּדִינָה. Rebbi Eleazar said: Even two אבטיניות, e. g., שלומי and נבירו50In Babylonian sources (Bekhorot Babli 55a, Tosephta 7:3) the spelling is אבטליות or אבטלאות; with a change of liquids, also אבטיניות. In E and Megillah1:1 l. 44: אבטוניות. In Sefer haIṭṭur 1–2, p. 88b (מודעא) אפסיטואות. Meïri Bava batra ad 38a (ed. A. Schreiber p. 213) אכסניות “hostelries”.
‘Arukh explains “big cities”; no acceptable etymologies are known. (If the word be Greek, the Yerushalmi transliteration would be more reliable than the Babylonian. But Jastrow’s αὐτονομία is doubtful, as is Zuckermandel’s ἀποτέλειοι.)
The names of the towns appear as שלומי, השולמי or נבירו, נמירי, נמורי ;נמר (גבירו, נמוכי). S. Klein-י) (עבר הירדן היהודי 1925 ם determines the places as Bet Nimra in Transjordan opposite Alexandria in Cisjordan. separated by the Jordan and a person may see another taking possession of the field, his property, there is no creation of a claim of undisturbed possession unless he was in the same locality, in the same province44If the original owner can prove that he was not in the province during the claimant’s occupation of the land, a claim of undisturbed possession will be disallowed and the claimant evicted unless he has documentary proof of his claim..
רַב אָמַר. עִיקַּר חֲזָקָה הַכְנָסַת פֵּירוֹת. לֹא מוֹדֶה רַב בִּמְנַכֵּשׁ וּבִמְעַדֵּר. מוֹדֶה רַב בִּמְנַכֵּשׁ וּבִמְעַדֵּר. מָהוּ דְאָמַר רַב. עִיקַּר חֲזָקָה הַכְנָסַת פֵּירוֹת. אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם רָאוּ אוֹתוֹ חוֹרֵשׁ וְקוֹצֵר וּמְעַמֵּר וְדָשׁ וּבוֹרֵר וְלֹא רָאוּהוּ מַכְנִיס פֵּירוֹת אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה אֶלָּא הַכְנָסַת פֵּירוֹת. 51This is a slightly more detailed exposition of a paragraph in Yebamot12:1, Note 29. Rav said, the main confirmation of a claim of possession is storing the produce. Does Rav not agree about weeding and turning the soil? Rav agrees about weeding and turning the soil. What does it mean that Rav said, the main indication of a claim of possession is storing the produce? That if they saw him ploughing, and harvesting, and binding into sheaves, and threshing, and grading, but did not see him storing the produce, there is no claim of possession without storing the produce52Since all other work could be done by a hired hand. While taking the final produce without ever having worked the land might be an indication of theft, working the land without enjoying its yield disproves ownership..
רַב אָמַר. עִיקַּר חֲלִיצָה הַתָּרַת רְצוּעוֹת. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵּׁם רַב יְהוּדָה. רִבִּי זְרִיקָן מָטֵי בָהּ בְּשֵּׁם רַב. דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. חָֽלְצָה וְלֹא רָֽקְקָה רָֽקְקָה וְלֹא חָֽלְצָה. חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה עַד שֶׁתַּחֲלוֹץ וְתָרוֹק. מוֹדֶה רַב עַד שֶׁתַּחֲלוֹץ וְתָרוֹק. מֵהָדָא דְאָמַר רַב. עִיקַּר חֲלִיצָה הַתָּרַת רְצוּעוֹת. 53This is a reformulation of a paragraph in Yebamot 12:1, Notes 27–28, about the act of freeing the childless widow from levirate marriage. It is quoted here as an appendix to the previous paragraph. Rav said, the essence of ḥalîṣah27Since no real estate was acquired, taking some stalks can have no influence on the remainder of the ownerless crop. is the untying of the shoelace. Did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Zeriqan turns to it in the name of Rav: The words of the Sages: If she slips off but did not spit, or spat but did not take off, the ḥaliṣah is invalid unless she slips off and spits28Since if the crop was paid for and the buyer was told by the seller to harvest it, Samuel must agree that by cutting the first stalk he takes possession of the entire crop.. Rav agrees “unless she slips off and spits”; it is implied by what Rav said, the essence of slipping off is untying the shoelaces.
רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנַן. עֶרֶר מָהוּ שֶׁצָּרִיךְ בֵּית דִּין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עֶרֶר אֵין צָרִיךְ בֵּית דִּין. וְאִית דָּֽמְרִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה שָׁאַל לְתַלְמִידוֹי דְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עֶרֶר מָהוּ שֶׁצָּרִיךְ בֵּית דִּין. רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עֶרֶר צָרִיךְ בֵּית דִּין. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ עָרַר עִמּוֹ בִּפְנֵי פוֹעֲלִין עֶרֶר הוּא. וְצָרִיךְ לְעוֹרֵר עַל כַּל־שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. גִּידּוּל בֶּן מִינְייָמִין הֲוָה לֵיהּ עוֹבְדָא וַהֲווּ דַייָנֵיהּ חִלְקִיָּה בַּר טוֹבִי וְרַב הוּנָא וְחִייָה בַּר רַב. אָמַר לוֹן חִייָה בַּר רַב. כֵּן אָמַר אַבָּא. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁעָרַר עִמּוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת עוֹד אֵין צָרִיךְ לְעוֹרֵר עָלָיו. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. הָיָה אוֹכֵל שֶׁלּוֹ שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים. עָרַר שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת. אָמַר לוֹ. אַתָּה מָכַרְתָּה לִי אַתָּה נָתַתָּה לִי מַתָּנָה. אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה. מַחֲמַת טַעֲנָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה. שֶׁכָּל־חֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ טַעֲנָה אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אִם כְּזּוֹ אֵין אָנוּ מְנִיחִין לִגְדּוֹלֵי אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּלוּם. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked Rebbi Joḥanan: Must a protest be filed before a court? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: a protest does not have to be filed before a court54A protest against unlawful occupation of land is a matter of testimony, rather than court action. It needs only two witnesses and does not have to be in writing; this is the position of the Babli (39b/40a).. But some say, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked Rebbi Joḥanan’s student: Must a protest be filed before a court? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: a protest must be filed before a court55It needs three judges and a written confirmation by the clerk of court.
In the Babli, 39a, R. Ḥiyya bar Abba is quoted as holding that a protest is a matter of witnessing, needing two witnesses but no court, and R. Abbahu that it is a matter of court record, needing three judges, both in the name of R. Joḥanan.. Samuel said, even if he protested against him in front of workers, it is a protest54A protest against unlawful occupation of land is a matter of testimony, rather than court action. It needs only two witnesses and does not have to be in writing; this is the position of the Babli (39b/40a)., but he has to protest in each one of the three years. Giddul ben Minyamin had a case; his judges were Ḥilqiah bar Tobi, Rav Huna, and Ḥiyya bar Rav. Ḥiyya bar Rav told them, so said my father: Once he protested the first three years, he is not required to protest further56The Babli, 39b, disagrees and in addition holds that the protest has to be renewed at the end of each three-year period.. It was stated thus57Tosephta 2:4.: “If he58The occupant. ate it as his own for six years, he59The former owner. protested against him the first three years; then60In the Tosephta: “at the end”, implying that the occupant was silent during the first protest. he58The occupant. said, you sold it to me, you gave it to me as a gift, there is no claim of undisturbed possession. Because of an initial claim60aAn assertion of ownership at the start would be an argument accepted by the court. it would have been a claim of undisturbed possession since61Mishnah 3:4. any claim of undisturbed possession not accompanied by a claim of legal ownership is not a claim of undisturbed possession62In the Tosephta: Any claim not asserted from the start is invalid..” Samuel said, if it is so, nothing would be left for the great people of the Land of Israel63Cf. Bava Meṣi‘a 5:1, Note 9..