ור"ע תפיסה לא מהניא כלל אמר רבא אמר רב נחמן והוא שתפס מחיים
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Akiva, is the seizure of a debtor’s assets by a creditor, though there are others who have a more immediate right to the assets, not effective at all? Rava said that Rav Naḥman said: And this, that Rabbi Akiva agrees that the seizure of assets is effective, is the case provided that one seized the property from the debtor while he was alive. However, after his death the assets belong to the heirs.
ולרבי טרפון דמנחי היכא רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו והוא שצבורין ומונחין ברשות הרבים אבל בסימטא לא ורבי יוחנן וריש לקיש דאמרי תרוייהו אפי' בסימטא
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Tarfon, who holds that whoever first takes possession of the produce has acquired it, where was this produce placed? The Gemara presents a dispute: There is the opinion of Rav and Shmuel, who both say: And this, that whoever first takes possession of the produce has acquired it, is the halakha provided that the produce is arranged in a pile and placed in the public domain. Since the public domain is not a suitable location for an act of acquisition, anyone can take the produce and acquire it. However, if it is situated in an alley [simta], a place adjacent to the public domain that is rarely frequented by the public, the produce does not belong to the first one who obtains it. Because an acquisition can be performed in an alley, any items that had belonged to the deceased are immediately acquired by the heirs. And there is the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, who both say: Even if one seizes produce left in an alley, he acquires it.
דון דייני כר' טרפון ואהדריה ר"ל לעובדא מינייהו אמר ליה רבי יוחנן עשית כשל תורה
The Gemara relates: There were judges who judged a case of this kind in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, and Reish Lakish reversed their action. He dismissed the judges’ decision and restored the money to the heirs, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yoḥanan criticized his ruling and said to him: You acted in this case like one acts with regard to a ruling of Torah law, where any incorrect action taken by the court must be corrected.
לימא בהא קמיפלגי דמ"ס טעה בדבר משנה חוזר ומר סבר טעה בדבר משנה אינו חוזר
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this: That one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that if one erred in a matter that appears in the Mishna, the decision is revoked. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that if one erred in a matter that appears in the Mishna, the decision is not revoked.
לא דכ"ע טעה בדבר משנה חוזר והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר הלכה כר"ע מחבירו ולא מרבו ומר סבר הלכה אפי' מרבו
The Gemara refutes this suggestion: No, it can be explained that according to everyone, where the judge erred in a matter that appears in the Mishna, the decision is revoked, and here they disagree about this: One Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in his disputes with his colleague, but not in his disputes with his teacher, and Rabbi Tarfon was Rabbi Akiva’s teacher. And one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva even in his disputes with his teacher.
ואיבעית אימא דכ"ע הלכה כר"ע מחבירו ולא מרבו והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר רבי טרפון רבו הוה ומ"ס חבירו הוה
And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in his disputes with his colleague but not in his disputes with his teacher. And here they disagree about this: One Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that Rabbi Tarfon was Rabbi Akiva’s teacher, and one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that Rabbi Tarfon was his colleague.
ואיבעית אימא דכולי עלמא חבירו הוה והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר הלכה איתמר ומר סבר מטין איתמר
And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that Rabbi Tarfon was Rabbi Akiva’s colleague, and here they disagree about this: One Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that the principle that the law is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva was stated as the halakha. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that what was stated was that one is inclined to follow the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Therefore, although Rabbi Akiva’s opinion is followed ab initio, the halakha was never established conclusively in accordance with it. As such, if judges went against the principle that the halakha follows Rabbi Akiva in opposition to his colleague, the Sages do not revoke their decision.
קריביה דר' יוחנן תפוס פרה דיתמי מסימטא אתו לקמיה דר' יוחנן אמר להו שפיר תפסתוה אתו לקמיה דרבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר להו זילו אהדור אתו לקמיה דרבי יוחנן אמר להו מה אעשה שכנגדי חלוק עלי
The Gemara relates: The relatives of Rabbi Yoḥanan seized a cow of orphans from an alley because the orphans’ father owed them money. They came before Rabbi Yoḥanan for judgment, and he said to them: It is well that you seized the cow and it is yours, in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi Tarfon. They subsequently came before Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said to them: Go and return the cow to the orphans. They again came before Rabbi Yoḥanan, complaining that Reish Lakish had told them they must give back the cow, in opposition to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling. He said to them: What can I do, as one whose stature corresponds to my stature disagrees with me, and I cannot dismiss his opinion.
ההוא בקרא דיתמי דתפסי תורא מיניה בע"ח אמר מחיים תפיסנא ליה ובקרא אמר לאחר מיתה תפסיה אתו לקמיה דרב נחמן אמר ליה אית לך סהדי דתפסיה אמר ליה לאו אמר ליה מגו דיכול למימר לקוח הוא בידי יכול נמי למימר מחיים תפיסנא ליה
The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain herdsman caring for the cattle of orphans from whom a creditor seized an ox as payment for a debt of the orphans’ father. The creditor said: I seized it from the herdsman while the debtor was still alive. In such a case, the action is effective even according to Rabbi Akiva, as stated earlier. And the herdsman said: He seized it after the debtor’s death. They came before Rav Naḥman for a ruling. Rav Naḥman said to the herdsman: Do you have witnesses that he seized the ox from you? He said to him: No. Rav Naḥman said to him: In that case, since the claimant can say: It is in my possession because it was purchased by me, as there is no proof that he gained possession of the ox unlawfully, he can also say: I seized it from the herdsman while the deceased was still alive.
והאמר ר"ל הגודרות אין להן חזקה שאני תורא דמסירה לרועה
The Gemara asks: But didn’t Reish Lakish say that moving livestock, e.g., sheep and oxen, provide no presumption of ownership to whoever is in possession of them? Since they wander from place to place, a person cannot claim that his mere possession of livestock demonstrates ownership, because it may have wandered into his property on its own. The Gemara answers: An ox is different from other livestock, as it is handed over to a shepherd, who does not let it wander off. Consequently, possession of an ox does establish a presumption of ownership.
דבי נשיאה תפוס אמתא דיתמי מסימטא יתיב ר' אבהו ור' חנינא בר פפי ור' יצחק נפחא ויתיב רבי אבא גבייהו אמר להו שפיר תפסיתוה אמר להו ר' אבא משום דבי נשיאה נינהו מחנפיתו להו והא דון דייני כר' טרפון ואהדריה ריש לקיש עובדא מינייהו
The Gemara relates another incident: The members of the house of the prince of Eretz Yisrael seized hold of a maidservant of orphans in an alley, as payment for a debt owed to them by the orphans’ father. Rabbi Abbahu and Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa were sitting as judges, and Rabbi Abba was sitting with them. Rabbi Abbahu said to them: It is well that you seized the maidservant. Rabbi Abba said to the judges: Just because they are members of the house of the prince, will you curry favor with them by rendering an incorrect verdict? Isn’t it the halakha that there were judges who judged a case of this kind in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, and Reish Lakish reversed their action, indicating that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon?
יימר בר חשו הוה מסיק ביה זוזי בההוא גברא שכיב ושביק ארבא א"ל לשלוחיה זיל תפסה ניהליה אזל תפסה פגעו ביה רב פפא ורב הונא ברי' דרב יהושע אמרו ליה את תופס לב"ח במקום שחב לאחרים ואמר רבי יוחנן התופס לבע"ח במקום שחב לאחרים
The Gemara relates another incident: A man called Yeimar bar Ḥashu was owed money by a certain man who died and left behind a boat. Yeimar bar Ḥashu said to his agent: Go and seize the boat for me. The agent went and seized it. Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, encountered him. They said to him: You are seizing assets for a creditor in a situation where your action will cause a disadvantage for others, as the debtor owed money to other people as well. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said that one who seizes assets for a creditor in a situation that will result in a disadvantage for others