Study Bava Batra folio 42B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
גמ׳ אבוה דשמואל ולוי תנו: שותף אין לו חזקה, וכל שכן אומן. שמואל תני: אומן אין לו חזקה, אבל שותף יש לו חזקה. ואזדא שמואל לטעמיה – דאמר שמואל: השותפין מחזיקין זה על זה, ומעידין זה על זה, ונעשים שומרי שכר זה לזה.
Talmud: Shmuel’s father and Levi taught: A partner does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership of property in his possession, and, all the more so, this inability applies to a craftsman as well. But Shmuel teaches: A craftsman does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership of property in his possession, but a partner does have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership. The Talmud comments: And Shmuel follows his line of reasoning, as Shmuel says: Partners establish the presumption of ownership with regard to the property of each other, and they testify for each other and become paid bailees of their joint property with regard to each other. In terms of these issues, Shmuel considers partners to be independent parties.
רמי ליה רבי אבא לרב יהודה במערתא דבי רב זכאי, מי אמר שמואל: שותף יש לו חזקה? והאמר שמואל: שותף כיורד ברשות דמי. לאו למימרא דשותף אין לו חזקה? לא קשיא; הא דנחית לכולה, הא דנחית לפלגא.
R' Abba raises a contradiction to Rav Yehuda in the case of Rav Zakkai’s house: Did Shmuel actually say that a partner has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership? But doesn’t Shmuel say: A partner is considered as one who enters the field with permission, such as a sharecropper? Isn’t that to say that a partner does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership? The Talmud answers: It is not difficult. This is referring to where he enters all of the field, and that is referring to where he enters half of the field.
אמרי לה להאי גיסא, ואמרי לה להאי גיסא.
The Talmud explains: Some say it in this manner and some say it in that manner. On the one hand, it is possible to explain that if he entered half of the field he establishes the presumption of ownership with regard to that half, but if he entered the entire field he is merely acting as a partner. On the other hand, one could explain that entering half of the field does not establish the presumption of ownership at all, while entering the entire field does establish it.