Study Bava Batra folio 47B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
במגורשת ואינה מגורשת, וכדרבי זירא – דאמר רבי זירא אמר רבי ירמיה בר אבא אמר שמואל: כל מקום שאמרו חכמים: מגורשת ואינה מגורשת – בעלה חייב במזונותיה.
in a case where there is uncertainty whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced, and this is in accordance with the opinion of R' Zeira. As R' Zeira says that R' Yirmeya bar Abba says that Shmuel says: Wherever the rabbis said with regard to a woman that there is uncertainty whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced, her husband is still obligated with regard to her sustenance. One might have thought that since she still has some right to her husband’s property, insofar as he still has an obligation with regard to her sustenance he would not lodge a protest if she used his land without his authorization. It is therefore necessary to clarify that this is not so, and she has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership in her husband’s property.
אמר רב נחמן, אמר לי הונא: כולן שהביאו ראיה – ראייתן ראיה, ומעמידין שדה בידן. גזלן שהביא ראיה – אין ראייתו ראיה, ואין מעמידין שדה בידו.
§ Rav Naḥman said: Rav Huna said to me that with regard to all of the types of people who do not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership, when they bring proof by means of a document or witnesses that a field belongs to them, their proof is a valid proof and the court places the field in their possession. But if there is a robber who brings proof that a field is his, his proof is not a valid proof, and the court does not place the field in his possession. This is due to a concern that the proof was obtained through illegitimate means.