Talmud - Bava Batra 53b בבא בתרא נ״ג ב׳

If his intention was to acquire it and also acquire the other field, he has acquired the first field, but has not acquired the other field, since the fields are separated by a boundary. If he took possession of one field in order to acquire only the other field, he has not acquired even that field of which he took possession, since his intention when taking possession was to acquire the other field, and one does not acquire an item without the intention to do so.

Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: What is the halakha if one took possession of one of the fields in order to acquire it, and the boundary, and the other field, all together? Do we say that the boundary of the land is one, i.e., these two fields are joined by means of their common boundary, and therefore he has acquired all of them? Or perhaps this field stands alone and that field stands alone. The Gemara notes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: What is the halakha if one took possession of the boundary between the two fields in order to acquire both of the fields? Do we say that the legal status of this boundary is that of the halter of the land and he acquires the fields, just as one acquires an animal through the acquisition of its halter? Or perhaps this field stands alone and that field stands alone, as the boundary is not connected to the field in the same manner that a halter is connected to an animal. The Gemara notes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

Similarly, Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: If there were two houses in a courtyard, this one situated within the courtyard relative to that one, and one took possession of the outer house in order to acquire it, he has acquired it. If his intention was to acquire it and also acquire the inner house, he has acquired the outer house, but has not acquired the inner house. If he took possession of the outer house in order to acquire the inner house alone, he has not acquired even the outer house.

If he took possession of the inner house in order to acquire it, he has acquired it. If his intention was to acquire it and also acquire the outer house, he has acquired both of them. Since the residents of the inner house possess the right to pass through the outer house in order to enter and exit the courtyard, the outer house is viewed as an extension of the inner house. If he took possession of the inner house in order to acquire only the outer house, he has not acquired even the inner house, since he did not take possession of the property that he intended to acquire.

§ The Gemara continues its discussion of taking possession of ownerless property. Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: With regard to one who builds large palaces [palterin] on the property of a convert who died without heirs, and another came and placed doors upon them, the latter has acquired the property. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? The first, i.e., the one who built the palaces, merely turned over bricks, i.e., building an incomplete house is not sufficient to take possession of the property.

Rav Dimi bar Yosef says that Rabbi Elazar says: One who finds palaces built on the property of a convert who died without heirs and plastered them with one application of plaster or tiled them with one tile, has acquired them. The Gemara asks: And how much, i.e., what is the minimum area that must be plastered or tiled? Rav Yosef said: A square cubit. Rav Ḥisda said: And he acquires it in this manner only if it was plastered or tiled opposite the entrance, where it can be easily seen.

Rav Amram said: Rav Sheshet said this statement to us, and he enlightened our eyes from a baraita that alludes to the same matter. He said: One who spreads out mattresses on the property of a convert who died without heirs has acquired it. And that which I said, that he enlightened our eyes from a baraita, what is it? As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Kiddushin 1:5): How does one acquire a Canaanite slave through taking possession? If the slave placed one’s shoe for him, or untied his shoe for him, or if it occurred that he carried his garments after him to the bathhouse, or undresses him, or bathes him, or anoints him, or scrubs the oil off him, or dresses him, or puts on his shoes, or lifts him, one acquires the slave. Rabbi Shimon said: The acquisition generated by taking possession should not be considered greater than the acquisition generated by lifting, as lifting acquires property in any situation.

With regard to this last statement, the Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Shimon saying here, as the first tanna also said that a slave can be acquired by lifting? The Gemara explains: This is what he is saying: The first tanna holds that if he lifted his master, the master acquires him, as he is performing labor for the master, but if his master lifted him, the master does not acquire him, as the slave has not performed labor on his behalf. With regard to this halakha, Rabbi Shimon said: Acquisition generated through taking possession should not be greater than acquisition generated through lifting, as lifting acquires property in any situation. Consequently, one can acquire a slave even by lifting him.

Rav Yirmeya Bira’a says that Rav Yehuda says: With regard to this one

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Bava Batra 53b examines land acquisition through possession, exploring how intent affects ownership when adjacent fields or houses share a boundary.