Gittin

It has been taught in agreement with Samuel: 'R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: If a man buys [a married woman's property] from the wife and then buys it again from the husband, his purchase is effective. But if he first buys from the husband and then from the wife the purchase is invalid,  unless she expressly makes herself responsible.' Are we to say that this confutes Rab's view? — Rab can answer you: What is meant by 'making herself responsible'? Giving a written deed. Our Rabbis have taught: If a man bought [property] from the sicaricon and had the use of it  for three years in the presence of the original owner,  and then sold it to another, the original owner has no claim against the [second] purchaser. How are we to understand this? If the [second] purchaser pleads, He bought it from you,  the rule would be the same in the case of the first [purchaser].  If he does plead, He bought it from you, then the rule does not apply to the second either?  — R. Shesheth said: We do in fact assume that he does not advance this plea, [and yet the rule applies] because in a case like this we [the Beth din] suggest a plea to the heir and suggest a plea to the purchaser;  whereas the first if he pleads [of his own accord] can acquire a title, but otherwise not. Our Rabbis have taught: 'If [a heathen] seizes the land  [of an Israelite] on account of a debt or of an anparuth  this rule of sicaricon does not apply to it;  [and land seized] on account of anparuth must remain in his hands twelve months.'  But you just said that the rule of sicaricon does not apply to it? — What he means is, [Land bought from] the sicaricon itself must remain in his hands twelve months.  R. Joseph said: I have authority for saying that there is no anparuth in Babylonia. But we see that there is? — You should say, the law of anparuth  does not apply in Babylonia. Why so? — Since there is a Court and yet [the victim] does not go and complain, we presume that he has waived his claim. Giddal son of Re'ilai took a field  from the owners of a certain stretch  on condition of paying the tax on it.  He paid in advance the money for three years. The first owners eventually  came back and said to him: You paid the tax for the first year and have had the produce. Now we will pay and I will have the produce. They appealed to R. Papa, who was minded to make him out a warrant against the owners of the stretch.  R. Huna the son of R. Joshua, however, said to R. Papa: This will mean applying the law of sicaricon?  No, said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua; he has risked his money and lost. THIS WAS THE FIRST MISHNAH. THE SUCCEEDING BETH DIN RULED THAT ONE WHO BUYS FROM THE SICARICON SHOULD GIVE THE ORIGINAL OWNER A QUARTER. Rab said: This means either a quarter in land or a quarter In money;  Samuel said: It means a quarter in land,  which is [equivalent to] a third of the money. What is the ground of their difference? — One [Samuel] holds that he buys the land for a quarter less than its value,  and the other that he buys the land for a fifth less than its value.  An objection was raised: 'This was the first Mishnah. The succeeding Beth din laid down that one who purchases from the sicaricon gives to the original owner a fourth, the latter having his choice of taking the payment either in land or in money. When is this the case? So long as he is not himself in a position to buy. But if the original owner is in a position to buy, he has the right of pre-emption. Rabbi assembled a Beth din and they decided by vote that if the property had been in the hands of the sicaricon twelve months the first comer had the right to purchase, but he had to give the original owner either a fourth in land or a fourth in money'?  — R. Ashi replied: That teaching applies, after the money has come into his hands. Rab said: