Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Baba Basra 54a - Role of Intent in Kinyan

The gemara makes a distinction between one who prunes a tree, whether or not he intends to improve the tree or just collect the wood. The litmus test to determine what exactly he is doing is that if he prunes evenly on both sides he is clearly trying to improve the tree and is therefore a chazaka, but he only prunes on one side he is merely trying to pull out as much benefit from the tree as he can.
Why does the gemara use the term "אדעתא דדיקלא" and "אדעתא דחיותא", which implies that we are dealing with a kavana issue. Regardless of his intent, he is only doing an action of chazaka if he improves the field! From this the Rishonim all seem to understand that even if he doesn't prune the tree evenly, he is nonetheless causing an improvement to the field (Tosafos - ואע"פ שמתקן הקרקע). So what is the distinction between pruning evenly vs. pruning unevenly?
Tosafos understands that the issue in the gemara is whether the machzik intends to make a kinyan to acquire the property. If he prunes evenly we assume he is trying to make a kinyan, but if not then we assume that he is not trying to make a kinyan at all.
However, the Rashbam seems to understand that even when he prunes unevenly, we are confident that he is intending to acquire the field - ומיהו בלקיטת הענפים מתכוין הוא להחזיק בדקל ולקנותו בחזקה זו. The Rashbam holds that aside from intent to acquire the property, he must also have intent to improve the property. One can only make a kinyan on a property if he: 1. intends to acquire. 2. improves the property. 3. intends to improve the property. The test of whether he prunes evenly or not is really a test to determine whether he is doing this act of pruning with the intent of improving the property.
There seems to be a fundamental argument between Tosafos and the Rashbam whether it is sufficient to have intent to acquire (tosafos) or whether one must intend to improve the property in order to acquire it (rashbam). What is the machlokes? It seems that they argue whether chazaka is just a ma'aseh kinyan or an expression of ownership. Tosafos holds that if one intends to be ko'neh through this ma'aseh kinyan, he is ko'neh, but he doesn't need to intend to improve the property. So long as he is doing an action of improving the property it qualifies as a ma'aseh kinyan, therefore when he intends to acquire through this ma'aseh kinyan he is ko'neh. But, the Rashbam seems to understand that chazaka is not just a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rashbam holds that chazaka is a method of the new person expressing his ownership through this action. The expression of ownership is not a ma'aseh kinyan, rather since he is acting like an owner of the field we now treat him as an owner. Being that the chazaka is really just a means of the new owner expressing his ownership, he must have intend to improve the property as an owner would with the intent to acquire. It is only through the intent to improve the property that he is showing his ownership of the property.
Now, even according to the Rashbam who maintains that the purpose of pruning evenly is to demonstrate that his intent is to improve the property, it is possible that if we had witnesses who can testify that his intent was to improve the property in order to acquire it, even if he only pruned one side of the tree he would succeed in his acquisition. However, the Rosh (63) holds that the purpose of pruning evenly is not to demonstrate his intent. The Rosh writes - כללא דמילתא צריך שיעשה מעשה הנראה לעינים שעושה לתקן הקרקע הלכך שקיל רברבי ושביק זוטרי אע"פ שהקרקע מתקנת בכך וגם הוא אומר שכוון לתקן וכו' אפילו הוא אומר שעשה לתקן וכוון לקנות לא מהני
Meaning, it is insufficient for him to intend to improve the property in order to acquire. He must do an action that is clearly recognized by all as an action that is being done in order to improve the property. The Rosh holds that chazaka must be more than a demonstration of ownership from the perspective of the person making the chazaka. It must be an act that is objectively recognized by outsiders as a demonstration of ownership.

No comments: