If so, the Master should do for me in accordance with another statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel says that one who hoes ownerless property has acquired only the place that he struck with the hoe. Rav Naḥman said to him: In this matter I hold in accordance with our halakha, as Rav Huna says that Rav says: Once he struck the land with a hoe one time, he acquired the entire property.

The Gemara relates that Rav Huna bar Avin sent a ruling: In the case of a Jew who purchased a field from a gentile, and then another Jew came and took possession of it, it is not removed from the possession of the second Jew. And so too, Rabbi Avin, and Rabbi Ile’a, and all of our Rabbis agree with regard to this matter.

§ Rabba said: These three statements were told to me by Ukvan bar Neḥemya the Exilarch in the name of Shmuel: The law of the kingdom is the law; and the term of Persian sharecropping [arisuta] is for up to forty years, since according to Persian laws the presumption of ownership is established after forty years of use; and in the case of these tax officials [zaharurei] who sold land in order to pay the land tax, the sale is valid, as the tax officials were justified in seizing it, and one may purchase the land from them.

The Gemara notes: And this statement applies to land seized to pay the land tax, but not to land seized to pay the head tax. What is the reason for this? The head tax is placed on a man’s head, i.e., the obligation of this tax is on the individual and is unrelated to his property. It is therefore theft for the tax officials to sell land for this purpose. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Everything, even the barley in the pitcher, is mortgaged for the payment of the head tax.

Rav Ashi said: Huna bar Natan said to me that Ameimar raised a difficulty with regard to this statement of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: If so, you have abolished the inheritance of the firstborn son of one who owes taxes to the kingdom. If everything can be seized by the tax collectors to pay the father’s debt, any property that he left behind is only a potential inheritance, not actually property of the heirs, and the halakha is that the firstborn does not take a double share in a potential inheritance as he does in property that the deceased possessed.

The Gemara continues the statement of Huna bar Natan: And I said to Ameimar: If it is so that this presents a difficulty, then even if the property can be seized as payment for the land tax this difficulty would present itself as well, as the sons would not inherit their father’s estate in the event that it is seized to pay the land tax. Rather, what have you to say to deflect this question? That the firstborn son’s right is not negated in a case where the father gave the land tax and then died, so that he is no longer indebted to the government and the field is completely his. Here too, the firstborn son maintains his rights in a case where the father gave the head tax and then died.

Rav Ashi said: Huna bar Natan said to me: I asked the scribes who wrote documents and recorded halakhic rulings in the court of Rava, and they said to me that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, who states that one’s possessions are all mortgaged for the payment of the head tax. The Gemara notes: But that is not so, as there, Huna bar Natan said that in order to buttress his previous statement.

And Rav Ashi said: An idler [pardakht] must assist the town by paying taxes even though he has no income in that town. And this matter applies in a case where the town saved him from his obligation by asking for a reduction on his behalf. But if the tax collectors [andisekei] do not seek to collect his debt this is regarded as heavenly assistance, and he is not obligated to volunteer to pay his share.

§ Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The boundary between fields and the sea squill that was planted to demarcate the border between fields serve as a barrier between fields with regard to the property of a convert who died without heirs, so that one who takes possession of the property acquires land only until the boundary or the sea squill, but not other land the convert had possessed beyond that point. But they do not serve as a barrier between fields with regard to the matter of produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [pe’a], and ritual impurity, and even the area beyond it is considered to be part of the same field. When Ravin came to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael, he said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: They serve as a barrier between the fields even with regard to the halakhot of pe’a and ritual impurity.

The Gemara explains: What is the halakha of pe’a that is affected by determining whether it is one or two fields? As we learned in a mishna (Pe’a 2:1): And these serve as a barrier for the purpose of pe’a, i.e., the presence of any of these divides a field so that each section constitutes a distinct field from which pe’a must be given independently: A stream that passes through the field; and a canal;