Bava Batra 29a — the Talmud in English

If you do not say this

[If you do not say so: Since Jeremiah’s practice was to offer the Jewish people good advice, the following statement that Jeremiah also told them would be difficult for you: “

Build houses and live in them, and plant gardens and eat their fruit,”

as

what does this mean!?

Rather,

it must be that

he is teaching us good advice

from Jeremiah: You are destined to remain in Babylon until the seventy years are completed. Therefore, it is worthwhile for you to build houses and settle there permanently, until you are redeemed.

Here too,

what Jeremiah told them about writing documents was

merely good advice,

as

he is teaching us

from Jeremiah; nevertheless, even one year establishes a presumption of ownership!?

Know

also:

for

it is

written

there, in Jeremiah: “Take these documents, this deed of purchase, the sealed one and this open document,

and place them in an earthen vessel so that they may last for many days.”

This is certainly nothing more than advice that he gave them concerning the place where the documents should be kept.

Rather, Rava said

the following explanation for the three-year presumption according to the Rabbis:

Because

during the first year,

when a person sees his fellow sitting in his field,

a person waives his claim

[the owner of the land] against the possessor regarding his eating the produce of the field; and even

two

years

he waives the claim.

But

three

years, when he sees his fellow sitting on his land,

the owner does not waive the claim; and if he remains silent, it is not because he waived the claim. Rather, it is proof that he sold the land to him.

and if he remains silent, it is not because he has relinquished his rights; rather, it is evidence that he sold the land to him.

He said

in astonishment

to him, Abaye:

If that is so,

since until three years a person waives his claim regarding his fellow’s occupying his land, we should say that

when the land returns

to the claimant before the possessor has established his presumption through three years,

it should return

the land

without the produce,

since the owner of the land had already waived his claim regarding the eating of the produce—

and

yet Rav Naḥman said:

When a field returns to the claimant because the possessor did not occupy it for three complete years,

the land itself returns

to the claimant,

the land

itself,

and the produce also returns

with it,

the produce

that the possessor consumed; that is, the possessor must pay for all the produce that he consumed during the period of his presumed ownership!?

Rather, Rava said:

During the first year a person does not object,

if he sees his fellow possessing his land, because he knows that he can claim the produce from the possessor; and even for

two

years

the claimant does not object. But when he sees his fellow occupying it for

the claimant, but when he sees his fellow sitting on it for

three

years, the claimant

does object, even if he can claim from him the value of the produce. Since he did not object even to an occupation of three years, it must be that he sold it to him.

оспаривающий, даже если он может взыскать с него стоимость плодов; а из того, что он не проявил требовательности даже в отношении пребывания в течение трёх лет, необходимо следует, что он продал её ему.

He said

in astonishment

to him, Abaye:

If that is so, what about the members of the house of bar Elyashiv, who object even to someone passing along the boundary of their fields

[as they are particular even about someone who passes along the edge of their fields]?

Would it also be the case that

someone who possessed their land

immediately

[before three years had passed]

would have established a presumption of ownership,

since they did not object to him!?

And if you would say: It is indeed so,

the person possessing their land does not need three years; rather, he establishes a presumption immediately!?

If so,

the same should be said of other people, since people’s attitudes are certainly not uniform in this matter: some are particular after one day, some after a month, and some after a year. Shall we say that

you have made your statement dependent on variable measures,

and how then did the tanna state that the presumption is specifically established through three years!?

Rather, Rava said

the following explanation for the rule of presumption according to the Rabbis:

During the first year a person takes care of his document; during the second and third years he takes care of it, but after that he no longer takes care of it,

[This is the normal practice: A person safeguards his document—when he possesses land and consumes its produce—for one year, or two or three years, but he does not safeguard his document for longer than that].

Abaye said to him:

If that is so, a protest

that the claimant makes

in his absence

of the possessor

should not be a valid protest,

because

he can say to him

the claimant:

“If you had protested in my presence, I would have taken care of my document,”

[If you had protested in my presence, I would have safeguarded my document beyond the three years that I possessed it]!? We answer: Because

he can say to him

the claimant:

“Your fellow

who heard my protest

has a fellow

[he has a friend],

and

also

your fellow’s fellow

[the friend of your fellow who heard the protest from him]

has a fellow

elsewhere

who has a fellow,

and so on; ultimately, the protest reached your ears.”

Rav Huna said:

חזaka

three-year presumption that the Sages stated

is

specifically

when he

consumed them

for three years

consecutively;

but if he worked the land for one year, left it fallow for one year, and then consumed its produce again, this is not a valid presumption.

We challenge Rav Huna:

What is he teaching us!?

The rule is already

taught

in our Mishna, for it states:

“Their presumption of ownership is three years from day to day,”

which implies that there may be no interruption in the meantime!?

We answer: Nevertheless, Rav Huna needed to teach us that a presumption is established only when the years were consecutive, because

it might enter your mind

: "

“from day to day,”

as meaning only

to exclude

three years

that are incomplete,

that is, years that are not full.

But in every case,

if he consumed the produce for three complete years, they count together

even

when they were

scattered—

Therefore, Rav Huna teaches us that three years are effective only when they were consecutive, one after the other.

Rav Hama said: And Rav Huna concedes

that even three years that are not consecutive can combine to establish a presumption

in places where they leave fields fallow,

in a place where the practice is to sow the land for one year and leave it fallow for one year, so as not to weaken the land. The presumption of ownership for such land is established through three years of sowing, even when they are not consecutive.

We challenge Rav Hama: But

it is obvious,

since the matter depends only on the local practice!? We answer:

It is necessary to state this in a case where some leave fields fallow and some do not, and this person left his field fallow,

[in a place where there is no established practice, and some leave fields fallow while others do not, and this possessor left his field fallow; moreover, the owners of the fields surrounding his field also left theirs fallow]—

It might enter your mind that the claimant could say to him

the possessor:

“If it were really yours, you should have sown it,

[if the land were indeed yours, you would not have left it fallow but would have sown it]”—

he teaches us that

the possessor

can say to him

the claimant:

a.

“I cannot guard one field in an entire valley,

[A single cultivated field in an entire valley cannot be guarded by me], and since I cannot hire a guard by myself, that is why I did not sow it.”

Alternatively:

“It is better for me this way, for it produces more,”

[or he can say to him: It is better for me to leave it fallow, because in this manner it produces more grain the following year].

We challenge Rav Huna from what

we learned

in our Mishna: “

The presumption of ownership of houses ...

three years from day to day”

; but with regard to houses, witnesses know about them during the day, while at night they do not know

[For witnesses know only that the possessor occupied the house during the day, whereas they do not know about his sleeping there at night]. Necessarily, then, they testify to occupancy during the day for six years, and although these years are not consecutive, their testimony is nevertheless sufficient to establish the land in the possessor’s control. Thus, it is not necessary to consume the produce for three consecutive years, which is difficult for Rav Huna!?

Abaye

answered:

This is not as you said, that the possessor cannot bring witnesses concerning lodging at night, for

who testifies concerning houses?

Why,

the neighbors!

And

the neighbors know [what happens] by day and by night,

[who are those who testify concerning possession of the house? Why, the neighbors are the ones who testify, and the neighbors can indeed testify also concerning lodging at night].

Rava said to resolve the difficulty from our Mishna: Indeed, you will not find possession of a house for three years, since he cannot bring witnesses concerning lodging at night, except

in a case where

two [witnesses] came and said, "

We rented from him, and we lived in it for three years, by day and by night,"

[the renters of the house will come and testify: We maintained possession of the house on behalf of the landlord, and we lived in the house for three years, by day and by night].

He said

in amazement

to him, Rav Yemar to Rav Ashi:

But how can the renters be witnesses to possession? For

these

renters

are concerned in their testimony

themselves,

to testify that they indeed lived in it for three complete years,

for if they do not say so

[for if they do not say so], then the land will return to the appellant, and

we say—

we, the court—

to them

[to the renters]:

Go and give him the rent of the house to this one,

[go and give the appellant the rental money for the time you lived in the house, for it belongs to him]—

and it follows that without their testimony they will suffer a loss, for if they had already paid the possessor who rented it to them, and if the land does not remain in his possession by means of their testimony, the appellant will sue them a second time to pay him rent!?

He said to him

Rav Ashi to Rav Yemar:

Lowly judges

judge thus,

[only judges who are not expert in the law judge in this manner], to establish the land in the possession of the landlord through the testimony of the renters, if they already paid rent to the landlord!

And

are we not dealing with

that is, can we not interpret our Mishna in

a case where they are holding the rent of the house, and they say, “

To whom shall we give it?”

[the renters have not yet paid the landlord, but are holding the rent in their hands, in order to give it to whoever wins the case]!?

Mar Zutra said:

Although the matter is obvious, that the possessor does not need to bring witnesses who testify explicitly concerning all the days and nights, but only that they testify generally, “We saw this person living in the house for three years,” and presumably, if he lived there by day, he also lived there by night;

nevertheless:

And if he claims and says,

the appellant: I know in this matter that he did not live in the house throughout all the days and nights, and therefore I demand that

two witnesses come to testify for him that he lived in it for three years, by day and by night,

[two witnesses should come and testify explicitly that he indeed lived in it for three years, by day and by night],

his claim

of the appellant

is a claim,

and the land is not established in the possessor’s possession until witnesses come and testify explicitly concerning dwelling during the days and the nights.