Bava Batra 29a (כט.) — the Talmud in English

If you do not say this

if you do not say so—that Jeremiah’s practice was to offer the people of Israel sound advice—then you will have difficulty with what Jeremiah said to them elsewhere:

Build houses and dwell in them, and plant gardens and eat their fruit,

for

what is he saying!?

Rather,

it must be that

he is teaching us sound advice:

Jeremiah is saying: You are destined to remain in Babylonia until the completion of seventy years; therefore, it is worthwhile for you to build houses and settle there permanently until you are redeemed.

Here too,

what he told them about writing deeds was

merely sound advice;

Jeremiah

is teaching us that, nevertheless, even one year establishes ḥazaka—a presumption of ownership—and it is not necessary to possess the land for three years!?

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

Know

further:

for

the

verse states there, in Jeremiah: “Take these deeds, this deed of purchase, the sealed one and this open deed,

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 was giving them as to where the deeds should be stored.

Rather, Rava said

the following explanation for the requirement of three years according to the Rabbis:

Because

in the first year,

when a person sees his fellow sitting in his field,

a person is willing to forgo

the landowner

two

years

also forgoes,

but

three

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

the landowner is not willing to forgo

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 relinquishes his claim to his fellow’s sitting on his land, we should say that

when the land returns

to the claimant before the possessor has established possession for three years,

it should return

the land

without the produce,

since the landowner has already relinquished his claim to the consumption of the produce—

and

yet Rav Naḥman said:

A field that returns to the claimant because the possessor did not sit on 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 his possession!?

Rather, Rava said:

In the first year a person does not object,

when he sees his fellow possessing his land, since he knows that he can claim the value of the produce from the possessor; and even for

two

years

he does not object,

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

three

years,

the claimant objects, even if he can claim payment for the produce from him. Since he does not object even to his fellow’s sitting on the land for three years, it must be that he sold it to him.

He said

in astonishment

to him, Abaye:

If that is so, in a case such as that of the household of bar Elyashiv, who object even to one who passes along the boundary of their fields,

as they are particular even about someone who passes over the boundary of their fields,

would it also be the case that

one who took possession of their land

immediately

before three years had passed

would have established possession, since they did not object to him!?

since they did not object to him!?

And if you would say: Here too,

indeed, one who takes possession of their land need not possess it for three years; rather, possession is established immediately—

if so,

the same should be said with regard to other people as well, since people’s dispositions are by no means identical in this matter: some object after one day, some after a month, and some after a year. Would you say that

you have made your statements dependent on variable measures,

and how, then, did the tanna specify that possession is established after precisely three years!?

Rather, Rava said

the following explanation for the law of possession according to the Rabbis:

In the first year a person takes care of his deed; for two and three years he takes care of it, but beyond that he does not take care of it,

as is the common practice: A person safeguards his deed—when he possesses land and consumes its produce—for one year, or two or three years, but he does not safeguard his deed beyond that.

Abaye said to him:

The commentators differ in the explanation of this reason: a. the view of the Ramban an is that possession is established because the claimant should have lodged a protest immediately. However, since people customarily retain their deeds for up to three years, this creates a deficiency in the purchaser’s claim that he bought the field, because the seller can say to him: “Show your deed.” Therefore, after three years the possessor is deemed credible when he claims that the field belongs to him view is that the presumption exists because the owner should have lodged a formal protest immediately. However, since people customarily retain a document for up to three years, there is a weakness in the possessor’s claim that he purchased the field: the seller can say to him, “Show your document [show your deed].” Therefore, after three years, the possessor is believed when he claims that it belongs to him; and because of these two matters the holder acquires the field; but if one of them is lacking — for example that he did not hold three years even though he was silent — though he was silent this is not a chazakah, or that he held three years and this silence was only a protest before witnesses, even though the holder did not know of the protest that this is not a chazakah, because there is no verity to his claim. Therefore if there is a protest before two it is a protest even though it did not reach the ears of the holder, since we do not require except a common testimony of a protest in order to remove from him the charge "why were you silent, that your silence gives verity to the holder's claim," and behold witnesses come who testify that he did not remain silent, and since there is no verity to his claim it is not a chazakah.

If that is so, a protest

made by the claimant

in his absence

of the possessor

should not be a valid protest,

and

because the possessor could say to him

the claimant:

“Had you protested in my presence, I would have taken care of my deed,”

if you had protested in my presence, I would have safeguarded my deed beyond the three years during which I possessed it!? And we answer: This is because

the claimant could say to him: “

the claimant:

Your fellow

who heard my protest

has a fellow

of his own,

and

also

your fellow’s fellow

who heard the protest from his fellow

has another fellow

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

who has a fellow,

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

Rav Huna said:

The presumption of

three years that

the Sages said

applies

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 presumption of possession.

We raise an objection to Rav Huna:

What is he teaching us!?

But

we learned

this law in our Mishna, as we learned:

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

which indicates that there may be no interruption in the interim!?

And we answer: Nevertheless, Rav Huna needed to teach us that possession is established only when the years are consecutive, because

it might enter your mind

to interpret the statement in our Mishna that says

“from day to day”

as coming only

to exclude

three years

that are partial,

that is, years that are not complete.

And nevertheless,

if he consumed the produce for three complete years, they combine

even

when they were

spread out—

Rashbam added an explanation: do not say he meant interrupted three years; as we taught at the end concerning the land of the owner whose chazakah is three years and they are not from day to day, but three months at first and three months at the end, and twelve months in between.

Therefore, Rava Huna teaches us that three years are effective only when they are consecutive, one immediately following the other.

Rav Ḥama said: And Rav Huna concedes

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

in places where they leave fields fallow,

in a place where it is customary to sow the fields one year and leave them fallow the next, so as not to exhaust the land. The presumption of possession for such fields is established through three years of sowing, even if those years are not consecutive.

We raise an objection to Rav Ḥama: But

it is obvious,

that the matter depends only on local practice!? And we answer:

No, it is necessary in a case where some leave their fields fallow and some do not, and this man left his field fallow,

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

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

the possessor:

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

for if the land were truly yours, you would not have left it fallow but would have sown it.”

He teaches us that

he can

say to him

the possessor can say to the claimant:

a.

“I cannot guard a single field throughout the entire valley,

for I cannot guard a lone field in an entire valley, and since I cannot hire a watchman by myself, I therefore did not sow it.”

Alternatively:

and because of these two matters the holder acquires the field; but if one of them is lacking — for example that he did not hold three years even though he was silent — though he was silent this is not a chazakah, or that he held three years and this silence was only a protest before witnesses, even though the holder did not know of the protest that this is not a chazakah, because there is no verity to his claim. Therefore if there is a protest before two it is a protest even though it did not reach the ears of the holder, since we do not require except a common testimony of a protest in order to remove from him the charge "why were you silent, that your silence gives verity to the holder's claim," and behold witnesses come who testify that he did not remain silent, and since there is no verity to his claim it is not a chazakah.

“It is preferable for me to leave it fallow in this manner, for it produces more

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

We raise an objection to Rav Huna from the following, for

we learned

in our Mishna:

“The presumption of ownership of houses ...

three years from day to day

; but in the case of houses, witnesses know during the day but do not know at night

since witnesses know only that the possessor dwelled in the house during the day, whereas they do not know whether he slept there at night. Necessarily, they testify to a presumption based on daytime residence over six years, and although those years are not consecutive, their testimony is nevertheless effective to establish ownership of the land in the possessor’s hands. This demonstrates that it is not necessary to consume the produce for three consecutive years, which is difficult for Rav Huna!?

Abaye

answered:

Rashbam wrote: for whereas regarding a field and all the others mentioned in our Mishna there is no way to work them at night, and when one brings witnesses about the work of the days only it is a chazakah, but houses such that it is customary to dwell in them at night, and he cannot bring witnesses that they saw him dwell even at nights, and since he does not bring evidence about the nights, they are dispersed for them" and if Rav Huna’s ruling is valid, he could claim: “I saw that you did not live there at night, thereby revealing that it was not yours.” The plain meaning of the Gemara and the wording of the Rashbam indicate that according to the Gemara’s objection, three years do not establish possession of houses; rather, possession requires six years—that is, three years that are not consecutive. This is how it has been explained in the text, and the Rashba explained it similarly. Rabbeinu Yonah added: Although “three years” does not apparently indicate a period of three years, and it would have been more appropriate to teach “the presumption of ownership of houses is established after six years,” indicating six daytime years, since the witnesses do not know what occurred at night, one can say that since the other cases all teach “three years”—fields, olive presses, irrigated fields, and slaves—the Mishna likewise taught “three years” with regard to the presumption of ownership of houses. Ramban wrote: Regarding the fact that we raise an objection from the Mishna—“But in the case of houses, witnesses know during the day but do not know at night”—it would have been appropriate for Rav Huna to say to us: “According to your reasoning, since you say that even years spread out are effective, at least six years should be required.” However, this was not said because one might have thought that the “three” mentioned in the Mishna means six daytime years. Alternatively, according to us, any three years are effective, since the claimant cannot say: “I came during that period when you were not there, and that is why I did not protest.” Therefore, three daytime years suffice, since there are three years, even though the nights are not included. But according to Rav Huna, there is a difficulty and because of these two matters the holder acquires the field; but if one of them is lacking — for example that he did not hold three years even though he was silent — though he was silent this is not a chazakah, or that he held three years and this silence was only a protest before witnesses, even though the holder did not know of the protest that this is not a chazakah, because there is no verity to his claim. Therefore if there is a protest before two it is a protest even though it did not reach the ears of the holder, since we do not require except a common testimony of a protest in order to remove from him the charge "why were you silent, that your silence gives verity to the holder's claim," and behold witnesses come who testify that he did not remain silent, and since there is no verity to his claim it is not a chazakah.

It is not as you said, that the possessor cannot bring witnesses concerning his staying there overnight, for

who testifies concerning houses?

Why,

the neighbors!

And

the neighbors know what happens by day and by night, [that is, who are the witnesses testifying concerning possession of the house? The neighbors are the witnesses, and the neighbors can indeed testify even concerning his staying there overnight].

[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 his staying there overnight, except

To resolve the difficulty from our Mishna: Indeed, one cannot find a case of establishing ownership of a house through three years, since he cannot bring witnesses concerning his having spent the nights there, except

in a case where two people came and said:

“We rented it from him, and we lived in it for three years, by day and by night,” [the tenants of the house will come and testify: We established possession of the house on behalf of the landlord, and we lived in the house 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—

challenged—

Rav Yeimar to Rav Ashi: How can the tenants serve as witnesses establishing possession? After all,

But how can the tenants serve as witnesses establishing ownership? After all,

these

tenants

are

interested in their testimony, to testify that they indeed lived in it for three full years,

to testify that they in fact lived there for three complete years,

because if they do not say so [if they do not say this], then the land will return to the claimant, and

[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 tenants]:

[to the renters]:

“Go and give him the rent of the house, to this one,” [go and give the claimant the rent for the period that you lived in the house, since it belongs to him]— And it follows that without their testimony they will suffer a loss: For if they have already paid the person in possession, who rented the house to them, and the land does not remain in his possession on the basis of their testimony, the claimant will sue them a second time to pay him rent!?

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

Thus, without their testimony they would suffer a loss: they had already paid the person who rented the house to them, and if the land does not remain in his possession by virtue of their testimony, the claimant will sue them a second time to pay him rent!?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi to Rav Yeimar:

Judges of low caliber

judge in this manner, [only judges who are not expert in the law]

judge in this manner], to establish the land in the landlord’s possession through the testimony of the tenants, if they have already paid rent to the landlord!

And

are we not dealing with [that is, can we not explain our Mishna as referring to]

where

a case where they are holding the rent money and say:

“To whom shall we give it?” [the tenants have not yet paid the landlord; rather, they are holding the rent in their possession in order to give it to whoever prevails in the litigation]!?

[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 need not bring witnesses who testify explicitly concerning every day and every night, but only witnesses who 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:

nevertheless:

And if he claims and says, the claimant: “I know that he did not live in the house throughout all the days and nights, and therefore I demand that

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 to him that he lived there for three years, by day and by night,” [two witnesses should come and testify explicitly that this person indeed lived there 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 claimant

is a valid claim,

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