Bava Batra 29b (כט:) — the Talmud in English

And Mar Zutra concedes,

who said: If the claimant did not explicitly make this claim, we do not make it on his behalf:

b.

In the case of landowners who were

traveling merchants who circulated among the towns

to sell women’s ornaments, and whose practice was not to return to their town except after a long period of time—

Even though he did not claim

the challenging merchant did not claim that the possessor should bring witnesses who would testify that he had established uninterrupted three-year possession, nevertheless

we make the claim on his behalf,

the court: Perhaps this person established possession only when the challenging merchant was outside his town, and when the claimant came to the town, the possessor would leave the house. Perhaps it was for this reason that the claimant remained silent and did not protest, as he did not know that this person was living in his house; and this is not valid presumptive possession until he brings witnesses that he did not leave his house even for a single night.

And Rav Huna concedes

that he required three uninterrupted years

with regard to the shops of Meḥoza,

[in the shops of Meḥoza that sold bread and wine], where three uninterrupted years are not required; rather, if he established possession of them for six years, using them during the daytime, that suffices, since

they are used during the day but not at night

[the shops are intended for use during the day and not at night].

There was an incident involving

Rami bar Ḥama and Rav Ukva bar Ḥama,

who

bought a certain maidservant jointly.

Rami bar Ḥama and Rav Ukva bar Ḥama bought their Canaanite maidservant from another person. They did not use her for three uninterrupted years, the period required to establish possession. Rather,

one

of them

used her

for the

first, third, and fifth years, and the other

one

used her

for the

second, fourth, and sixth years.

After some time,

a claim was brought against her

[her original master came forward with a claim, saying that he had not sold the maidservant to them at all]!

They came

Rami bar Ḥama and Rav Ukva bar Ḥama

before Rava

to ask about their case!

He said to them,

Rava:

But

why did you act in this manner

[why did you not use her for three consecutive years]? Surely this was only

so that you would not establish presumptive ownership against one another,

[so that neither of you would establish three-year presumptive ownership against the other], because the three years were not consecutive.

And if so,

just as it is not presumptive ownership for you,

[just as this is not presumptive ownership of one against the other], so too, with respect

to others

[an external claimant],

it is not presumptive ownership,

and you have lost the maidservant whom you purchased.

And we said

that their possession is not presumptive ownership

only

in a case such as

where no partnership deed was written

[a deed setting out the division of labor between the partners who owned the maidservant],

but if a partnership deed was written, it has public knowledge,

[the matter becomes publicly known], and once three years had passed during which the partners had used the maidservant by turns, this is valid presumptive ownership.

Rava said:

If the possessor worked

the field

entirely except for a quarter-kav plot

[a plot of land in which a quarter-kav of seed is sown], which he neither worked nor sowed, he

acquires

it

in its entirety

through his possession; that is, he may claim, “I bought it

except for

that

quarter-kav plot

upon which he is not deemed credible to claim, “I bought it together with the rest of the field”

!

And we said

that he is not deemed credible even concerning the quarter-kav plot, to claim that it is in his possession by virtue of purchase,

only

with regard to a quarter-kav plot

that is suitable for sowing,

and since he did not sow it, he did not establish possession of it and did not acquire it.

But

if that quarter-kav plot

is not suitable for sowing,

then he

acquires it together with the land

[he is deemed credible to claim that he bought it, since the possession he established over the rest is effective for this plot as well].

Rav Beיבי bar Abaye raised an objection:

But if that is so,

that when the field is not suitable for sowing, possession cannot be established through the field itself, then

a rocky outcrop

[a rock] that is not suitable for sowing—

through what can one acquire it!?

That is, how can one establish possession of it!?

Rather, it must be that one can

it is necessarily the case that

put animals there and spread

produce

[by placing one’s animals there to graze and lie down, or by spreading produce over it].

Here too,

with regard to a quarter-kav plot that is not suitable for sowing,

he should have put animals there, or alternatively spread produce over it,

[he should have established possession of that quarter-kav plot in one of the two ways mentioned].

There was an incident involving

a certain

man

who said to his fellow,

who was occupying his house: “

What are you doing in this house

[what is your business in my house]?!”

He said to him,

the possessor said to the claimant: “

I bought it from you

[I bought it from you]

and I have consumed the years of presumptive ownership.”

The claimant said to him,

the claimant said to the possessor: “But

I was in the inner rooms

[I lived in the inner rooms, and I would pass through the outer rooms where you were sitting], and therefore I did not protest against you.”

They came

the claimant and the possessor

before Rav Naḥman

to ask about their case

; he said to him,

Rav Naḥman said to the possessor:

Go and substantiate your possession,

[go and substantiate your use], meaning: Your possession is not presumptive ownership unless you prove—as you claim—that the claimant was not in the inner rooms.

Rava said to Rav Naḥman:

Is it really

the law

that the burden of proof rests upon the possessor to establish that the claimant was not in the inner rooms? But we have an established principle:

The burden of proof is upon the one who seeks to take property from his fellow;

and it is the claimant who has come to remove the possessor from the house in which he lives, so the burden of proof rests upon him to establish that he was indeed in the inner rooms ! The Gemara raises a difficulty: It emerges that when a doubt arose, Rava would leave the house in the possession of the purchaser, whereas Rav Naḥman would leave it in the possession of the seller

; and

if so,

Rava’s ruling contradicts Rava’s ruling

[one must raise a contradiction between Rava’s words here and his words elsewhere],

and

likewise,

there is a contradiction

between

Rav Naḥman’s ruling and Rav Naḥman’s ruling!

For we find that they disputed another uncertainty between a seller and a purchaser, and there Rava’s and Rav Naḥman’s positions are the reverse of their positions here!