Bava Batra 29b — the Talmud in English

And Mar Zutra concedes that

if the appellant did not explicitly make this claim, we do not make this claim for him:

b.

Landowners who were

peddlers who circulated among the towns

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

even though he did not claim

that the peddler-appellant should bring witnesses who would testify that the possessor had maintained possession for three consecutive years, nevertheless

we make the claim for him

in the court: perhaps this person maintained possession only while the appellant-peddler was outside his town, and when the appellant came to the town, he would leave the house; and perhaps it was for this reason that he remained silent and did not protest, because he did not know that this person was living in his house. And his possession is not established possession until he brings witnesses that he did not leave his house even for one night.

And Rav Huna concedes

that he required three consecutive years

in the shops of Meḥoza, [in the shops of Meḥoza that sell bread and wine],

where three consecutive years are not required; rather, when he maintained possession of them for six years during the daytime, that suffices, since

what is done during the day is done, but what is done at night is not done [the shops are fit to be 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 protest concerning her emerged [her first master brought a protest, saying that he had not sold the maidservant to them at all]!

[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!

Rava said to them:

Rava:

But

for what reason did you do this [why did you not use her for three consecutive years]? This is nothing other than

Why did you not use her for three uninterrupted years? This was only

so that you would not establish possession against one another, [so that one of you would not have possession for three years against the other],

and because the three years were not consecutive.

And if so,

just as for yourselves it was not established possession [just as this is not possession for one against the other], so too with regard

just as this did not establish possession for one of you against the other, so too, with regard

to everyone else [to an external appellant],

an external claimant—

it was not established possession either,

and you forfeited the maidservant whom you bought.

And we said

that their possession is not established possession

only

in a case such as

where no eitara was written [a document dividing the work between the partners who owned the maidservant],

meaning a document setting out the arrangement between the partners who owned the maidservant.

but if an eitara was written, it has publicity, [there is public knowledge of the matter], and after three years had passed during which the partners used the maidservant intermittently, possession is established.

there is public knowledge of the arrangement. Once three years had passed during which the partners had used the maidservant alternately, their possession establishes ownership.

Rava said:

If the possessor cultivated

the field

in its entirety except for a quarter-kav plot [a plot of land in which a quarter-kav is sown],

which he did not work and did not sow, he has

acquired

it,

in its entirety

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

except for

that

quarter-kav plot,”

but he is not believed to claim concerning it, “I bought it together with the rest of the field”!

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:

And we said

that he is not believed to claim even concerning the quarter-kav plot that it is purchased and belongs to him

only

in the case of a quarter-kav plot

that is fit for sowing,

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

But

if that quarter-kav plot

is not fit for sowing,

then

he acquires it together with the land [he is believed to claim that he bought it, for the possession that he maintained over the rest is effective for this as well].

He may credibly claim that he bought it, because the possession he established over the rest of the field is effective with regard to this plot as well.

Rav Bיבי bar Abaye raised an objection against this:

If that is so,

that when the field is not fit for sowing, possession in the field itself does not apply to it, then

a rock [a rock]

that is not fit for sowing,

by what can he acquire it!?

That is, how can he establish possession over it!?

Rather,

it is necessarily the case that

he placed animals there and spread

produce upon it [by placing his animals there to graze and lie down, or by spreading produce upon it];

by placing his animals there to graze and lie down, or by spreading produce over it.

so here too,

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

he should have placed animals there, or alternatively spread produce upon it, [he should have established possession over that quarter-kav plot in one of the two ways mentioned].

he should have established possession over that plot in one of the two ways mentioned.

The incident involving

a certain

man

who said to his fellow,

who was maintaining possession in his house: “

What are you doing in this house [what are your activities in my house]?!”

What are you doing in my house?

He said to him,

the possessor to the appellant: “

I bought it from you [I bought it from you]

and

and I consumed the years of possession.”

The appellant said to him,

the appellant to the possessor: “But

I was in the inner rooms [I lived in the inner rooms, and I passed through the outer rooms in which you were sitting],

and for that reason I did not protest against you!”

They came,

the appellant and the possessor,

before Rav Naḥman

to ask about their case;

Rav Naḥman said to him,

Rav Naḥman to the possessor:

Go, clarify your use, [go and clarify your use]; that is, your possession is not established possession unless you prove—as you claim—that the appellant was not in the inner rooms.

Go and establish the basis for your use. That is, your possession is not established unless you prove—as you claim—that the claimant was not in the inner rooms.

Rava said to Rav Naḥman:

But is

this the law

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

The one who takes from his fellow—upon him is the burden of proof;

and the appellant is the one who has come to remove the possessor from the house in which he lives, and the burden of proof that he was indeed in the inner rooms rests upon him!? The Gemara asks: It turns out that Rava places the house—in a case where doubt arose—in the possession of the buyer, whereas Rav Naḥman places it in the possession of the seller

; and

if so,

Rava contradicts Rava [the words of Rava here should be challenged from his words elsewhere],

as Rava’s statement here appears to contradict what he said elsewhere;

and

likewise

Rav Naḥman contradicts

the words

of Rav Naḥman!? For we find that they disagreed concerning another doubt between the seller and the buyer, and the positions of Rava and Rav Naḥman there are the reverse of their positions here!

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!