Bava Batra 30b (ל:) — the Talmud in English

He said to him:

the claimant said to the possessor, “But

do you not admit

that this land is mine,

do you not admit that this land was mine?

and

you הרי

did not purchase it from me,

and you הרי did not purchase it from me; and if so,

go away; you have no claim against me,”

you are not a litigant with me!

Rava said: He has made a legally valid claim,

the claimant answered the possessor according to law.

An incident involving

a certain man who said to his fellow,

who was possessing his land: “

What are you doing on this land

what are you doing on my land?”

He said to him,

the possessor said to the claimant: “

I purchased it from so-and-so

I purchased the field from so-and-so,

and

I am believed in this claim, for

I consumed the years of presumption.”

He said to him,

the claimant said to the possessor: “

So-and-so is a robber,

and he sold you a field that was not his, but mine”

. He said to him,

the possessor said to the claimant: “

But I have witnesses that I came and consulted you, and you told me: Go, purchase it

and my witnesses testify that, before I purchased the field, I consulted with you, and you told me to purchase it!”

He said to him,

the claimant said to the possessor: “Indeed, I advised you in this way, not because it belonged to that so-and-so, but because I wanted you to purchase the field from that robber, for

the second

that is, you

are easier for me

to remove from it, whereas

the first

the one who sold it to you

is more difficult than he,

and I cannot lawfully remove the field from him.

Rava said: He has made a legally valid claim

the claimant answered him according to law.

The Gemara asks:

According to whom

did Rava rule for him? Was it

according to Addamon,

and not according to the Sages, who disputed him and whose ruling is the halakha?

For we learned that the Sages disputed Addamon concerning this principle:

the Sages and Admon disputed this very reasoning:

One who protests concerning a field

that was sold by Reuven to Shimon,

and signed

the claimant himself

on it

on the deed of sale

as a witness.

That is, Reuven sold a field to Shimon, and had Levi sign the deed of sale as a witness. Levi, who had once owned this field, then came and protested, saying: “I never sold the field to Reuven, and I certainly did not sell it to you; therefore, return the field to me.”

Addamon says:

The claimant may say: “Indeed, I signed the deed, not because I thereby admit that he is in fact the owner of this field, but because

the second is easier for me,

whereas

the first is more difficult than he,

and I wanted to deal with the second and not with the first.”

And the Sages say:

Since he signed the deed of sale,

the claimant forfeited

his

right.

Thus it is clear that the principle, “The second is easier for me, while the first is more difficult than he,” is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, and the Sages reject Addamon, who maintains this principle. Are we to say that Rava ruled according to Addamon?

We reject this:

You may even say that Rava ruled according to

the

Sages,

and there is a distinction between the cases:

There,

with regard to the deed on which the claimant signed as a witness,

he performed

the claimant

an act

by signing a deed of sale; and if the field had not been his, he would not have signed the deed of sale.

But here,

where the claimant did nothing, but merely advised the purchaser to buy it,

a person may make a statement by chance

the expression “chance”

and say so.

An incident involving

a certain

man

who said to his fellow,

who was possessing his field: “

What are you doing on this land

what are you doing on my field?”

He said to him,

the possessor said to the claimant: “

I purchased it from so-and-so, and I consumed the years of presumption.”

He said to him,

the claimant said to the possessor: “

So-and-so is a robber,

and he sold what is mine.”

He said to him,

the possessor said to the claimant: “

But I have witnesses that you came at night and said to me: Purchase it for me

and I have witnesses who testify that you approached me one night and asked me to purchase the field from that so-and-so for you. If the field were yours, you would not spend your money for nothing; rather, you would bring that person to court”!

He said to him,

the claimant said to the possessor: “Indeed, I did so, and although it is mine and I can lawfully remove it from him, nevertheless,

I said

to myself:

I will purchase my legal claim

I will buy my claim with money.” That is, I said to myself: It is preferable for me to purchase with a small amount of money land that properly belongs to me, rather than trouble myself by going to court!

Rava said:

Indeed,

a person may purchase his legal claim

indeed, a person may purchase his legal rights, for there are simple people who do not wish to quarrel even over what is theirs, and they prefer to pay money in order to take what belongs to them without litigation or dispute.

An incident involving

a certain

man

who said to his fellow: “

Do you think that “the years of presumption”— which I said initially— means only three years !? That is not so; rather, I meant many years of presumption [I said many years of presumption], but for that reason I said simply “the years of presumption”: because I did not know that you had a bill of sale from that so-and-so that preceded the three years of presumption! Rava said: Indeed, people may call many years “ the years of presumption”! And these words

What are you doing on this land?”

He said to him,

the possessor said to the claimant: “

From so-and-so

who is known as the owner of the land

I purchased it, and I consumed the years of presumption”!

He said to him,

the claimant said to the possessor: “

But I hold a deed stating that I purchased it from him four years ago,

and I hold a deed stating that I purchased it from that so-and-so four years ago. You, however, say that you have occupied this land for only three years, which means that you purchased the field from that so-and-so one year after I had already purchased it from him.”

He said to him,

the possessor said to the claimant: “I have witnesses here that I have already been sitting on this land for more than four years. And if you say to me: ‘But you yourself said that you had sat on the field for “the years of presumption,” meaning three years, and you can no longer return and claim that you sat on the field for four years or more’—

Do you think that “

the years of presumption”

that I mentioned initially

means only three years

?

Did I mean that!?

That is not so. Rather,

I meant many years of presumption

that is, I said that I had consumed many years of presumption. I merely said “the years of presumption” without specifying, because I did not know that you had a deed of sale from that so-and-so that preceded the three years of presumption!

Rava said:

Indeed,

people sometimes refer to many years as “

the years of presumption”!

And this applies

that the possessor is believed to claim that he purchased it from the seller before the date of the other person’s deed, if he brought witnesses

that he consumed seven years,

that he possessed the land for seven years,

for this one’s possession preceded that one’s deed,

since in this manner the possessor’s presumption of ownership was completed before the claimant’s deed—