Bava Batra 30b — the Talmud in English

He said to him—

the claimant to the possessor: “But

do you not admit ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

that this land is mine—

and do you not admit that this land was mine?

And you

after all

did not buy it from me,

and you after all did not buy it from me; and if so,

go away; you are not a litigant of mine—

you are not a litigant for me!”

Rava said: He stated the law to him,

as the claimant answered the possessor according to law.

An incident involving

one who said to his fellow

who was holding his land: “

What are you doing in this land [what are you doing in my land]?!”

He said to him—

the possessor

to the claimant: “

I bought it from so-and-so [I bought the field from so-and-so],

and

I

am believed in this, for

I consumed it for the years of presumption.”

He said to him—

the claimant 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 to the claimant: “

But I have witnesses that I came and consulted with you, and you said to me, ‘Go buy it’ [and behold, my witnesses testify that before I bought the field I consulted with you, and you told me to buy it]!”?

He said to him—

the claimant to the possessor: “Indeed, I advised you thus, not because it belonged to that so-and-so, but because I wanted you to buy the field from that robber, for

the second [that is, you]

is convenient for me,

and whereas

the first [he who sold it to you]

is more difficult than he,

and I cannot legally remove the field from him.

Rava said: He stated the law—

to him:

the claimant, and even if he held it for three years, as I explained [for it is a presumption without a claim],” end of Rashbam’s words in brief. It is explained that Rashbam explains our passage as dealing with a case where he did not hold it for three years, and therefore he explains what they said in the Gemara, “And you did not buy it from me,” to mean that even if he had claimed it, it would not have helped him, since he has no presumption of three years;

nevertheless, the law is true even if he had held it for three years. One must examine Rashbam’s words: a. Since the claimant’s argument stands even when the possessor held it for three years, why did he need to explain that the claimant claims, “After all, you did not hold it for three years,” and force the wording of the Gemara, “You did not buy it from me,” to mean: even if you had claimed that you bought it from me, you would not have been believed!? In Beit Ha-Levi, part 3, section 26, and in Kehillot Yaakov, section 20, they elaborated on this detail of Rashbam. b. Why did Rashbam not mention that he should be believed—if he had claimed, “He bought it from you in my presence,” even if he did not hold it for three years—because of the possibility that he could have claimed, “It never happened”!? As Tosafot indeed wrote,

see their words; and especially since Rashbam opened his words by saying, “And even though there are no witnesses for the claimant that it was his and we do not believe him,” it follows that he opened with the possibility that he would not have admitted, and concluded with the possibility that he would have said, “It is yours and I bought it from you”; and see Rashbam’s position on this in Tur, section 146, in Derisha and Shakh there, subsection 33, and in Pilpula Harifta on the Rosh, section 7, which cited Rashbam’s words. The Gemara was astonished:

“ According to whom did Rava rule for him!? Is it according to Admon, and not according to the Sages who disputed him, and the law is according to them!?

For we learned

that the Sages disputed Admon concerning this reasoning:

One who protests concerning a field

that was sold by Reuven to Shimon,

and signed

the claimant himself

upon it [upon the bill of sale]

as a witness.

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

Admon says:

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

the second is convenient for me, whereas

the first is more difficult than he,

and I wanted to have dealings with the second, and not with the first.”

And the Sages say:

since he signed the bill of sale,

the claimant lost

his

right.

It is thus explained that the reasoning, “the second is convenient for me, the first is more difficult than he,” is stated in a dispute among tannaim, and the opinion of the Sages is not like Admon, who holds this reasoning. And shall we say that Rava ruled according to Admon’s opinion!?

And we reject this:

Even you may say

that Rava ruled like

the Sages,

and there is a distinction between the subjects:

There, concerning the document upon which the claimant signed as a witness,

the claimant

performed for him

a

deed

by signing a bill of sale; and if it were not his, he would not have signed the bill of sale.

But here, where the claimant did nothing, but merely advised the buyer to purchase it,

a person performs speech

that is called [the expression “chance”]

and says.

An incident involving

that

man

who said to his fellow

who was holding his field: “

What are you doing in this land [what are you doing in my field]?!”

He said to him—

the possessor to the claimant: “

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

He said to him—

the claimant to the possessor: “

So-and-so is a robber,

and he sold mine.”

what are you doing on my field?

He said to him—

the possessor to the claimant: “

But I have witnesses that you came at night and said to me: ‘Buy 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]; and if the field were yours, you would not spend your money for nothing, but would summon that person to judgment!”?

He said to him—

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

I said

in my heart:

I will buy my law [I will purchase my law with money]”—that is, I said in my heart: It is better for me to buy with a small amount of money land that is fit for me, rather than to trouble myself and come to judgment! Rava said:

Indeed,

a person may purchase his law [indeed, a person may purchase his laws], for there are simple people who do not wish to quarrel even over what is theirs, and it is preferable for them to pay money in order to take what is theirs without judgment and dispute.

An incident involving

that

man

who said to his fellow: “

What are you doing in this land!?”

He said to him—

the possessor to the claimant: “

From so-and-so [who is known as the owner of the land]

I bought it, and consumed it for the years of presumption!”

He said to him—

the claimant to the possessor: “

But I hold a document that I bought it from him, here four years ago [and behold, I hold a document in which it is written that I bought it from that so-and-so four years ago], while you say that you have sat on this land only the three years of presumption; it follows that you bought the field from that so-and-so one year after I had already bought it from him.”

He said to him—

the possessor to the claimant: “Here I have witnesses

that I have already been sitting on this land for more than four years, and if you say to me: ‘Did you yourself not say that you sat in the field for “the years of presumption,” that is, three years, and now I can no longer return and claim that I sat in the field for four years or more’—

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 bought it, and I have possessed it for the requisite three years.”

He said to him:

the claimant said to the possessor: “

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

and I have a deed stating that I bought it from that so-and-so four years ago. You claim that you have sat on this land for only the three years required to establish ownership. It follows that you bought the field from that person one year after I had already bought it from him.”

He said to him:

the possessor said to the claimant: “I have witnesses with me who testify that I have already been sitting on this land for more than four years. And if you say to me: Did you not yourself say that you had sat in the field for ‘the requisite two years,’ meaning three years, and you may not now return and claim that you sat in the field for four years or more—” Do you think that when I initially said “the requisite years of possession,” I meant only three years

apply when the possessor is believed to claim that he bought it from the seller before this one’s document, if he brought witnesses

that he consumed it for seven years,

that he held the land for seven years,

because this one’s presumption preceded that one’s document,

for in this manner the possessor’s presumption was completed before the claimant’s document—

did I mean?

No; rather,

I meant many years of possession

I said “the requisite years of possession” without qualification because I did not know that you possessed a deed of sale from that so-and-so predating the three years of my possession.

Rava said:

Indeed,

people sometimes refer to many years as

“the requisite years of possession.”

And this applies

when the possessor is believed to claim that he bought the field from the seller before the date of the other person’s deed, if he brings witnesses

that he possessed it for seven years

that he held the land for seven years,

so that this person’s possession preceded the deed of the other

in this way, the possessor’s period of possession ended before the date of the claimant’s deed—