Bava Batra 35b (לה:) — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

there—

regarding the offspring—

for this one,

the seller of the cow or the maidservant,

there is a monetary connection,

an inherent financial claim,

and for that one,

the purchaser of the cow or the maidservant, as well,

there is a monetary connection

inherent in the case—

For the cow and the maidservant were originally owned by one of them and subsequently passed into the possession of the other, and our uncertainty is at what point they gave birth: whether while they were still in the seller’s possession, or after they had passed into the purchaser’s possession.

But

here—

regarding land or a boat, where one says, “It always belonged to my ancestors,” and the other says, “It always belonged to my ancestors”—

if

the land or boat

belongs to the first one,

then

it does not belong to the second one

neither now nor ever;

and if it belongs to the second one,

then

it does not belong to the first one

at all!

The Sages of Nehardea say

with regard to a case of land or a boat where “one says, ‘It belonged to my ancestors,’ and the other says, ‘It belonged to my ancestors,’” and the court ruled: “Whoever prevails gains possession”:

And if someone from the marketplace comes and takes possession of it,

even though he does not claim that it belongs to him,

we do not remove it from his possession,

because even the two who were contesting ownership have no proof that it belongs to them, and perhaps it belongs to neither of them!

And this is also

what Rabbi Hiyya taught: The robber of property belonging to the public is not considered

a robber

and the Sages of Nehardea explain that this refers to a third party who took possession of property over which two other people are contesting, when neither of them has proof that it belongs to him, and it is possible that it belongs to neither of them.

Rav Ashi said: Actually,

this refers to a robber of property belonging to the public, as in the case stated by the Sages of Nehardea—

he is considered a robber

with regard to removing the property from him when the other person makes no claim concerning it.

And what

is the meaning of “he is not considered a robber,”

which Rabbi Hiyya said concerning such a robber? He is stating this to be stringent with regard to him:

this robbery cannot be

rectified

by returning it

[he does not achieve atonement through returning it], for he must return the stolen property to its owners, rather than remove it from his possession and render it ownerless for the first two parties to contest according to the rule that whoever prevails gains possession; and since he does not know who the owners are, it follows that he cannot return it.

We learned in the Mishna: The presumption of ownership is established by three years, from day to day:

Rabbi Abba said:

If he himself loaded a basket of produce for him

if the claimant loaded the holder with a basket containing produce from his field,

immediately

after he did so,

the presumption of ownership is established,

for this is equivalent to his admitting to the holder that the land belongs to him.

Rav Zevid said:

And

in any event,

if the claimant claimed

the owner of the field

and said:

The land is mine forever, and the reason I assisted him with the produce was that

I brought him down for the produce

as a sharecropper for one-half, one-third, or one-quarter, he is

believed.

And this applies

when a person can say to the holder of the field, “I brought him down for the produce”

within the three years

that the latter has held the land, in order to counter the evidence arising from his having loaded the holder with a basket of produce— -

But after three years

that a person has held the field,

he cannot

the claimant cannot say: This person held the field because “I brought him down for the produce,” even if he did not load him with a basket of produce; for a person does not take care to preserve his deed for more than three years, and this claimant should have protested, as the Gemara explains later in the discussion.

He said,

astonished,

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana:

And

if

indeed

I brought him down for the produce, what could I have done,

if he truly brings his fellow down to partake of the produce—for example, if he gives him his field as collateral to repay a debt, what can he do?! That is to say, since he cannot claim “I brought him down for the produce” after the latter has held it for three years, it follows that anyone who brings another person down to partake of the produce for a period longer than three years will lose his field?!

He said to him,

Rav Kahana said to Rav Ashi:

He should have protested

He had the ability to protest to the holder within the three years and say to the witnesses: “Know that I brought him down for the produce for such and such a number of years, and the body of the land is mine.” If he has no deed of sale, he cannot claim, “I had a deed, but it was lost, because I did not take care of it after three years,” for since the owner of the field protested to him, he should have taken care of his deed. Although this is not a complete protest like other protests, in which he claims, “He is sitting in the field as a robber,” since even according to the claimant’s own words, the other person is lawfully holding the land, it is nevertheless a protest!

For if you do not say so,

that even a partial protest of this kind is a valid protest,

these loans secured by the fields of Sura

where the borrower brings the lender down to partake of the produce of his field,

as it is written in them:

“When these years are completed, this land shall leave without payment”,

when a specified number of years—as they agreed between them—has ended, the land returns to its owner without payment or price—then shall we say that

if he conceals the deed of the loan secured by the field in his possession and says:

“It was purchased by me,”

he is likewise believed,

can the lender really conceal the deed of the loan secured by the field forever and claim, “It was purchased by me,” and should we believe him on the basis of a three-year presumption, while the claimant has no ability to invalidate his presumption through a partial protest?!

And should you say that here too

indeed, he can do so—

Is it conceivable that

the Sages enacted

this arrangement of a loan secured by the field of Sura —

something that could bring him to

a loss,

is it possible that the Sages enacted something through which the borrower could come to suffer a loss?! Surely the Sages would certainly not enact an arrangement of this kind—

Rather,

it must be that there is no concern of loss, because

he should have

the borrower should have

protested

to the lender with a partial protest, and this protest would invalidate the lender’s presumption, so that he would have no ability to cause the borrower a loss—

And if so,

here—

when he brings him down for the produce—

likewise,

if he is concerned that at the end of three years the sharecropper will claim that the field is his,

he should have protested

to the lender within the three years with a partial protest, because even a partial protest is a valid protest!

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

A gentile who held land belonging to a Jew for three years and claimed, “I purchased it,” is not believed, for the three-year presumption was stated only with regard to a Jew. Since gentiles are presumed to be robbers and violent, and the Jew is afraid to protest against them, the Sages did not enact

a presumption of ownership in their favor.

Moreover, even

a Jew who comes by way of

that

gentile is—

that Jew—

like the gentile

himself:

Just as a gentile has a presumption of ownership only by means of a deed, so too a Jew who comes by way of a gentile has a presumption of ownership only

by means of a deed.

That is to say, if a gentile held land for three years and then sold it to a Jew, we do not establish the land in the possession of the Jew on the basis of his presumption of ownership. This is because the gentile’s presumption is ineffective for believing the gentile’s claim, and consequently, not only if the Jew himself did not hold the land do we refrain from establishing it in his possession, since the gentile’s presumption is ineffective both for him and for the Jew who comes by way of him; but even if the Jew himself held the land for three years, we do not establish it in his possession, since the Jew’s presumption is a presumption unaccompanied by a claim. He does not claim, “I know that the gentile purchased it from the Jew, and it is mine”; rather, he relies on the presumption established by the gentile, and that is not a valid presumption.

Rava said: And if he said

the

Jew -

who held possession of it for three years after acquiring it from the gentile - to the Jewish claimant: