Commentary for Bava Batra 318:16

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך מי שמת </strong></big><br><br>

[When the matter] was brought before R. Nahman he said [to the buyer]. 'Go [and] bring proof of your [undisturbed] enjoyment of the usufruct.' Said Raba to R. Nahman, 'Is this the law? [Surely], he who claims from the other has to produce the proof!' [Does not this present] a contradiction between the two statements of Raba and between the two statements of R. Nahman!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra notes 5 and 6. ');">²⁵</span> — There is no contradiction between Raba's statements, [because] here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of the land of Bar Sisin. ');">²⁶</span> the seller is in possession of his property;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it belongs to him. ');">²⁷</span> and there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the dispute about the outer rooms. ');">²⁸</span> the buyer is in the possession of his property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it belongs to him. ');">²⁷</span> There is [also] no contradiction between the statements of R. Nahman, [because] since here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of the land of Bar Sisin. ');">²⁶</span> he spoke to him, of the estate of Bar Sisin and [that plot] bore the name of Bar Sisin, It is incumbent upon him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The seller. ');">²⁹</span> to prove that it does not belong to Bar Sisin; here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the dispute about the outer rooms. ');">²⁸</span> [however.] [granted] that he has no [less a claim] than [one] who holds a deed, do we not [even in such a case] say [to the holder], 'Attest your deed and you will retain possession of the estate'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, it is the buyer who has to produce the proof. On the whole passage, v. supra 29b, 30a. ');">³⁰</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 318:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.