Commentary for Bava Batra 58:11

ורמי דרבא אדרבא ורמי דרב נחמן אדרב נחמן דההוא

in this house?' He replied, 'I bought it from you, and I have had the use of it for a period of <i>hazakah</i>.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., three years. And therefore it is mine, although I cannot produce any record of the purchase. ');">⁹</span> To which the other replied, 'But I have been living in an inner room [and therefore did not protest].'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because to a certain extent I had the use of your room, being able to pass in and out, and therefore it has not belonged to you for three years. ');">¹⁰</span> The case was brought before R. Nahman, who said to the defendant: You must prove that you have had constant use of the house<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'prove your eating'. ');">¹¹</span> [for three years without the claimant]. Said Raba to him: Is this a right decision? Is not the onus probandi in money cases always on the claimant? A contradiction was pointed out between Raba's ruling here and his ruling in another place, and between R. Nahman's ruling here and his ruling in another place. For a certain man

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 58:11. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.