Responsa for Bava Batra 81:5
מהו דתימא האי גברא מיזבן זבנה ליה האי ארעא ושטרא הוה ליה ואירכס והאי דקאמר הכי סבר אי אמינא מיזבן זבנה לי האי ארעא אמרי לי אחוי שטרך הלכך לימא ליה אנן דלמא שטרא הוה לך ואירכס כגון זה (משלי לא, ח) פתח פיך לאלם הוא קמ"ל
<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THE FACT OF POSSESSION<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For three years in the case of land, etc., immediate in the case of movables. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
a) Q. M(eir) settled in the town T and lived there for many years buying houses and planting vineyards and groves. While he was alive certain persons contested his right to settle in T, but R. Judah ha-Kohen confirmed M's settling-rights. Now (after M's death) some inhabitants of T seek to oust M's son-in-law claiming that M possessed no settling rights in T.
A. Since R. Judah, my teacher and relative, acting in his official capacity as judge, confirmed M's settling-rights, no one is permitted to contest these rights of M. For, R. Judah deserves complete reliance on, and respect for his decisions. Therefore, you ought to silence all contestants by decree.
b) You state in your letter that two years ago you inquired of me regarding R. Isaac son of Rehabiah whose settling right was contested by the leading inhabitants of the town and that at that time we (?) had confirmed R. Isaac's right on the following grounds: a) witnesses testified that his father dwelt in this town for a year or two without disturbance; b) after his father's death he dwelt here for three years without disturbance; and c) in such cases the court puts forth the claim (for the heir) that had the father been alive he would have claimed to have bought (or obtained) settling-rights from the other dwellers of the town (and would have needed no further evidence under the circumstances). I have heard my teacher R. Judah ha-Kohen decide cases of settling-rights-disputes on the grounds quoted above; but I do not believe that such decisions are correct. According to talmudic law, undisturbed possession is not a factor in disputes involving settling-rights. Persons dwelling on their property during its occupancy by another, do not have to protest such occupancy since they are always in possession of their property (B.B. 29b). Therefore, the failure of the inhabitants of the town to protest against R. Isaac's settling in their midst, is of no consequence, and the decision given above is, indeed, faulty. However, it is possible that my teacher (R. Judah) arrived at such decision by following not talmudic law but community practice. Many communities accept, as legal, methods of proving a person's settling-rights that have no basis in, and that are entirely unacceptable to, talmudic law. For, settling rights are governed by the customs and practices of each particular community. The customs of the various communities differ from one another and are not at all dependent on strict talmudic law. R. Judah, therefore, finding a parallel in talmudic law, wanted to institute the custom of accepting undisturbed possession as a method of proving a person's settling rights. This custom ought to be followed in the communities where R. Judah instituted it (in deference to this scholar), and is in itself worthy to be followed in other communities as well.
SOURCES: L. 213.
A. Since R. Judah, my teacher and relative, acting in his official capacity as judge, confirmed M's settling-rights, no one is permitted to contest these rights of M. For, R. Judah deserves complete reliance on, and respect for his decisions. Therefore, you ought to silence all contestants by decree.
b) You state in your letter that two years ago you inquired of me regarding R. Isaac son of Rehabiah whose settling right was contested by the leading inhabitants of the town and that at that time we (?) had confirmed R. Isaac's right on the following grounds: a) witnesses testified that his father dwelt in this town for a year or two without disturbance; b) after his father's death he dwelt here for three years without disturbance; and c) in such cases the court puts forth the claim (for the heir) that had the father been alive he would have claimed to have bought (or obtained) settling-rights from the other dwellers of the town (and would have needed no further evidence under the circumstances). I have heard my teacher R. Judah ha-Kohen decide cases of settling-rights-disputes on the grounds quoted above; but I do not believe that such decisions are correct. According to talmudic law, undisturbed possession is not a factor in disputes involving settling-rights. Persons dwelling on their property during its occupancy by another, do not have to protest such occupancy since they are always in possession of their property (B.B. 29b). Therefore, the failure of the inhabitants of the town to protest against R. Isaac's settling in their midst, is of no consequence, and the decision given above is, indeed, faulty. However, it is possible that my teacher (R. Judah) arrived at such decision by following not talmudic law but community practice. Many communities accept, as legal, methods of proving a person's settling-rights that have no basis in, and that are entirely unacceptable to, talmudic law. For, settling rights are governed by the customs and practices of each particular community. The customs of the various communities differ from one another and are not at all dependent on strict talmudic law. R. Judah, therefore, finding a parallel in talmudic law, wanted to institute the custom of accepting undisturbed possession as a method of proving a person's settling rights. This custom ought to be followed in the communities where R. Judah instituted it (in deference to this scholar), and is in itself worthy to be followed in other communities as well.
SOURCES: L. 213.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy