Responsa for Bava Batra 82:11
למימרא דסבר רב שטר אית ליה קלא ועדים לית להו קלא והאמר רב המוכר שדה בעדים גובה מנכסים משועבדים התם לקוחות
— Abaye replied: That is just what we mean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the kind of thing that constitutes 'proof'. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> Raba, [however], said: It is quite possible for a man to measure out his field and not sell it after all. Three [successive] purchasers of the same field can count as one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If A occupies a field one year and then sells it to B, who occupies it a second year and then sells it to C, who occupies it a third year, C at the end of the third year can claim ownership in virtue of the three years' occupation. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> Rab said: [This is only] if all the purchases were effected by deed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., B's purchase from A and C's from B. The reason is that such purchases are likely to become known to the original owner, but otherwise they are not likely to become known to him and he may think that the successive occupiers have no intention of claiming the land as their own and therefore does not trouble to protest. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> Does this indicate that in Rab's opinion a sale by deed becomes generally known but a sale in the presence of witnesses does not become generally known? Surely Rab [himself] has laid down that if a man sells a field [with a guarantee]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if the property is claimed by a third party and has to be surrendered to him, he will allow the purchaser to recover the purchase price from any part of his remaining property. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> in the presence of witnesses, the purchaser may recover even from property on which there is a lien?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even from property which the vendor has subsequently mortgaged or sold, the presumption being that the persons who have bought this property from him or taken it on mortgage were aware that there was a lien on his property. This would show that a sale in the presence of witnesses does become known. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> — In that case the purchasers
Maharach Or Zarua Responsa
(2) A built a structure on top of the stairway. B objects to its presence and demands its removal.
(3) A and B built additions to their buildings. Each demand that the other remove the addition. A claims that he should not be ordered to tear down his addition, as his father's writ of partition, which was duly signed and executed, gave him the right to renovate or add to his house, according to his discretion , provided that the length or width of the original building was not, in any way enlarged.
A - (1) Although it is as offensive and inconvenient for A to utilize a public privy, as it is for B's womenfolk to patronize a public laundry, the two cases are dissimiliar. In the latter instance, the land need not be dug up, and if a particular space was needed, the washing could be done in another part of the courtyard. The former instance, however, requires that the land be dug up, and furthermore, the privy can not be readily moved. B's objection is therefore sustained.
(2) Unless B raised an objection at the commencement of the construction, it is not necessary for A to remove the structure. However, the structure must not block the right of passage to the street.
(3) We accept the veracity of A's claim, concerning the conditions, which he avers, were stated in his father's writ of partition. By the same token, we assume that A tacitly concedes that what applies to himself is applicable to B. Therefore, neither A, nor B, need remove the additions which they built.
Teshuvot Maharam
A. No, B may collect his money immediately.
SOURCES: Cr. 280; Pr. 523; L. 128; Hag. Maim. to Sanhedrin, 6, 8.