Responsa for Bava Batra 70:7
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב ישראל הבא מחמת עכו"ם הרי הוא כעכו"ם מה עכו"ם אין לו חזקה אלא בשטר אף ישראל הבא מחמת עכו"ם אין לו חזקה אלא בשטר אמר רבא ואי אמר ישראל
which would expose the mortgager to unfair loss? But the fact is that he can protect himself by lodging a protest within three years; and so in this case also he can protect himself by lodging a protest within three years. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: A Jew who derives his title from a non-Jew is on the same footing as a non-Jew:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the matter of hazakah. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> just as a non-Jew cannot prove his right save through producing a deed of sale,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is assumed that a Jew is afraid to protest against the occupation of his land by a non-Jew, and therefore three years' undisturbed occupation confers no hazakah on the latter. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> so the Jew who derives his title from a non-Jew [to a field originally belonging to a Jew] cannot prove his right save through producing a deed of sale.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Given by the original Jewish owner to the non-Jew, even though both he himself and the non-Jew have enjoyed undisturbed occupation for three years. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> Said Raba: If, however, the Jew pleads,
Teshuvot Maharam
A. In city property digging is not considered a valid act of possession. Likewise A did not acquire any rights to window lights since a Gentile does not renounce his rights to his property before he receives the money, and the Gentile's property was, therefore, not (res nullis) ownerless. However, before paying money to the Gentile, let B perform a valid act of possession (such as locking a door, fixing or breaking part of the fence, etc.); otherwise A will acquire rights to window lights during the interval between the paying of the money and B's taking formal possession, since during such interval the Gentile's property will be res nullis.
SOURCES: Cr. 63–64; Pr. 28–29; L. 338; Mord. ibid.
Teshuvot Maharam
A. As I have already explained in my other letter, the fact that the tower is built on A's foundations shows that the ground also belongs to A. B can not claim undisturbed possession as evidence of title since, deriving his rights from Gentiles, he is in the same category as a Gentile and has no presumptive right of title. B's sons also lack such right, nor do we claim in their favor that perhaps their father bought from A the right to erect his buildings, since they are in the category of "sons of a robber." Since B's sons do not claim that B bought from A in their presence the right to erect his buildings, but merely state that the burghers claimed to have built the tower legally, B's sons must either remove their buildings from the ground in question or come to terms with A.
SOURCES: Cr. 236; Am II, 180; Mordecai Hagadol, p. 314c; ibid. p. 366d.