Bava Batra 104

כדשלח רב הונא בר אבין דברים העשוין להשאיל ולהשכיר ואמר לקוחין הן בידי אינו נאמן קשיא:

[and Raba acting] according to the message sent by R. Huna b. Abin, 'If things that are usually lent or hired [are found in a man's possession] and he pleads that he has bought them, his word is not accepted?' — This is really a difficulty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And Samuel has no answer to it. ');">¹</span>

אמר רב חסדא לא שנו אלא דאין חלוקין בעיסתן אבל חלוקים בעיסתן אימור מעיסתו קימץ

R. Hisda said: The rule just laid down<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By Rab, who said that the onus probandi is on the brother. ');">²</span>

ראיה במאי רבה אמר ראיה בעדים רב ששת אמר ראיה בקיום השטר

applies only if the brothers share a common table,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'are not separated in their dough'. ');">³</span>

אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן הא רב והא שמואל הא רבה והא רב ששת מר כמאן סבירא ליה אמר ליה אנא מתניתא ידענא דתניא אחד מן האחין שהיה נותן ונושא בתוך הבית והיו אונות ושטרות יוצאין על שמו ואמר שלי הן שנפלו לי מבית אבי אמא עליו להביא ראיה

but if they eat separately, the one [against whom the claim is brought] can say that he saved up [money] from his food allowance. What sort of proof is required [of the brother]? — Rabbah said: The testimony of witnesses; R. Shesheth said: The confirmation of the document.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The so-called 'honpak' (lit., 'it was produced'): the endorsement of the Beth din that they had examined the signatures and found them genuine. This would create a presumption in favour of the brother, but would not be so convincing as the testimony of witnesses. ');">⁴</span>

וכן האשה שהיא נושאת ונותנת בתוך הבית והיו אונות ושטרות יוצאין על שמה ואמרה שלי הן שנפלו לי מבית אבי אבא או מבית אבי אמא עליה להביא ראיה

Raba said to R. Nahman: Here we have the opinion of Rab and of Samuel, and again that of Rabbah and R. Shesheth: with whom do you agree? He replied: All I know is a Baraitha. For it has been taught: [If brothers live together and] one of them has the management of the house, and if deeds and bonds are current in his name and he asserts: I obtained them from the legacy of my maternal grandfather, the onus probandi lies upon him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As laid down by Rab. V. supra 52a. As to the nature of the proof required, R. Nahman offers no opinion. ');">⁵</span>

מאי וכן מהו דתימא אשה כיון דשביחא לה מילתא דאמרי קא טרחא קמי יתמי לא גזלה מיתמי קא משמע לן:

Similarly, if a woman has the management of a house, and deeds and bonds are current in her name, and she asserts: They are mine, as I obtained them from the legacy of my paternal or maternal grandfather, the onus probandi is upon her. Why 'similarly'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This term should by rights introduce a statement which adds something material to the preceding statement, which does not seem to be the case here. ');">⁶</span>

במה דברים אמורים במחזיק אבל בנותן מתנה והאחין שחלקו וכו': אטו כל הני דאמרינן לאו בני חזקה נינהו

— You might think that as it is a matter of pride for a woman for [people] to say that she has the charge of orphans she would not rob them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the onus probandi is on the other party. ');">⁷</span>

חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני במה דברים אמורים בחזקה שיש עמה טענה כגון מוכר אומר לא מכרתי ולוקח אומר לקחתי

Hence we are told [that we must not assume this].

אבל חזקה שאין עמה טענה כגון נותן מתנה והאחין שחלקו והמחזיק בנכסי הגר דלמקני בעלמא הוא נעל גדר פרץ כל שהוא הרי זו חזקה

THIS RULE OF THREE YEARS APPLIES ONLY TO OCCUPIERS, BUT ONE WHO IS PRESENTED WITH A PIECE OF LAND OR BROTHERS WHO DIVIDE AN INHERITANCE OR ONE WHO SEIZES THE PROPERTY OF A PROSELYTE etc. Are then the others mentioned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The recipient of a gift and brothers who divide an inheritance and one who seizes the property of a proselyte. ');">⁸</span>

תני רב הושעיא בקדושין דבי לוי נעל גדר פרץ כל שהוא בפניו הרי זו חזקה בפניו אין שלא בפניו לא אמר רבא הכי קאמר בפניו לא צריך למימר ליה לך חזק וקני

not occupiers? — There is a lacuna [in the Mishnah], and it should read as follows: This rule [of three years] applies only to occupation which requires to be supported by a plea, as for Instance if the seller says, I did not sell it, in which case the other has to plead, I did buy it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And without this plea his three years' occupation is of no avail. ');">⁹</span> But where the occupation needs no plea to support it, as for instance in the case of the recipient of a gift or brothers dividing [an inheritance] or one who seizes the property of a proselyte where nothing more is required than to establish ownership<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., there is no need to hand over money. ');">¹⁰</span> — IF HE DOES ANYTHING AT ALL IN THE WAY OF SETTING UP A DOOR OR MAKING A FENCE OR AN OPENING, THIS CONSTITUTES A TITLE OF OWNERSHIP. R. Hoshaia learned in the [Tractate] <i>Kiddushin</i> edited in the school of Levi:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Levi also drew up a Tosefta like R. Hiyya and R. Oshiah (Rashb.). [V. however, Halevy, Doroth II, 595.] ');">¹¹</span> If he [the buyer] does anything at all in the way of setting up a door or making a fence or an opening in his [the seller's] presence, this constitutes a title of ownership. Are we to suppose that this is only [the case if the act is done] in the seller's presence, and not otherwise? — Raba replied: The meaning is this. [If the act is done] in his presence, he has no need to say [to the buyer], Go, occupy and acquire ownership;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the transaction is complete without this. ');">¹²</span>