Bava Batra 57

דאי לא תימא הכי (ירמיהו כט, ה) בנו בתים ושבו ונטעו גנות ואכלו את פרין מאי קאמר אלא עצה טובה קמ"ל הכא נמי עצה טובה קמ"ל תדע דכתיב (ירמיהו לב, יד) ונתתם בכלי חרש למען יעמדו ימים רבים

For if you hold otherwise, what do you make of the verse, Build ye houses and dwell in them, and plant gardens and eat the fruit of them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXIX, 5. ');">¹</span>

אלא אמר רבא שתא קמייתא מחיל איניש תרתי מחיל תלת לא מחיל

That obviously is a piece of good advice,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not a rule of law. ');">²</span>

אמר ליה אביי אלא מעתה כי הדרא ארעא תיהדר לבר מפירי אלמה אמר רב נחמן הדרא ארעא והדרי פירי

and so here too; the proof is that it says in the same connection, and put them in an earthen vessel that they may continue many days!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXXII, 24. This obviously is a piece of good advice merely, and thus the question remains, whence do the Rabbis derive the rule that three years' possession confers presumptive right? ');">³</span>

אלא אמר רבא שתא קמייתא לא קפיד איניש תרתי לא קפיד תלת קפיד

— No, said Raba, [the reason according to the Rabbis is this]: For the first year a man will forgo [his rights to the produce], for two years a man will forgo [his rights], but for a third year no man will forgo his rights. Said Abaye to him: In that case, when the land is restored [to the original owner on claiming it after two years], it should be restored without the produce;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the original owner waived his right for the time being. ');">⁴</span>

א"ל אביי אלא מעתה כגון הני דבי בר אלישיב דקפדי אפילו אמאן דחליף אמיצרא דידהו הכי נמי דלאלתר הוי חזקה וכי תימא הכי נמי אם כן נתת דבריך לשיעורין

why then has R. Nahman laid down that both the property and the produce have to be restored?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. infra p. 155. ');">⁵</span>

אלא אמר רבא שתא קמייתא מיזדהר איניש בשטריה תרתי ותלת מיזדהר טפי לא מיזדהר

— Raba therefore correcting himself said: For the first year a man is not particular about another man usurping his field,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he does not waive his right to the produce. ');">⁶</span>

אמר ליה אביי אלא מעתה מחאה שלא בפניו לא תיהוי מחאה דאמר ליה אי מחית באפאי הוה מיזדהרנא בשטראי

nor is he particular for the second year, but the third year he is particular. Said Abaye to him: If that is so, what of the people of Bar Eliashib who object even to anyone crossing their field? In their case should not occupation confer presumptive right immediately [if they do not object]? And if you say that that if so, then you introduce a kind of sliding scale?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The period required to confer hazakah will vary with the degree to which the original owners are particular. ');">⁷</span>

דאמר ליה חברך חברא אית ליה וחברא דחברך חברא אית ליה

— Raba therefore [again corrected himself and] said: For one year a man takes care of his title-deed, and so for two, three years does he take care; beyond that he does not take care. Said Abaye to him: If that is so, then [it would follow that] a protest made not in the presence of the holder is no protest, since the latter can say, 'If you had protested to me personally, I should have taken more care of my title-deed'? — The other can retort, '[You must have known of my protest because] your friend has a friend and your friend's friend has a friend.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 140. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רב הונא שלש שנים שאמרו הוא שאכלן רצופות מאי קמ"ל תנינא חזקתן שלש שנים מיום ליום מהו דתימא מיום ליום לאפוקי מקוטעות ולעולם אפילו מפוזרות קמ"ל

R. Huna said: The three years mentioned in the Mishnah only count if the occupier took the crops in all three successively. What does this statement tell us? Does not the Mishnah say that PRESUMPTIVE TITLE IS CONFERRED BY THREE YEARS [POSSESSION] FROM DAY TO DAY? — You might think that the expression FROM DAY TO DAY was only meant to exclude short years,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g. six months in the first year and six in the last. ');">⁹</span>

אמר רב חמא ומודי רב הונא באתרי דמוברי באגי

and that interrupted years were permissible;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So long as three full years were made up altogether. ');">¹⁰</span>

פשיטא לא צריכא דאיכא דמובר ואיכא דלא מובר והאי גברא מוברה מהו דתימא א"ל אם איתא דדידך הואי איבעי לך למיזרעה קמ"ל דאמר ליה חדא ארעא בכוליה באגא לא מצינא לינטר

now I know that this is not so. R. Hama said: R. Huna admits [that interrupted years are also sufficient] in places where it is customary to leave fields fallow [in alternate years]. Is not this self-evident?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That in such places there must be three full years of occupation in all, but not necessarily at one stretch. ');">¹¹</span>

ואי נמי בהכי ניחא לי דעבדא טפי

— It required to be stated in view of the case where some owners leave their fields fallow and some do not, this man being one of those who do. You might think that in this case the claimant can say to him, 'If the field is yours, you ought to have sown it.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though the fields all round are left fallow. ');">¹²</span>

תנן חזקת הבתים והא בתים דביממא ידעי בליליא לא ידעי

Now I know that this is not so, because the other can answer, 'I cannot keep watch over a single field in a whole valley';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he would have to bear singly the whole expense of the watchman. ');">¹³</span>

אמר אביי מאן מסהיד אבתים שיבבי שיבבי מידע ידעי ביממא ובליליא

or he can also answer, 'I prefer this way, because it makes the field more productive.'

רבא אמר כגון דאתו בי תרי ואמרי אנן אגרינן מיניה ודרינן ביה תלת שנין ביממא ובליליא

We learnt: [PRESUMPTIVE TITLE TO HOUSES] IS CONFERRED BY THREE YEARS [POSSESSION]. [Why should this be, seeing that] in the case of houses we can know if a man lives there by day but not if he lives there by night?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And according to R. Huna, the occupation must be continuous. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר ליה רב יימר לרב אשי הני נוגעין בעדותן הן דאי לא אמרי הכי אמרינן להו זילו הבו ליה אגר ביתא להאי

Abaye answered: Who is it that testifies to [a man having lived in] a house? — The neighbours; and the neighbours know whether he has lived in it by night as well as by day. Raba answered: [The way it can be known] is if, for instance, two persons come forward and say, We hired the house from him and lived in it day and night for three years. Said R. Yemar to R. Ashi: But these men are interested witnesses,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore their evidence cannot be accepted. ');">¹⁵</span>

א"ל דייני דשפילי הכי דאיני מי לא עסקינן כגון דנקיטי אגר ביתא ואמרי למאן ליתביה

because if they do not make this assertion we shall tell them to go and pay the rent to the claimant?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To whom but for their evidence we should assign the house. ');">¹⁶</span>

אמר מר זוטרא ואי טעין ואמר ליתו תרי סהדי לאסהודי ליה דדר ביה תלת שני ביממא ובליליא טענתיה טענה

— R. Ashi replied: Only incompetent judges would proceed thus.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., accept their evidence, if they have already paid rent to the defendant. ');">¹⁷</span> [No.] The case Raba has in mind is where they come with the rent and inquire to whom they are to give it. Mar Zutra said: If the claimant demands that two witnesses should be produced to testify that the occupier lived in the house three years day and night, his demand is valid.