Bava Batra 58

ומודי מר זוטרא ברוכלין המחזירין בעיירות דאע"ג דלא טען טענינן ליה אנן

[And though in this case the court does not suggest the plea] Mar Zutra admits that where the claimant is an itinerant peddler,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 109. ');">¹</span>

ומודה רב הונא בחנותא דמחוזא דליממא עבידא לליליא לא עבידא

even if he does not raise the plea, the court raises it for him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because as such people are away for long periods, it is easy for other persons to occupy their houses without being noticed. ');">²</span>

רמי בר חמא ורב עוקבא בר חמא זבון ההיא אמתא בהדי הדדי מר אישתמש בה ראשונה שלישית וחמישית ומר אישתמש בה שניה רביעית וששית נפק ערער עילוה

R. Huna also admits that [though normally the three years must be continuous], in the case of the shops of Mahuza<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An important commercial centre in Babylonia. ');">³</span>

אתו לקמיה דרבא אמר להו מאי טעמא עבדיתו הכי כי היכי דלא תחזקו אהדדי כי היכי דלדידכו לא הוי חזקה לעלמא נמי לא הוי חזקה

[this is not necessary], because they are only used by day and not by night.

ולא אמרן אלא דלא כתוב עיטרא אבל כתוב עיטרא קלא אית ליה

Rami b. Hama and R. 'Ukba b. Hama bought a maidservant in partnership, the arrangement being that one should have her services during the first, third and fifth years, and the other during the second, fourth and sixth. Their title to her was contested, and the case came before Raba. He said to the brothers: Why did you make this arrangement? So that neither of you should obtain a presumptive right against the other [was it not]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By having three years' undisturbed possession. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רבא אכלה כולה חוץ מבית רובע קנה כולה חוץ מבית רובע

Just as you have no presumptive right against each other, so you have no presumptive right against outsiders. This ruling, however, only holds good if there was no written agreement between them to share [the maidservant]: if there was such an agreement, it would become bruited abroad.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore it was incumbent on the claimant to lodge a protest before three years had passed, and since he did not do so, a presumptive right has been established. ');">⁵</span>

אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע ולא אמרן אלא דבר זריעה היא אבל לאו בר זריעה היא קני לה אגב ארעא

Raba said: If the occupier has utilised<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'eaten'. ');">⁶</span>

מתקיף לה רב ביבי בר אביי אלא מעתה צונמא במה יקנה אלא באוקומי בה חיותא ומשטחא בה פירי ה"נ איבעי ליה לאוקומי בה חיותא אי נמי משטחא בה פירי

the whole field except the space of the sowing of a quarter of a <i>kab</i>, he acquires ownership [after three years] of the whole field with the exception of that space. Said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua: This only applies [if the space so left over] was suitable for sowing; but if it was not suitable for sowing, it is acquired along with the rest of the field. To this R. Bibi b. Abaye strongly objected, saying: If that is so, how does a man acquire a piece of rock [through occupation]? Is it not by stationing his animals there and laying out his crops there?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by making some use of the ground to show that it is his. ');">⁷</span>

ההוא דאמר ליה לחבריה מאי בעית בהאי ביתא אמר ליה מינך זבינתיה ואכלית שני חזקה א"ל אנא בשכוני גוואי הואי

So here too, he should have stationed his animals there and laid out his crops there.

אתא לקמיה דרב נחמן אמר ליה זיל ברור אכילתך אמר ליה רבא הכי דינא המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה

A certain man said to another, 'What right have you<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'What do you want?' ');">⁸</span>

ורמי דרבא אדרבא ורמי דרב נחמן אדרב נחמן דההוא

in this house?' He replied, 'I bought it from you, and I have had the use of it for a period of <i>hazakah</i>.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., three years. And therefore it is mine, although I cannot produce any record of the purchase. ');">⁹</span> To which the other replied, 'But I have been living in an inner room [and therefore did not protest].'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because to a certain extent I had the use of your room, being able to pass in and out, and therefore it has not belonged to you for three years. ');">¹⁰</span> The case was brought before R. Nahman, who said to the defendant: You must prove that you have had constant use of the house<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'prove your eating'. ');">¹¹</span> [for three years without the claimant]. Said Raba to him: Is this a right decision? Is not the onus probandi in money cases always on the claimant? A contradiction was pointed out between Raba's ruling here and his ruling in another place, and between R. Nahman's ruling here and his ruling in another place. For a certain man