Bava Batra 70

אית ליה דררא דממונא ולההוא אית ליה דררא דממונא הכא אי דמר לא דמר ואי דמר לא דמר

had [at some time] a pecuniary interest [in the article in dispute].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., each was at some time the owner of the cow or the slave. ');">¹</span> but in this case of R. Nahman, if the property belonged to one, It never belonged to the other.

אמרי נהרדעי אם בא אחד מן השוק והחזיק בה אין מוציאין אותה מידו דתני רבי חייא גזלן של רבים לאו שמיה גזלן

The Nehardeans laid down that if an outsider<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a man from the street'. ');">²</span> comes and seizes the property, he is not forced to surrender it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because possibly it belongs to neither of the claimants. ');">³</span>

רב אשי אמר לעולם שמיה גזלן ומאי לא שמיה גזלן שלא ניתן להשבון:

because R. Hiyya taught: He who robs the public<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two claimants being regarded as the 'public' (lit., 'many'). ');">⁴</span> is not a robber in the legal sense.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And cannot be forced to make restitution. ');">⁵</span>

חזקתן שלש שנים מיום ליום וכו': א"ר אבא אי דלי ליה איהו גופיה צנא דפירי לאלתר הוי חזקה אמר רב זביד ואם טען ואמר לפירות הורדתיו נאמן והני מילי בתוך שלש אבל לאחר שלש לא

R. Ashi said: He is indeed a robber in the legal sense,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And must be deprived of the property. ');">⁶</span> and why [does R. Hiyya say that] he is not a robber in the legal sense? Because he is unable to make restitution like an ordinary robber.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he does not know to which of the two claimants he should restore the property, and therefore he cannot make atonement like an ordinary robber. ');">⁷</span>

א"ל רב אשי לרב כהנא אי לפירא אחתיה מאי הוה ליה למעבד א"ל איבעי ליה למחויי

THEIR PERIOD OF <i>HAZAKAH</i> IS THREE YEARS FROM DAY TO DAY. R. Abba said: If [the claimant of a piece of land] helps [the man In possession] to lift a basket of produce on to his shoulders, this at once creates a presumption [that the land belongs to the latter].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This act being a kind of admission that the land belongs to him. ');">⁸</span> R. Zebid said: If, however, he pleads, 'I have installed him [as a metayer] with a right to the produce [but not the ownership of the land],' his plea is accepted. This too is only the case if the plea is made within three years [of the alleged transfer], but not later. Said R. Ashi to R. Kahana: If he had made him a metayer [for more than three years], what was he to do?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So as to ensure that he will be able to recover the property at the end of the period of leasing. ');">⁹</span>

דאי לא תימא הכי הני משכנתא דסורא דכתב בהו במשלם שניא אלין תיפוק ארעא דא בלא כסף אי כביש ליה לשטר משכנתא גביה ואמר לקוחה היא בידי הכי נמי דמהימן מתקני רבנן מידי דאתי ביה לידי פסידא אלא איבעי ליה למחויי הכא נמי איבעי ליה למחויי

He said: He should have lodged a protest within three years. For, were you not to say so, then what about the so-called 'mortgage of Sura'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A form of deed by which a borrower transferred property to the lender for a fixed number of years. ');">¹⁰</span> containing the stipulation, 'On the termination of these [X] years this land shall be given up without payment.' Now suppose the mortgagee suppresses the mortgage bond and asserts that he has bought the land; are we indeed to say that his plea is to be accepted? Would the Rabbis make a regulation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that three years' occupation gives a title to ownership. ');">¹¹</span>

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. ');">¹²</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. ');">¹³</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. ');">¹⁴</span> Said Raba: If, however, the Jew pleads,