Bava Batra 82

He came before Rab Judah, and the other went and brought two witnesses, one of whom asserted that R. Kahana had encroached to the extent of two rows<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'beds'. ');">¹</span>

and the other to the extent of three rows. Rab Judah said to R. Kahana: Go and compensate the man for two out of the three rows. Said R. Kahana: Who is your authority [for this ruling]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That where two witnesses partly agree and partly differ you may accept what is common ground between them. ');">²</span>

[He replied:] Rabbi Simeon b. Eleazar, as it has been taught: 'Rabbi Simeon b. Eleazar states that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel agreed that if there are two sets of witnesses [to a loan], one of which says [that the loan was for] one <i>maneh</i> and the other [for] two <i>manehs</i>, [their evidence is accepted in respect of the one <i>maneh</i>] because one <i>maneh</i> is included in two. Where they differed was in the case where there is one pair [of witnesses of whom] one says that [the loan was for] a <i>maneh</i> and the other [that it was for] two <i>manehs</i>. In that case Beth Shammai held that their evidence is at variance, whereas Beth Hillel held that two <i>manehs</i> include one.' R. Kahana rejoined: But I can bring you a letter from the West [Eretz Yisrael] to show that the <i>halachah</i> does not follow R. Simeon. To which Rab Judah replied: [Meanwhile my decision can stand] till you bring it.

A certain man lived four years in an upper room in Kashta. One day the owner of the room came and found him there, and said to him: What are you doing in this house? He replied: I bought it from so-and-so who bought it from you. He summoned him before R. Hiyya, who said to the occupier: If you can bring evidence to show that the man from whom you bought the house lived in it even for a single day, I will declare you the owner, but otherwise not. Rab said afterwards [to his disciples]: I was sitting in front of my uncle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hiyya. ');">³</span>

and I said to him, 'Will not a man sometimes buy and sell [a thing] on [the same] night?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore why do you demand proof that the man from whom he bought it lived there. ');">⁴</span>

I noted, however, his agreement in the case where the occupier said, 'The man from whom I bought it bought it from you in my presence;' then his word is accepted, because had he wished he [could have put forward a still stronger plea] by saying, I myself bought it from you. Raba said: The ruling of R. Hiyya is more likely to be right, because the Mishnah says [here], AN OCCUPIER BY VIRTUE OF INHERITANCE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY PLEA. It is a plea that he does not require, but he does require to bring a proof [that the person from whom he inherited the land occupied it]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the same rule should apply to one who occupies in virtue of purchase from a third party. ');">⁵</span>

— Possibly, however, the Mishnah means that he requires neither plea nor proof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore Rab may be right. ');">⁶</span>

Or, if you like, I can say that a purchaser is [on a] different [footing from an heir], because he is not likely to have thrown away money for nothing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., to the third party from whom he bought it, unless he had made sure that he had bought it from the original owner. Hence even if we say that an heir requires to bring proof that his father occupied the land, the purchaser from a third party is not required to bring similar proof. ');">⁷</span>

The question was asked [in the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>:] If the previous owner was seen [on the property],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Taking its measurements. ');">⁸</span>

what [are we to infer]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does this constitute proof that he sold it or not? ');">⁹</span>

— Abaye replied: That is just what we mean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the kind of thing that constitutes 'proof'. ');">¹⁰</span> Raba, [however], said: It is quite possible for a man to measure out his field and not sell it after all. Three [successive] purchasers of the same field can count as one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If A occupies a field one year and then sells it to B, who occupies it a second year and then sells it to C, who occupies it a third year, C at the end of the third year can claim ownership in virtue of the three years' occupation. ');">¹¹</span> Rab said: [This is only] if all the purchases were effected by deed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., B's purchase from A and C's from B. The reason is that such purchases are likely to become known to the original owner, but otherwise they are not likely to become known to him and he may think that the successive occupiers have no intention of claiming the land as their own and therefore does not trouble to protest. ');">¹²</span> Does this indicate that in Rab's opinion a sale by deed becomes generally known but a sale in the presence of witnesses does not become generally known? Surely Rab [himself] has laid down that if a man sells a field [with a guarantee]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if the property is claimed by a third party and has to be surrendered to him, he will allow the purchaser to recover the purchase price from any part of his remaining property. ');">¹³</span> in the presence of witnesses, the purchaser may recover even from property on which there is a lien?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even from property which the vendor has subsequently mortgaged or sold, the presumption being that the persons who have bought this property from him or taken it on mortgage were aware that there was a lien on his property. This would show that a sale in the presence of witnesses does become known. ');">¹⁴</span> — In that case the purchasers