Bava Metzia 219:1

ימכרו לעצים וילקח בהן קרקע והוא אוכל פירות אימא והזקינו

they are sold for timber and land bought with the proceeds, whereof he [the husband] enjoys the usufruct!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This proves that they rank as principal; for if as fruit, the husband might enjoy them direct. ');">¹</span>

ואיבעית אימא לאו מי אוקימנא לההיא כגון שנפלו לה בשדה אחרת דקא כליא קרנא:

— Read: 'and they aged.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prematurely. Even Abaye admits that in such a case it does not count as produce, since it was unexpected. ');">²</span>

ההוא שטרא דהוה כתיב ביה שנין סתמא מלוה אמר שלש לוה אמר שתים קדים מלוה ואכלינהו לפירי מי נאמן רב יהודה אמר קרקע בחזקת בעליה קיימא רב כהנא אמר פירות בחזקת אוכליהן קיימי

Alternatively: have we not explained it that, e.g., they fell to her in another field [not belonging to her]? so that the [entire] principal is destroyed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the husband uses it direct, whereas the principal of the legacy must remain the wife's. But if she inherited them in her own field or vineyard, the husband could sell them for timber and utilise the proceeds direct, since the soil is still left for the wife. The dispute of Abaye and Raba refers to a similar case, viz., where land and its trees were pledged. But if only trees, the field not belonging to the debtor, presumably Raba agrees that they rank as principal, not produce. ');">³</span>

והלכתא כוותיה דרב כהנא דאמר פירות בחזקת אוכליהן קיימי והא קי"ל דהלכתא כוותיה דרב נחמן דאמר קרקע בחזקת בעליה עומדת

A certain note<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Concerning a mortgage in the fashion of Sura, (v. p. 394) which was that the land reverted to the debtor after an agreed period without further payment. ');">⁴</span>

התם מילתא דלא עבידא לאיגלויי היא הכא מילתא דעבידא לאיגלויי היא ואטרוחי בי דינא תרי זמני לא מטרחינן

stated an unspecified number of years. Now, the creditor maintained that it meant three; whilst the debtor insisted upon two. Thereupon the creditor anticipated [the findings of the court] and enjoyed the usufruct. Now, whom do we believe? — Rab Judah said: The land stands in the presumptive possession of its owner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 102b, Thus, since there is a dispute about the third year, we presume that it belongs to the debtor, since he is its known owner, unless there is proof to the contrary; and therefore the creditor is forced to repay. ');">⁵</span>

מלוה אומר חמש לוה אומר שלש א"ל אייתי לי שטרך א"ל שטרא אירכס לי אמר רב יהודה מלוה נאמן מגו דאי בעי אמר לקוחה היא בידי

R. Kahana said: The usufruct is in the presumptive possession of him who enjoyed it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being a general rule that the onus of proof lies on the plaintiff, who in this case is the debtor, since the creditor has already taken it. ');">⁶</span>

א"ל רב פפא לרב אשי רב זביד ורב עוירא לא סבירא להו הא דרב יהודה מאי טעמא האי שטרא כיון דלגוביינא קאי מיזהר זהיר ביה ומיכבש הוא דכבשיה לשטריה סבר אוכלה תרתין שנין יתירתא

And [indeed], the law is in accordance with R. Kahana, who maintained that the usufruct is in the presumptive possession of those who enjoyed it. But have we not an established principle that the law is in accordance with R. Nahman [in civil law], and he [himself]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So the text according to Rashi and Rashal. ');">⁷</span>

א"ל רבינא לרב אשי אלא מעתה האי משכנתא דסורא דכתבי הכי במישלם שניא אלין תיפוק ארעא דא בלא כסף היכא דכבשיה לשטר משכנתא ואמר לקוחה היא בידי הכי נמי דמהימן וכי מתקני רבנן מילתא דאתי בה [לידי] פסידא א"ל התם תקינו ליה רבנן דמרי ארעא יהיב טסקא וכרי כריא

ruled that the land is in the presumptive possession of its owner?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 102b. ');">⁸</span>

ארעא דלית לה כריא ולא יהיב טסקא מאי א"ל איבעי ליה למחויי לא אימחא מאי איהו הוא דאפסיד אנפשיה

— There it is in a matter that is not destined to be cleared up; here, however, it is a matter [the truth of which] may be finally revealed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the signatories to the note, who can attest the intended period. ');">⁹</span>

אריס אומר למחצה ירדתי ובעל הבית אומר לשליש הורדתיו מי נאמן רב יהודה אמר בעל הבית נאמן רב נחמן אמר הכל כמנהג המדינה

and a Court is not to be troubled twice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the return of the usufruct is ordered, witnesses may attest that the intended period was three years, and the matter will have to come before Court a second time. ');">¹⁰</span>

סבור מינה לא פליגי הא באתרא דשקיל אריסא פלגא הא באתרא דשקיל אריסא תילתא

If the creditor maintains that it [the mortgage] was for five years, whilst the debtor says that it was for three: and when he challenges him, 'Bring forth your note,' he pleads, 'The note is lost,' — Rab Judah ruled: We believe the creditor, since he could have pleaded, 'I have bought it [outright].'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For three years establish a presumption of ownership, in the absence of a deed of a sale; v. B.B. III. 1. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר להו רב מרי ברה דבת שמואל הכי אמר אביי אפילו באתרא דשקיל אריסא פלגא פליגי רב יהודה אמר בעל הבית נאמן דאי בעי אמר שכירי ולקיטי הוא:

Said R. Papa to R. Ashi: R. Zebid and R. 'Awira disagree with Rab Judah's ruling. Why? — Since this document is for the purpose of collection,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., of the debt, in the form of usufruct; without it, the debtor could have evicted the creditor at the very outset. ');">¹²</span>

יתומים אומרים אנו השבחנו ובעל חוב אומר אביכם השביח על מי להביא ראיה

he [the creditor] must have taken great care of it, and [now] he is actually Suppressing the document, thinking, 'I will enjoy its usufruct for an additional two years.' Rabina said to R. Assi: If so, a mortgage after the fashion of Sura, which was drawn up thus: 'On the completion of this number of years, this estate shall go out [of the mortgagee's possession] without further payment:' if he suppresses the mortgage deed and pleads, 'I have bought it' — is he then believed: would then the Rabbis have enacted a measure which may lead to loss? — He replied: There the Rabbis enacted that the mortgager should pay the land-tax and repair ditches.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Round about the field, for irrigation. Hence the true ownership is known. ');">¹³</span> But what of an estate that has no ditches and is not subject to land-tax? Then he should have made a formal protest,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a declaration that the land was not purchased by the creditor. This of course had to be done before three years. ');">¹⁴</span> he answered. But what if he did not protest? — Then he brought the loss upon himself. If the <i>aris</i> claims, 'I entered [the field] on half profits'; whilst the landlord maintains, 'I engaged him on a third profits'; who is believed? — Rab Judah said: The owner is believed; R, Nahman ruled: It all depends on local usage. Now, it was assumed that there is no dispute, the latter ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it depends on local usage, and since this was said in contradistinction to Rab Judah's dictum, it must mean that the aris is believed ');">¹⁵</span> refers to a place where an <i>aris</i> receives half; the former, where he receives a third. But R. Mari, son of Samuel's daughter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 588, n. 2. ');">¹⁶</span> said to them [the scholars]: Thus did Abaye say: Even in places where the <i>aris</i> receives a half, there is still a dispute; Rab Judah ruling that the landlord is believed, since he could have pleaded, 'He is my hired labourer' or 'my gleaner.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'I have only hired him for a few days, and thus could have dismissed him with a small wage'; [H], here translated 'gleaner', was a sort of client or retainer (Jast.). ');">¹⁷</span> If orphans maintain, 'We have created the improvements;' whilst the creditor contends, 'Your father created them:'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A creditor of the deceased has no claim upon the increased value of an estate effected by the heirs; but v. p. 630, n. 5. ');">¹⁸</span> upon whom lies the onus of proof?