Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Bathra

Folio 30a

said to another, 'I will sell you all the property of Bar Sisin's.'¹  There was a piece of land which was called Bar Sisin's, but the vendor said, 'This is not really the property of Bar Sisin though it is called Bar Sisin's.' The case was brought before R. Nahman, and he decided in favour of the purchaser. Said Raba to him: Is this a right decision? Does not the onus probandi always lie on the claimant? There is thus a contradiction between these two remarks of Raba, and also between the two rulings of R. Nahman.²  Between the two remarks of Raba there is no contradiction. In the latter case the seller is in possession; in the former the purchaser is in possession.³  Neither is there any contradiction between the two rulings of R. Nahman. [In the latter case,] since the seller professed to sell the property of Bar Sisin's and this land is called Bar Sisin's, it is for him to prove that it is not Bar Sisin's, but here let the occupier [in pleading presumptive right] be but treated as if he produced a document of sale,⁴  in which case should we not say to him: 'Prove your document to be valid and you can remain in ownership of the property'?⁵

A certain man said to another, 'What right have you in this house?' He replied, 'I bought it from you and have had the use of it for the period of hazakah.' Said the other, 'I was abroad⁶  all the time [and therefore did not know or protest].' 'But,' said the first, 'I have witnesses to prove that you used to come here for thirty days every year.' 'Those thirty days,' he replied, 'I was occupied with my business.' [On hearing of the case] Raba said: It is quite possible for a man to be fully occupied with his business for thirty days [and not to know that another has occupied his house].

A certain man said to another, 'What right have you on this land?' He replied, 'I bought it from so-and-so who told me that he had bought it from you.' Said the first, 'You admit then

1. I.e., which I acquired from Bar Sisin.
2. Because in the former case Raba decides in favour of the purchaser and R. Nahman in favour of the seller, and in the latter case Raba decides in favour of the seller and R. Nahman in favour of the purchaser.
3. And Raba decides in each case in favour of the party in possession.
4. The three years' occupation taking the place of a title-deed.
5. So here we can say to him, 'Prove that you have had unchallenged occupation'. Thus in both cases R. Nahman requires the party in possession to prove his right.
6. Lit., 'in outside markets;' i.e., in places not on any caravan route.

that this land was once mine and that you did not buy it from me. Clear out; you have no case against me.'¹  [On hearing of this] Raba said: He was quite within his rights in what he said to him.²

A certain man said to another, 'What right have you on this land?' He replied, 'I bought it from so-and-so and have had the use of it for the period of hazakah.' Said the other, 'So-and-so is a robber.''But,' said the first, 'l have witnesses to prove that I came and consulted you and you advised me to buy the property.' 'The reason is,' said the other, 'that I preferred to go to law with you rather than with him.'³  [On hearing of this] Raba said: He was quite within his rights in what he said to him. What authority does Raba follow? — The authority of Admon; for we have learnt: 'If a man claims a field after having witnessed⁴  to the sale of it to another, Admon says that [his claim is still admissible] because he can say, I prefer to go to law with the second rather than the first; the Sages, however, say that [by so doing] he forfeits his right [to put forward a claim]. — You may even say that Raba is in agreement with the Rabbis⁵  also. For in that case [they quash his right to make a claim] because he has actually done something [which conflicts with it],⁶  but in this case [he has merely said something], and a man may easily let a word slip out of his mouth.

A certain man said to another, 'What right have you on this land?' He replied, 'I bought it from so-and-so and I have had the use of it for the period of hazakah.' Said the first, 'So-and-so is a robber.' 'But,' said the other, 'I have witnesses to prove that you came the evening [before] and said to me, "Sell it to me".' 'My idea was,' said the first, 'to buy what I was already legally entitled to. [On hearing of it] Raba said: It is not unusual for a man to buy what he is already legally entitled to.⁷

A certain man said to his neighbour, 'What right have you on this land?' He replied, 'I bought it from so-and-so and have had the use of it for the period of hazakah.'⁸  Said the other, 'But I have a title deed to prove that I bought it from him four years ago.' Said the other; 'Do you think that when I say the period of hazakah I mean only three years? I mean a lot of years.'⁹  Said Raba: It is not unusual to refer to a long period of years as 'the period of hazakah'. This [maxim] would apply [to the present case] only if the occupier has had the use of the land for seven years, so that his presumptive right came before the deed;¹⁰

1. Lit., 'you are not my litigant.'
2. Because the occupier had no proof that the man from whom he bought the land bought it from the original owner. Hence his occupation is not supported by any genuine plea.
3. Lit., 'The second suits me, the first is a harder customer.'
4. I.e., signed his name as witness to the contract of sale.
5. I.e., the Sages.
6. Viz., signed a document.
7. In order to avoid the trouble of going to law.
8. Meaning thereby presumably 'three years'.
9. And the reason why I said merely 'period of hazakah' was because I did not know you had a deed going back further than three years.
10. Since he had already had the use of the land for three years after his alleged purchase of it, and his title was therefore unassailable.