Bava Batra

and that with respect to [a matter of] law, [it is] not [applicable]? Surely it was taught: [In the case where] a house collapsed upon a man and his father [or] upon a man and those whose heir he is, and [that man] had against him [the claim of] a woman's kethubah or [that of] a creditor, [and. in the first case]. the heirs of the father plead [that] the son died first and the father afterwards, while the creditor[s] plead [that] the father died first and the son afterwards;  [now,] 'sons'  [denote] 'the heirs of the father',  do they not? and 'brothers'  'those whose heir he is'? If then it could be assumed [that] one cannot plead. 'I come by virtue of the rights of the father of [my] father', because the verse,  Instead of thy fathers shall be thy sons, [was] written in [connection with] a blessing. what avails  it [for the heirs] that the son died [first] and the father died afterwards, the creditor [surely] could say to them,  'I collect [my debt from] the inheritance of their father'!  — No; [by] 'the heirs of the father','his brothers'  [are meant; and by] 'those whose heir he is' the 'brothers of his father'  [are meant]. R. Shesheth was asked: May a son in the grave  be heir to his mother  to transmit [her estate] to his paternal brothers?  — R. Shesheth said to them, You have learnt it: If a father was taken captive [and died] and his son died in the [home] country, or if a son was carried into captivity [where he died] and his father died in the [home] country. [the estate] is to be divided between the heirs of the father and the heirs of the son. How is this to be understood? If it be suggested [that it is to be understood] as was taught,  who then are the heirs of the father and who are the heirs of the son?  [Must it] not then [be concluded that it is] this that was meant: If a father was taken into captivity [where he died] and the son of his daughter died in the [home] country, or if the son of one's daughter was taken into captivity [where he died], and the father of his mother died in the [home] country; and it is not known which of them died first, [the estate] is to be divided between the heirs of the father and the heirs of the son. Now, if it were so,  granted even that the son died first, he should in his grave inherit [the estate] of the father of his mother and transmit it to his paternal brothers! [Must it] not consequently be inferred that a son in the grave does not inherit [the estate of] his mother to transmit [it] to his paternal brothers? R. Aha b. Manyumi said to Abaye. 'We also were taught [to the same effect]: IF THE HOUSE COLLAPSED UPON ON A MAN AND HIS MOTHER, BOTH AGREE THAT [THE ESTATE IN DISPUTE] IS TO BE DIVIDED.  Now, if it were so,  granted even that the son had died first, he should in his grave inherit [the estate] of his mother and transmit it to his paternal brothers! [Must it] not then be concluded that a son in the grave does not inherit [the estate of] his mother to transmit [it] to his paternal brothers?' This proves it. And what is the reason? — Abaye replied: 'Remove' is mentioned in [the case of the inheritance of] a son,  and 'remove' is [also] mentioned in [the case of the inheritance of] a husband,  as [in the case of] removal [of an estate] mentioned in [respect of] the husband, a husband in the grave does not inherit [the estate of] his wife, so [also in the case of the] removal [of an estate] mentioned in [respect of] the son, a son in the grave does not inherit [the estate of] his mother to transmit [it] to his paternal brothers. A man once said to his friend, 'I am selling you the estate of Bar Sisin.' [In it] there was [a plot of] land that bore the name of Bar Sisin, [but the seller] told him, 'This does not belong to Bar Sisin, though it bears the name of Bar Sisin.'  [When the matter] was brought before R. Nahman he decided in favour of the buyer.  Said Raba to R. Nahman: 'Is this the law? [Surely], he who claims from the other has to produce the proof!' A contradiction was pointed out between two statements of Raba  and between two statements of R. Nahman.  For, once a person said to another, 'What claim have you upon this house?' [The other] replied to him, 'I bought it from you and enjoyed [undisturbed] usufruct [during the three] years [required to establish the legal right] of possession.' [The first] said to him, 'I occupied [however], the inner rooms.'  [When the matter] was brought before R. Nahman he said [to the buyer]. 'Go [and] bring proof of your [undisturbed] enjoyment of the usufruct.' Said Raba to R. Nahman, 'Is this the law? [Surely], he who claims from the other has to produce the proof!' [Does not this present] a contradiction between the two statements of Raba and between the two statements of R. Nahman!  — There is no contradiction between Raba's statements, [because] here,  the seller is in possession of his property;  and there,  the buyer is in the possession of his property.  There is [also] no contradiction between the statements of R. Nahman, [because] since here  he spoke to him, of the estate of Bar Sisin and [that plot] bore the name of Bar Sisin, It is incumbent upon him  to prove that it does not belong to Bar Sisin; here,  [however.] [granted] that he has no [less a claim] than [one] who holds a deed, do we not [even in such a case] say [to the holder], 'Attest your deed and you will retain possession of the estate'?