Bava Batra

[And though in this case the court does not suggest the plea] Mar Zutra admits that where the claimant is an itinerant peddler,  even if he does not raise the plea, the court raises it for him.  R. Huna also admits that [though normally the three years must be continuous], in the case of the shops of Mahuza  [this is not necessary], because they are only used by day and not by night. Rami b. Hama and R. 'Ukba b. Hama bought a maidservant in partnership, the arrangement being that one should have her services during the first, third and fifth years, and the other during the second, fourth and sixth. Their title to her was contested, and the case came before Raba. He said to the brothers: Why did you make this arrangement? So that neither of you should obtain a presumptive right against the other [was it not]?  Just as you have no presumptive right against each other, so you have no presumptive right against outsiders. This ruling, however, only holds good if there was no written agreement between them to share [the maidservant]: if there was such an agreement, it would become bruited abroad. Raba said: If the occupier has utilised  the whole field except the space of the sowing of a quarter of a kab, he acquires ownership [after three years] of the whole field with the exception of that space. Said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua: This only applies [if the space so left over] was suitable for sowing; but if it was not suitable for sowing, it is acquired along with the rest of the field. To this R. Bibi b. Abaye strongly objected, saying: If that is so, how does a man acquire a piece of rock [through occupation]? Is it not by stationing his animals there and laying out his crops there?  So here too, he should have stationed his animals there and laid out his crops there. A certain man said to another, 'What right have you  in this house?' He replied, 'I bought it from you, and I have had the use of it for a period of hazakah.'  To which the other replied, 'But I have been living in an inner room [and therefore did not protest].'  The case was brought before R. Nahman, who said to the defendant: You must prove that you have had constant use of the house  [for three years without the claimant]. Said Raba to him: Is this a right decision? Is not the onus probandi in money cases always on the claimant? A contradiction was pointed out between Raba's ruling here and his ruling in another place, and between R. Nahman's ruling here and his ruling in another place. For a certain man