Bava Batra

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  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]?  [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 maneh and the other [for] two manehs, [their evidence is accepted in respect of the one maneh] because one maneh 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 maneh and the other [that it was for] two manehs. In that case Beth Shammai held that their evidence is at variance, whereas Beth Hillel held that two manehs include one.' R. Kahana rejoined: But I can bring you a letter from the West [Eretz Yisrael] to show that the halachah 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  and I said to him, 'Will not a man sometimes buy and sell [a thing] on [the same] night?'  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]!  — Possibly, however, the Mishnah means that he requires neither plea nor proof.  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. The question was asked [in the Beth Hamidrash:] If the previous owner was seen [on the property],  what [are we to infer]?  — Abaye replied: That is just what we mean.  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.  Rab said: [This is only] if all the purchases were effected by deed.  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]  in the presence of witnesses, the purchaser may recover even from property on which there is a lien?  — In that case the purchasers