Bava Metzia

they are sold for timber and land bought with the proceeds, whereof he [the husband] enjoys the usufruct!  — Read: 'and they aged.'  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. A certain note  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.  R. Kahana said: The usufruct is in the presumptive possession of him who enjoyed it.  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]  ruled that the land is in the presumptive possession of its owner?  — 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,  and a Court is not to be troubled twice. 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].'  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,  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.  But what of an estate that has no ditches and is not subject to land-tax? Then he should have made a formal protest,  he answered. But what if he did not protest? — Then he brought the loss upon himself. If the aris 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  refers to a place where an aris receives half; the former, where he receives a third. But R. Mari, son of Samuel's daughter,  said to them [the scholars]: Thus did Abaye say: Even in places where the aris 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.' If orphans maintain, 'We have created the improvements;' whilst the creditor contends, 'Your father created them:'  upon whom lies the onus of proof?