who said to another: I am hereby selling to you all of the property that I own of the house of bar Sisin. There was a certain parcel of land that was called: Of the house of bar Sisin. The seller said to the buyer: This parcel of land that I own is not actually of the house of bar Sisin, and it is merely called: Of the house of bar Sisin, and it is not included in the sale. They came before Rav Naḥman for judgment, and he established the land in the possession of the buyer. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Is this the halakha? Isn’t the halakha that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, and the land should remain in the possession of the seller?

The Gemara continues: There is a difficulty from one statement of Rava to another statement of Rava, and there is also a difficulty from one statement of Rav Naḥman to another statement of Rav Naḥman, as in the first case, where the claimant states that he had been in a distant location, Rav Naḥman ruled in favor of the claimant, and Rava ruled in favor of the possessor; while in the second case, that of the property of bar Sisin, their opinions were reversed.

The Gemara answers: The contradiction between one statement of Rava and another statement of Rava is not difficult, because there, in the case of the property of bar Sisin, the seller had been established as having the land in his property, which is why Rava rules in his favor. But here, in the case where the claimant states that he had been in a distant location, the buyer is established as having the house in his property.

The contradiction between one statement of Rav Naḥman and the other statement of Rav Naḥman is not difficult as well, because there, since the seller said to him: I am hereby selling you all of the property that I own of the house of bar Sisin, and this parcel of land is called: Of the house of bar Sisin, it is incumbent on him to reveal that the parcel under dispute is not of the house of bar Sisin. But here, in the case where the claimant states that he had been in a distant location, it should not be any different from a case where the possessor is holding a document as evidence that he purchased the house. Wouldn’t we then say to him: First ratify your document, and only then be established in the property? In this case as well, since his presumptive ownership is in place of a document, he needs to clarify the matter by means of witnesses.

There was a certain person who said to another: What do you want with this house of mine? The possessor said to him: I purchased it from you and I worked and profited from it for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership. The claimant said to him: I was in the outer marketplaces, and was unaware that you were residing in my house, and therefore did not lodge a protest, so your profiting does not establish the presumption of ownership. The possessor said to him: But I have witnesses that every year you would come here for thirty days and had an opportunity to know that I was residing in your house and to lodge a protest. The claimant said to him: I was occupied with my business in the marketplaces for those thirty days. Rava said: A person is apt to be occupied with business in the marketplace for all of thirty days, and accepted his claim.

There was a certain person who said to another: What do you want with this land of mine? The possessor said to him: I purchased it from so-and-so, who told me that he purchased it from you. The claimant said to him: Don’t you concede