And Mar Zutra concedes with regard to peddlers who travel through cities, during which time others might live in their houses, that even though the claimant does not claim that he insists on testimony that there was continuous use, day and night, over three years, we the court claim this for him. Since people know they are traveling salesmen, it is more likely that people lived in their houses without permission and without their knowledge.

With regard to the requirement for continuous day and night use to establish the presumption of ownership, the Gemara comments: And Rav Huna concedes with regard to a store in the town of Meḥoza, which is generally used in the day and is not generally used in the night, that one is not required to use it in the night to establish the presumption of ownership.

With regard to the requirement of continuous use to establish the presumption of ownership, the Gemara relates that Rami bar Ḥama and Rav Ukva bar Ḥama purchased a maidservant together. One Sage made use of her during the first, third, and fifth years, and one Sage made use of her during the second, fourth, and sixth years. One individual who contested their ownership of the maidservant emerged and claimed that he was the owner.

They came before Rava for a judgment. He said to them: What is the reason you acted like this, making use of her in alternate years, so that each of you would not establish the presumption of ownership concerning each other by making use of her for three consecutive years? Just as this usage does not establish the presumption of ownership with regard to you, it does not establish the presumption of ownership with regard to others, i.e., the claimant in this case, as well.

The Gemara adds: And we said this only in a case where it was not written in a document that they are partners and are dividing the use, but if it was written in a document, the document generates publicity that they own the maidservant as partners rather than individually, and they can jointly establish the presumption of ownership.

§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the requirement for full use of land to establish the presumption of ownership. Rava says: If one worked and profited, for three years, from all of the land except for the area required for sowing a quarter-kav of seed [beit rova], which he did not use, he acquires all of the field based on presumptive ownership except for that beit rova.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: And we said this ruling only where that beit rova is suitable for planting, but if it is not suitable for planting, he acquires it by means of the acquisition of the rest of the land.

Rav Beivai bar Abaye objects to this: If that is so, how could one acquire an area that is only rock by establishing the presump-tion of ownership, as one does not plant rocky land? Rather, the presumption of ownership can be established by standing animals on it or spreading produce on it. Here too, he should be required to stand animals on the beit rova or to spread produce on it. If he did not profit from this small piece of land at all, he has not established the presumption of ownership with regard to it, and acquires only the rest of the field.

§ The Gemara relates that there was a certain person who said to another: What do you want, i.e., what are you doing, with this house of mine? The other 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 among the distant settlements, and was unaware that you were residing in my house, which is why I did not lodge a protest.

The one residing in the house came before Rav Naḥman for a judgment. Rav Naḥman said to him: Go clarify your profiting, i.e., prove that you really resided there for three years, and then the case can be judged. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Is this the correct judgment? The halakha is that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Therefore, the one who is attempting to take the house from the possessor should have to prove that the other did not reside in the house.

And the Gemara raises a contradiction between this statement of Rava and another statement of Rava, and it raises a contradiction between this statement of Rav Naḥman and another statement of Rav Naḥman. As there was a certain person