they caused their own loss by not investigating whether there was a lien on the property that they intended to buy.

The Gemara asks: And did Rav, in fact, say this, that one can collect sold property by means of witnesses alone? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (175a): One who lends money to another with a promissory note collects his debt from liened property that had been sold after the loan, if the debtor has no other property; but if one lent by means of witnesses without a promissory note, he collects his debt only from unsold property?

And if you would say that Rav is a tanna, and as such has the authority to dispute the determination in the mishna, but didn’t Rav himself and Shmuel both say: One who is owed a debt due to a loan by oral contract does not collect liened property, not from the heirs of the debtor nor from the buyers, despite the fact that there are witnesses?

The Gemara answers: Are you raising a contradiction from a case of a loan to a case of a sale? They are not comparable. In the case of a loan, when one borrows money he borrows discreetly, in order that his property not be devalued, as people will pay less for his property if they know that he is pressed for capital. Since a loan is issued discreetly, the presumption is that the buyers were unaware of the loan. Therefore, the creditor does not collect from sold property. By contrast, in the case of a sale, one who sells land sells it in public in order that publicity be generated with regard to it. Therefore, the cases of loans and sales are not comparable.

The Gemara continues the discussion of the establishment of the presumption of ownership by successive possessors. The Sages taught: If the father worked and profited from the land for one year and the son who inherited it from him worked and profited from it for two years, or if the father worked and profited from the land for two years and the son worked and profited from for one year, or if the father worked and profited from the land for one year and the son worked and profited from it for one year, and the buyer, who purchased it from the son, worked and profited from it for one year, this is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership.

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that with regard to a buyer, the transaction generates publicity? And one can raise a contradiction from a baraita (Tosefta 2:8): If one worked and profited from the land in the presence of the father, the prior owner, for one year, and in the presence of the son, who then inherited it from the father, for two years; or in the presence of the father for two years and in the presence of the son for one year; or in the presence of the father for one year and in the presence of the son for one year and in the presence of the buyer, who purchased it from the son, for one year; this is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. And if it enters your mind that with regard to a buyer, the transaction generates publicity, there is no greater protest than this. By selling his land to someone else, the son of the prior owner is clearly stating that it does not belong to the possessor.

Rav Pappa said: That is not a contradiction, as when that baraita is taught, it is taught with regard to one who sells his fields without specification. The son of the prior owner sold his fields without clarifying which fields he was selling. Since he did not specify the field from which the possessor is profiting, the possessor had no reason to assume that this field was being sold and that he needed to hold on to his deed, and he establishes the presumption of ownership despite the sale. In a case where the son of the prior owner stated explicitly that he was selling the field in question, the sale would serve as his protest.

MISHNA: Craftsmen who are in possession of items that they are repairing, and partners, and sharecroppers, and stewards [veha’apotropin] do not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to property in their possession, as their possession is not indicative of ownership. Similarly, a man does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to his wife’s property, and a wife does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to her husband’s property. And a father similarly does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to a son’s property, and a son does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to a father’s property. A husband and wife, or son and father, use each other’s property freely. Possession is therefore not indicative of ownership.

The mishna continues: In what case is this statement, that one establishes the presumption of ownership after profiting from the property for a certain duration, with the exception of the above people, said? It is said in a case of one who has mere possession of the property, which does, in some cases, serve as proof of ownership. But in a case where another person gives one a gift, or there are brothers who divided their inheritance, or there is one who takes possession of the property of a convert who died without heirs and his property is now ownerless, as soon as one locked the door of the property, or fenced it or breached its fence even a bit, this is considered taking possession of the property, and it effects acquisition.