However, for one who taught others, there is no measure for the number of people attending the funeral.

The mishna continues: And if there are witnesses that she went out of her father’s house to her wedding with a hinnuma her marriage contract is two hundred dinars. The Gemara asks: What is a hinnuma? Surḥav bar Pappa said in the name of Ze’eiri: It is a canopy of myrtle over the bride’s head. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is a veil [kerita] covering the bride’s face under which the bride dozes [menamna].

The mishna continues: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: Even testimony that there was distribution of roasted grain constitutes proof that she is a virgin. It was taught with regard to the mishna: In Judea, that is proof; however, what are the customs at the weddings of virgins in Babylonia? Rav said: Smearing fragrant oil on the heads of the Sages was customary. Rav Pappa, who was unfamiliar with that practice, said to Abaye: Is the Master saying oil for shampooing the hair? Calling him an orphan because he was ignorant of the custom, he said to him: Orphan, didn’t your mother perform for you smearing of oil on the heads of the Sages at the time of the performance of your wedding ceremony? As this was the case when one of the Sages who arranged for his son to marry into the family of Rabba bar Ulla attended the wedding, and some say that it was Rabba bar Ulla who arranged for his son to marry into the family of one of the Sages; and he smeared oil on the heads of the Sages at the time of the performance of the wedding ceremony.

The Gemara asks: What is the custom at the wedding of a widow? Rav Yosef taught: A widow does not have roasted grain [kisanei] distributed at her wedding.

The mishna continues: And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in a case where one says to another: This field belonged to your father, and I purchased it from him, that he is deemed credible. The Gemara asks: And let the mishna teach: Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in a case where one says to another: This field belonged to you, and I purchased it from you.

The Gemara answers: Although Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that his claim is accepted even in that latter case, he addressed the case where the field originally belonged to the father due to the fact that the tanna wanted to teach in the latter clause that if there are witnesses that it was the father’s field, and he says: I purchased it from him, he is not deemed credible. That is the halakha only with regard to a field that belonged to the father, and not to the claimant himself. Were it referring to a field that he purchased from the claimant, what are the circumstances?

If it is a case where the one in possession of the field consumed its produce for the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership, why is his claim that he purchased the field not deemed credible? After three years of unchallenged possession, the purchaser’s claim is sufficient to establish ownership without documentation. And if he did not consume its produce for the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership, it is obvious that his claim is not deemed credible. Since the distinction between a case where witnesses are present and a case where there are no witnesses present does not apply when the field in question was the property of the claimant, the tanna cited a case where the field belonged to the father.

The Gemara asks: If so, the same difficulty may be raised with regard to a field belonging to the claimant’s father as well: If the one in possession of the field consumed its produce for the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership, why is his claim that he purchased the field not deemed credible? And if he did not consume its produce for the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership, it is obvious that his claim is not deemed credible. The latter clause is no more applicable to the father’s field than it is to the claimant’s field. Why did the tanna prefer to cite a case where the field belonged to the claimant’s father?

The Gemara answers: Granted, with regard to the case where the field belonged to his father, a circumstance can be found where there is uncertainty with regard to the presumptive ownership of the field, where the one in possession of the field consumed its produce for two of the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership during the lifetime of the father and one year during the lifetime of the son after the death of his father. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said: One cannot establish presumptive ownership of the property of a minor, even after he reached majority. This is because the minor is unaware of the property owned by his father; the fact that he did not challenge the claim of the one in possession of the field proves nothing. Therefore, only two of the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership have passed.

The Gemara asks: And since the mishna can be explained only in the case delineated by Rav Huna, did Rav Huna come to teach us a mishna? There is no need for an amora to teach matters that appear in a mishna, as the content of mishnayot is known by all. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Rav Huna is stating the inference from the mishna, as the circumstances are not written explicitly in the mishna. And if you wish, say instead that he is teaching us that even if during the year after the father died his son was no longer a minor, one may not establish presumptive ownership of the property of a minor, even after he reached majority. From the mishna, one could learn only a case where during the third year the son was still a minor.

The Gemara asks: And let the tanna teach the halakha in a case where the one in possession of the field says that he purchased the field from the claimant himself. And let him establish the mishna in a case where the one in possession of the field consumed its produce in the presence of the claimant, who was the original owner of the field, for two of the three years necessary to establish presumptive ownership, and consumed its produce not in his presence for one year. And that scenario is in a case where the claimant fled and therefore, the fact that he did not challenge the claim of the one in possession of the field proves nothing.

The Gemara asks: That scenario is referring to one who fled due to what reason? If it is that he fled due to the fact that his life was in jeopardy, it is obvious that the one claiming presumptive ownership is not deemed credible, since the owner of the field is unable to protest, as he fears for his life. And if he fled due to money that he owes, and that is why he does not return to protest the possessor’s occupation of the field, he ought to protest from afar, as we maintain that a protest lodged not in the presence of the one using the field is a legitimate protest. He could have lodged in a court in his place of exile his protest against the illegal occupation of his field.

This is as we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 38a): There are three independent lands in Eretz Yisrael with regard to establishing presumptive ownership: Judea, Transjordan, and the Galilee. If the original owner of the field was in Judea and another occupied his field in the Galilee, or if he was in the Galilee and another occupied his field in Judea, that does not establish presumptive ownership, until the one occupying the field will be with the original owner in the same country.

And we discussed that mishna: What does this tanna hold? If he holds that a protest lodged not in the presence of the one using the field is a legitimate protest, then even in the case where one is in Judea and one is in the Galilee the protest should also be legitimate. And if he holds that a protest lodged not in the presence of the one using the field is not a legitimate protest, then even in the case where one is in Judea and the other one is in Judea as well, the protest should also not be legitimate.

Rabbi Abba bar Memel said: Actually the tanna holds that a protest lodged not in the presence of the one using the field is a legitimate protest, and the Sages taught this mishna with regard to a crisis period, when travel is perilous and information cannot be transmitted from Judea to the Galilee. Therefore, although no protest was received from the original owner, the occupier does not establish presumptive ownership of the field, because the lack of protest can be attributed to the perilous situation.

The Gemara asked: And if it is due only to the exigent circumstances that the protest is ineffective, what is different about Judea and the Galilee that the tanna cited specifically these two lands? Ostensibly, even within one of the three lands, if travel and communications are restricted, the same halakha would apply.