Mishnayos Bava Basra Perek 3 Mishnah 3

כל חזקה שאין עמה טענה – that he will make the claim why does the person who possesses that which belongs to his fellow is not valid possession.

והבא מחמת ירושה – that he held possession of it for three years through the strength of the inheritance of his father, for it was his father’s on the day of his death.

אין צריך טענה – to prove how it came to his father’s hand. However, proof is required when the saw his father live it in one day.

האומנים – when they repair utensils –

They don’t have a claim of possession – If they were in possession of utensils of others, they are not able to claim that there were purchased in his hand and even if they are utensils that are not normally lent or rented out. And these words [refer] to when the utensil is found before us in the hand of the artisan. But if the utensil is not found before us in the hand of the artisan, but rather, that someone comes from the marketplace and claimed to the artisan: “I have a utensil with you that I gave you to repair. Return it to me.” And the artisan claimed: “It is true that it (i.e., the utensil) is with me, but you sold it to me,” the artisan is believed through an oath with מיגו/a legal rule according to which the deponent’s statement is accepted as true on the ground that, if he had intended to tell a lie, he might have invented one more advantageous to his case (see Talmud Bava Batra 31a). For if he wanted, he could have said “that nothing had ever taken place [between us]” or “I returned it to you.” And similarly, the artisan made the claim that is what you fixed a price with a charge for the repair.” But the other can say, “I did not make that arrangement other than for less.” If the utensil is found before us in the hand of the artisan, the owner of the utensil is believed. But if the utensil is not found before us in the hand of the artisan, the artisan is believed with an oath, and even if he transferred it to him with witnesses with the מיגו (see above) that if he had wanted, he could have said, “I had returned it to you.”

והשותפים – they have property held jointly and one of them consumed all the produce for three years, it is not considered a presumption of possession. And these words are when the land does not have the law of division. But if the property has the law of division, and one of them consumed for three years, that is considered possession.

והאריסים – he goes down into the land for one half, for one-third or for one-fourth, and consumed all the produce for three years, it is not considered presumption of possession. And especially with regard to hereditary land-tenants for he is like an אפוטרופוס/a guardian for the son but the tenant farmer who was brought down by the owner of the land himself and he consumed all the produce for three years, he does have presumption of possession.

ואין לאיש חזקה בנכסי אשתו – and even if he wrote to her while she was still his betrothed an unequivocal judgment: “I have nothing with regard to your property, nor the fruits of it, for now, he does not consume its produce from the law, and afterwards brought a proof that he ate produce for three years, that is not considered presumption of possession, for it was the manner of the wife to allow her husband that he can consume the fruits of her property, whether by law or not by law.

ואין לאשה חזקה בנכסי בעלה – and even if he designated for her land for her food and she consumed produce from another land belonging to her husband for thee years, even so, this is not a presumption of possession, for it is manner of a man to allow his wife that she may consume from his property, even with something that she does not have authority.

ולא לאב בנכסי הבן [ולא לבן וכו'] – Because they are like guardians one for the other.

במה דברים אמורים – that they are not a presumption of possession.

במחזיק – when he is possessing something where there is a protest/evidence of illegitimacy or disqualification (see Talmud Bava Batra 31b), for his fellow makes the claim that what is in your hand was stolen.

אבל הנותן מתנה – in our presence and stated to the recipient: “this gift is for you, take possession and acquire it.” All of these [things] that are stated above in our Mishnah lack presumption of possession, when they took possession like others who received a gift and acquired it, that the giver cannot retract. But the woman who gave or had sold to her husband her usufruct (i.e., that which belongs to the wife’s estate that the husband can use without responsibility for loss or deterioration), and when he took possession of it, the husband acquired it, and she cannot say: “I gave pleasure/gratification to my husband,” and specifically for mort-main (i.e., the wife’s estate is held by her husband, which, the case of her death or divorce, he must restore in specie, being responsible for all his landed property for loss or deterioration), or property that her husband designated for her in the Jewish marriage contract, we say that her sale is not a sale, and her gift [to someone] is not a gift, because she can claim: ‘I did it give my husband pleasure,” because her husband has an attachment to them. But her usufruct, which her husband, in principle, has no attachment to them, she cannot say: “I gave pleasure/gratification to my husband. But similarly, the man who sold to his wife from his property, if the monies that the wife purchased them are not that property, they are not hidden/preserved with her. The sale goes is established, and those properties belong to the woman and the husband can eat the produce, and if those monies were hidden with her, the sale is void, for he can say, “[it was done] to reveal monies that were hidden/preserved with her. I stated that I am selling to her.”

והאחין שחלקו – and each one held possession of his portion and they cannot retract.

והמחזיק בנכסי הגר – [the convert] who died and he no inheritors. And whomever comes first to take possession of his properties, takes possession.

נעל – that he made a door.

וגדר –[or] he made a wall.

ופרץ – or made a breach in it.