such trees are sold as wood and land is acquired with them, and her husband consumes the produce, while the land itself belongs to the wife. The Gemara answers that the text should be emended to say: And they grew old, meaning that the trees were not old when she inherited them but they aged with the passage of time.

And if you wish, say: Did we not already establish that mishna as referring to a case where the vines or olive trees were bequeathed to her in a different field that did not belong to her? Since in that case she inherited only the trees but not the land itself, they are considered the principal. Consequently, the husband taking all of it would consume the principal entirely. Therefore, they must be sold as wood, with the proceeds used for the purchase of land.

§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain mortgage document in which it was written that the land was granted to the creditor for an unspecified number of years. The creditor said it was for three years, whereas the debtor said it was for two years. While the issue was being adjudicated, the creditor arose and consumed the produce of the field in the third year. Which of them is deemed credible and accepted? Rav Yehuda said: The halakha is that land remains in its owner’s possession. Therefore, the debtor has the presumptive right to the land, while the creditor, who owns the document, must provide proof for his claim. Rav Kahana said: The produce remains in the possession of the one who consumed it, and therefore the creditor’s claim is accepted.

The Gemara states: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana, who said that the produce remains in the possession of the one who consumed it. The Gemara asks: But don’t we maintain that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, who said with regard to uncertainty concerning a rental during the extra month of a leap year that land remains in its owner’s possession, and he has the rights to that month? These two rulings appear to contradict each other.

The Gemara answers: There it is a matter that will not be revealed because it is impossible to clarify the uncertainty concerning whether the extra month is included. By contrast, here it is a matter that will be revealed, as the witnesses who signed the document may eventually reveal what it stated, and we do not trouble the court to convene twice. Therefore, the produce should remain in the possession of the one who consumed it until the matter is resolved.

The Gemara analyzes another case involving mortgaged land. The creditor says the mortgage was for five years while the debtor who owned the land says it was for three. The debtor said to the creditor: Give me your document so that we can see what is written there. The creditor said to him: I lost the document. Rav Yehuda said: The creditor is deemed credible and accepted in this case since he could have made a more advantageous claim [miggo]. As the mortgage document is missing and even according to the claim of the debtor he could be in control of the land for the three years required for presumptive ownership, if he wants to lie he could say: The land was purchased by me. Since he did not submit this superior claim, his claim should be accepted.

Rav Pappa said to Rav Ashi: Rav Zevid and Rav Avira do not hold of this opinion of Rav Yehuda. What is the reason for this? Since this document stands ready for collecting the debt, the creditor would certainly have been careful with regard to it. Since he wants to ensure his money is returned it is unlikely he actually lost it. Rather, he is merely hiding his document, as he thinks: I will consume the produce of the field for two extra years.

The Gemara analyzes Rav Yehuda’s opinion. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, that Rav Yehuda is correct, then with regard to this mortgage according to the custom practiced in Sura, a city in Babylonia, in which they write this: Upon the completion of these years of the mortgage this land shall leave the creditor’s possession and return to its owner without the debtor paying any money (see 67b), in a case where the creditor hid the mortgage document and said that the land was purchased by me, so too is it possible that he is deemed credible? Would the Sages institute a matter that might cause a loss? Rav Ashi said to him: There, in the mortgage of Sura, the Sages instituted for the landowner, i.e., the debtor, that the landowner, i.e., the debtor, pays the land taxes and digs the trenches for the irrigation of the field. In this manner, his ownership is preserved and established.

Ravina asks further: With regard to land that has no need for trenches and for which he does not pay taxes, what could he have done? Rav Ashi said to him: He should have protested before the three years needed for presumptive status had passed by announcing that the land was his. Ravina again inquires: If he did not protest, what is the halakha? Rav Ashi replied: In that case, he caused his own loss by failing to take the necessary precautions.

§ The Gemara discusses another case. If a sharecropper says: I descended to the field for half the produce, as this was the agreement that we made, and the homeowner says: I sent him down for only one-third of the produce, who is deemed credible and his claim consequently accepted? Rav Yehuda says: The homeowner is deemed credible and his claim is consequently accepted, while Rav Naḥman says: All matters are in accordance with the regional custom. As the terms of their agreement are unknown, this sharecropper should have the same status as other sharecroppers in that location.

They understood from the above discussion that these two Sages do not disagree, but were referring to different cases: This one, Rav Naḥman, stated his ruling with regard to a location where the sharecropper takes half, in which case the sharecropper is believed, while that one, Rav Yehuda, stated his ruling with regard to a location where the sharecropper takes one-third, in which case the homeowner is believed.

Rav Mari, son of the daughter of Shmuel, said to them: This is what Abaye said: They even disagree with regard to a location where the sharecropper usually takes half. In that case, Rav Yehuda said that here too the homeowner is deemed credible and his claim is consequently accepted, as if he wants to lie he could say: The other is not a sharecropper at all but merely my hired worker, who received a stipulated wage, or my gleaner, who performs occasional work for me but has no prearranged share of the crop at all.

The Gemara addresses another issue: If a field was on lien for a loan and the debtor died, and the orphans who inherited the field say: We enhanced the land after we inherited it, and therefore the creditor does not have a right to the value of that enhancement, and the creditor says: Your father enhanced it, and I am entitled to the land as it is, upon whom does the burden to bring proof fall?