Bava Batra 33 בבא בתרא

other money with him, i.e., he owed me money for a different reason, for which I had no collateral, and I profited from the land for the duration of the years of the collateral.

זוּזִי אַחֲרִינֵי גַּבֵּיהּ, וַאֲכַלְתַּהּ שְׁנֵי מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא.

I then said to myself: If I return the land to the orphans now that the years of collateral have finished, and I say that I have other money with your late father, I will not be able to collect it, as the Sages say that one who comes to collect a debt from the property of orphans can collect only by means of an oath, and I do not wish to take an oath. Rather than do that, I will suppress the document detailing the terms of the collateral, and profit from the land up to the measure of the money that their father owed me. This is legitimate, since if I so desire I can say: It is purchased, and that is why it is in my possession, and I would have been deemed credible, as I profited from the land for the years necessary to establish the presumption of ownership, so when I say that I have money with you, I am also deemed credible.

אָמֵינָא: אִי מַהְדַּרְנָא לַהּ אַרְעָא לְיַתְמֵי, וְאָמֵינָא דְּאִית לִי זוּזִי אַחֲרִינֵי גַּבֵּי דַּאֲבוּכוֹן – אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן: הַבָּא לִיפָּרַע מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים – לֹא יִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה. אֶלָּא אֶכְבְּשֵׁיהּ לִשְׁטַר מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא, וְאוֹכְלַהּ שִׁיעוּר זוּזֵי, דְּמִיגּוֹ דְּאִי בָּעֵינָא אָמֵינָא לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי – מְהֵימַנָּא, כִּי אָמֵינָא דְּאִית לִי זוּזִי גַּבַּיְיכוּ – מְהֵימַנְנָא.

Abaye said to Rava bar Sharshom: Your reasoning is incorrect. You would not have been able to say: It is purchased, and that is why it is in my possession, as there is publicity concerning it that it is land of orphans. Therefore, you are unable to collect your debt based on the fact that you could have made a more advantageous claim [miggo]. Rather, return the land to the orphans now, and when the orphans become adults, then litigate with them, as you have no other option.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לְקוּחָה בְּיָדִי״ לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ – דְּהָא אִיכָּא עֲלַהּ קָלָא דְּאַרְעָא דְיַתְמֵי הִיא. אֶלָּא זִיל אַהְדְּרַהּ נִיהֲלַיְיהוּ, וְכִי גָּדְלִי יַתְמֵי – אִשְׁתַּעִי דִּינָא בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ.

The Gemara relates: A relative of Rav Idi bar Avin died and left a date tree as an inheritance. Another relative took possession of the tree, claiming to be a closer relative than Rav Idi bar Avin. Rav Idi bar Avin said: I am closer in relation to the deceased than he, and that man said: I am closer in relation to the deceased than Rav Idi bar Avin. Ultimately, the other man admitted to Rav Idi bar Avin that, in fact, Rav Idi was closer in relation to the deceased. Rav Ḥisda established the date tree in the possession of Rav Idi bar Avin.

קְרִיבֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין שְׁכֵיב, וּשְׁבַק דִּיקְלָא. רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין אָמַר: אֲנָא קָרִיבְנָא טְפֵי; וְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא אֲמַר: אֲנָא קָרִיבְנָא טְפֵי. לְסוֹף אוֹדִי לֵיהּ דְּאִיהוּ קָרִיב טְפֵי, אוֹקְמַהּ רַב חִסְדָּא בִּידֵיהּ.

Rav Idi bar Avin said to Rav Ḥisda: The value of the produce that he consumed unlawfully from that day when he took possession of the tree until now should be returned to me. Rav Ḥisda said: Is this he about whom people say: He is a great man? On whom is the Master basing his claim to receive the value of the produce? On this other relative. But he was saying until this point: I am closer in relation to the deceased than he. Therefore, you have ownership of the tree only from the time of his admission, and not from when he took possession of the tree. The Gemara comments: Abaye and Rava do not hold in accordance with this opinion of Rav Ḥisda,

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לַיהְדַּר לִי פֵּירֵי דַּאֲכַל מֵהָהוּא יוֹמָא עַד הַשְׁתָּא! אָמַר: זֶה הוּא שֶׁאוֹמְרִים עָלָיו אָדָם גָּדוֹל הוּא? אַמַּאן קָא סְמִיךְ מָר – אַהַאי; הָא קָאָמַר דַּאֲנָא מְקָרַבְנָא טְפֵי! אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא לָא סְבִירָא לְהוּ הָא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא,

as they hold that once it is so that the other relative admitted that he is not a closer relative, he admitted that he never had any right to the produce of the tree. Therefore, by his own admission, he is liable to reimburse Rav Idi bar Avin.

כֵּיוָן דְּאוֹדִי – אוֹדִי.

§ There was an incident where two people dispute the ownership of land. This one says: The land belonged to my ancestors and I inherited it from them, and that one says: The land belonged to my ancestors and I inherited it from them. This one brings witnesses that the land belonged to his ancestors, and that one brings witnesses that he worked and profited from the land for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership.

זֶה אוֹמֵר: ״שֶׁל אֲבוֹתַי״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: ״שֶׁל אֲבוֹתַי״; הַאי אַיְיתִי סָהֲדִי דַּאֲבָהָתֵיהּ הוּא, וְהַאי אַיְיתִי סָהֲדִי דַּאֲכַל שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה –

Rav Ḥisda said: The one who is in possession of the land is deemed credible due to the legal principle that if one would have been deemed credible had he stated one claim but instead stated another claim that accomplishes the same result, he has credibility, because why would he lie and state this claim? If he wants to lie, he could have 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. Abaye and Rava do not hold in accordance with this opinion of Rav Ḥisda, because they hold that we do not say that the principle of: Why would I lie, applies in a case where there are witnesses contradicting the claim he is stating, and in this case, witnesses testify that it belonged to the ancestors of the other claimant.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מָה לוֹ לְשַׁקֵּר? אִי בָּעֵי, אָמַר לֵיהּ: מִינָּךְ זְבֵינְתַּהּ וַאֲכַלְתִּיהָ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא לָא סְבִירָא לְהוּ הָא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא – ״מָה לִי לְשַׁקֵּר״ בִּמְקוֹם עֵדִים – לָא אָמְרִינַן.

There was a certain person who said to another: What do you want with this land of mine? The possessor said to him in response: I purchased it from you and I worked and profited from it for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership. He then went and brought witnesses that he had profited from the land for two years, but he was unable to bring witnesses to testify about a third year. Rav Naḥman said: The land reverts back to the prior owner, and payment for the produce consumed during those two years reverts to the prior owner. Since the possessor was unable to substantiate his claim to the land, the assumption is that he consumed the produce unlawfully.

הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: מַאי בָּעֵית בְּהַאי אַרְעָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִינָּךְ זְבַנִי, וַאֲכַלְתִּיהָ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אֲזַל אַיְיתִי סָהֲדִי דְּאַכְלַהּ תַּרְתֵּי שְׁנֵי. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הָדְרָא אַרְעָא, וְהָדְרִי פֵּירֵי.

Rav Zevid said: If initially, when questioned by the other, the one occupying the land claimed and said: I entered the land to consume its produce that I had purchased, he is deemed credible. After all, didn’t Rav Yehuda say: This one who is holding a sickle and rope [vetovelaya] and says: I will go cull [igderei] the dates from the date tree of so-and-so who sold it to me, is deemed credible that he has the right to do so? Apparently, a person is not so brazen that he would cull the dates of a date tree that is not his. Here too, in the case discussed by Rav Zevid, a person is not so brazen as to consume produce that is not his.

אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: אִם טָעַן וְאָמַר ״לְפֵירוֹת יָרַדְתִּי״ – נֶאֱמָן. לָאו מִי אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הַאי מַאן דְּנָקֵיט מַגָּלָא וְתוּבַלְיָא, וְאָמַר: אֵיזִיל אֶיגְדְּרֵיהּ לְדִיקְלָא דִפְלָנְיָא, דְּזַבְּנֵיהּ נִיהֲלִי – מְהֵימַן? אַלְמָא לָא חֲצִיף אִינִישׁ דְּגָזַר דִּיקְלָא דְּלָאו דִּילֵיהּ; הָכָא נָמֵי, לָא חֲצִיף אִינִישׁ לְמֵיכַל פֵּירֵי דְּלָאו דִּילֵיהּ.

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that the assumption is that he would not lie, let one be deemed credible with regard to the land as well. The Gemara answers: In terms of the land, we say to him: Show your bill of sale if you indeed purchased it. The Gemara challenges: If that is so, then in terms of the produce as well, let him be deemed credible only if he can produce documentation of his claim. The Gemara explains: It is not common for people to write documents to establish the right to consume produce alone, and one can therefore claim to have consumed the produce based on an oral agreement.

אִי הָכִי, אַרְעָא נָמֵי! אַרְעָא, אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: אַחְוִי שְׁטָרָךְ. אִי הָכִי, פֵּירֵי נָמֵי! שְׁטָרָא לְפֵירֵי לָא עָבְדִי אִינָשֵׁי.

There was a certain person who said to another: What do you want with this land of mine? The possessor said to him in response: I purchased it from you and I worked and profited from it for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership. He then brought one witness who testified that he profited from the land for the necessary three years. The Rabbis who were studying before Abaye maintained that it made sense to say that the principle in this case is the same as that in the case of the piece of cast metal [naskha] adjudicated by Rabbi Abba.

הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לְחַבְרֵיהּ: מַאי בָּעֵית בְּהַאי אַרְעָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִינָּךְ זְבַנִית, וַאֲכַלְתִּיהָ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אַיְיתִי חַד סָהֲדָא דְּאַכְלַהּ תְּלָת שְׁנֵי. סְבוּר רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי לְמֵימַר: הַיְינוּ נְסָכָא דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא –

The Gemara now presents that case: As there was a certain man who snatched a piece of cast metal from another. The one from whom it was taken came before Rabbi Ami while Rabbi Abba was sitting before him, and he brought one witness who testified that it was, in fact, snatched from him. The one who snatched it said to him: Yes, it is true that I snatched it, but I merely snatched that which was mine. Rabbi Ami said:

דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּחֲטַף נְסָכָא מֵחַבְרֵיהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי, הֲוָה יָתֵיב רַבִּי אַבָּא קַמֵּיהּ. אַיְיתִי חַד סָהֲדָא דְּמִיחְטָף חֲטַפָא מִינֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, חֲטַפִי – וְדִידִי חֲטַפִי. אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: