Bava Batra 31a — the Talmud in English

But

if he ate only

six

years alone, it is found that before the eating of the three-year ḥazaka, the owners sold it to another, for the date of the document is four years earlier, and

you have no greater protest than this:

the owner of the land protested against the possessor by selling it to another, and if so, his ḥazaka is nullified.

An incident involving two people who disputed a field:

This one says: “It belonged to my ancestors,”

and I inherited the land from them,

and

I also

ate its produce for the years of ḥazaka—

and this one says: “It belonged to my ancestors,”

and I inherited it from them.

This one brought witnesses that it belonged to his ancestors; and this one brought witnesses that he ate its produce for the years of ḥazaka,

the one brought witnesses that the land had once belonged to his ancestors, whereas the other—the one claiming that the land belonged to his ancestors and that he ate its produce for the years of ḥazaka—did not find witnesses to testify in support of his claim, but brought witnesses who testified that he ate its produce for the years of ḥazaka.

In its plain sense, we should have placed the land in the possession of the one who brought witnesses that it belonged to his ancestors, for the one opposite him does not claim that he purchased the land from his ancestors or from him, such that a ḥazaka would help his claim, whereas his claim against the witnesses is nothing; nevertheless,

Rabba said

that he is to be believed in his claim that it belonged to his ancestors, against the witnesses, because

“What would he gain by lying?”,

that is, he is to be believed by means of a migo?!

For

if he wished, he could have said to him

to the one opposite him:

“I purchased it from you,” [

if he wished, he would have claimed: “I purchased it from you,”]

and

I am believed in this, for

“I ate its produce for the years of ḥazaka;”

and since he could make a claim that would establish him in possession of the land, he can make a claim against the witnesses and say that it belongs to his ancestors.

Abaye said

to Rabba:

“What would he gain by lying”

in the presence of

witnesses

who contradict him—

we do not say [this].

He then said to him,

the possessor returned and claimed to the one contesting:

“Indeed, it belongs to your ancestors, and I purchased it from them; and when I said to you, ‘It belonged to my ancestors,’

my intention was to say:

‘I rely upon it as though it were my ancestors’ [property].’”

That is, indeed the land belonged to your ancestors, as the witnesses testified, but I purchased it from them, and I should be believed in this claim because I held it for the years of ḥazaka. Perhaps you will say: Behold, initially I claimed that it came to me from my ancestors by inheritance, and not as I now claim; this is not so, for my intention was to say that I am established and secure in this field as though I had inherited it from my ancestors. -

And there is a doubt: if

a person claims

and

returns and claims

in order to correct his initial words when he partially contradicts them,

or does a person not

claim

and

return and claim?

Ulla said: A person claims

and

returns and claims.

The Nehardeans say: He does not claim and return and claim.

And Ulla agrees—

who holds “he claims and returns and claims”— -

that he cannot return and claim in either of the following two ways:

a.

Where he said to him

at first:

“It belonged to my ancestors and not to your ancestors,”

he does not claim and return and claim

to say, “It belonged to your ancestors, and I purchased it from them,” because he entirely uproots his initial words.

b.

And

likewise

where he was standing in court and did not claim, and came from outside and claimed, [

at the time of the hearing in court he did not return and claim, but stood by his first claim; he went outside and then returned to the court and changed his claim,] for

he does not return and claim

when he partially contradicts his initial words!

The Gemara explains:

What is the reason

that he does not return and claim when he went outside the court?

Because

“his claim was taught to him,” [

his friends and relatives outside the court taught him new claims]!

And

on the other hand,

the Nehardeans agree

that he may change his claim in either of the following two ways: a.

Where

he returned and

said to him:

“It belonged to my ancestors, who purchased it from your ancestors,”

he returns and claims,

since there is no contradiction here at all of his initial words, but he adds to them; and in this claim itself he is to be believed, for he has a three-year ḥazaka.

b.

And where he discussed matters outside the court and did not claim, and came to the court and claimed,

if, when they disputed with one another outside the court, he made his first claim, but when they entered the court he changed his reasoning and made his second claim—

he returns and claims.

The Gemara explains:

What is the reason

that he may change the claim that he made outside the court?

Because

“It is common for a person not to reveal his claim except to the court,” [

a person is liable not to reveal his true claims except to the court].

Ameimar said: I am a man of Nehardea, [

I am from the people of Nehardea],

and

nevertheless

I hold

not according to their position, but rather

that he claims and returns and claims,

in accordance with Ulla’s position.

The Gemara concludes:

And the halakha

in practice:

he claims and returns and claims,

in accordance with Ulla’s position, because he does not entirely uproot his initial words.

Two people who disputed a field:

This one says: “It belonged to my ancestors, and I ate its produce for the years of ḥazaka,” and this one says: “It belonged to my ancestors!”

This one brought witnesses that it belonged to his ancestors and that he ate its produce for the years of ḥazaka

and when he made his claim,

and this one

did not

bring witnesses,

but

that he ate its produce for the years of ḥazaka

during those years in which his fellow claimed that he ate its produce, whereas concerning his claim that it belonged to his ancestors, he did not bring witnesses.

Rav Naḥman said:

the field is to be established in the possession of the one who brought witnesses in support of his claim that it belonged to his ancestors; and although these witnesses are contradicted and are of uncertain credibility, since they added and said that he ate its produce for the years of ḥazaka, and in this detail their words were contradicted by other witnesses; and because—

of

“Set aside the eating against the eating, and establish the land in the possession of the ancestors;”

that is: indeed, concerning the detail of the ḥazaka there is here contradictory testimony that cannot be believed; nevertheless, we do not need this detail of their testimony, for what they say that it belonged to his ancestors is sufficient.

Rava said to him:

How do you rely upon these witnesses,

for it is contradictory testimony,

that is, one of the groups of witnesses testified falsely and became disqualified for all testimonies in the world, and since you do not know which one it is, you must disqualify both of them because of the doubt?!

He said to him

Rav Naḥman to Rava:

Granted, it was contradicted concerning its eating,