Bava Batra 33a (לג.) — the Talmud in English

And

however, in addition to this debt

I had

another

sum of money with him [

he owed me an additional debt, for which I had a promissory note against him].

And I had already consumed the two years of the mortgage, [

I had finished consuming the number of years that we had agreed upon]; but I had not returned the land to the orphans, and as a result a public rumor arose that I was consuming land belonging to orphans.

However, I continued consuming the produce because of the additional promissory note that I had against the orphans; and the reason I had not come to the court to claim the debt, so that the court could collect it for me, was that

I said

to myself:

If I return the land to the orphans, and I say

to the court

that I have money with your father, [

if I return the land to the orphans and bring a claim against them in court on the basis of the promissory note in my possession for the other debt], then

the Sages said: “

One who comes to collect from the property of orphans may collect only by taking an oath,”

that their father had not yet repaid me this debt. Consequently, the court would require me to take an oath before collecting the loan from the orphans; and I do not wish to take an oath, even when I am telling the truth—

And so I thought to myself:

I will conceal the mortgage document in my possession and consume produce worth the sum of the money [

I will conceal the mortgage document, in which it is written that I am not the owner of the field, and continue consuming the produce beyond the appointed time until the second debt is also covered], and I cannot be required to take an oath retroactively, because with regard to the past I am believed without an oath,

since if I had wished I could have said [

if I had wanted to claim]: “

It was purchased by me,”

and I would have been

believed,

since I had already consumed its produce for the period establishing presumptive ownership;

when I also say

“also”

that I have money with you [

even with the claim, “You owe me money”]—

I am believed

even without an oath.

Abaye said

to Rava bar Shereshom: This is not a valid migo, since

“It was purchased by me”

you cannot claim [

you are unable to make that claim],

because there is a public rumor concerning it that it is land belonging to orphans [

since a rumor had spread that the land belonged to orphans]!

Rather, go and return it to them, and when the orphans grow up, conduct your litigation with them, [

go and return the land to the orphans, and when the orphans come of age] bring your claim against them in court. Then take an oath that their father did not repay the debt, and collect your debt from them.

An incident involving

a relative of Rav Idi bar Avin,

who

died and left a palm tree. Rav Idi bar Avin said: “I am the closer relative,”

and

a certain man came

and

said: “

I am the closer relative,” [

A relative of Rav Idi bar Avin died and left a palm tree to his relatives, and Rav Idi bar Avin and another relative disputed which of them was closer to the deceased and would therefore inherit the palm tree], and neither one had evidence to support his claim.

That man was more forceful than Rav Idi bar Avin, and he consumed the produce of the palm tree, as this is the law in a case of uncertainty such as this: “Whoever is stronger prevails,” until

eventually he admitted to him

that certain man to Rav Idi

that

indeed

he—

Rav Idi—

was the closer relative, [

in the end that man admitted that Rav Idi was indeed the closer relative], and

Rav Ḥisda placed it in his possession, [

and Rav Ḥisda placed the palm tree in the legal possession of Rav Idi].

Rav Idi bar Avin said

to Rav Ḥisda: Since this man admitted that I am the closer relative, he was consuming the produce of the palm tree unlawfully until now, and I claim: “

He should return to me the produce that he consumed from that day until now,” [

he should return to me the value of the produce that he consumed from the day he began consuming it until today]!”

Rav Ḥisda said:

Is

this man—

Rav Idi—

the one of whom it is said: “

He is a great man”!?

For

upon whom is the Master relying with regard to this? On this man, who says, “I am the closer relative.”

You have no evidence at all that you are the closer relative; rather, you rely on this man’s admission. That admission was made only now, whereas until now he had claimed that he was the closer relative, and he was lawfully consuming the produce, since “whoever is stronger prevails.” You have no claim against him whatsoever.

However,

Abaye and Rava did not accept

the

position of Rav Ḥisda,