Bava Batra 33b (לג:) — the Talmud in English

And because

once he admitted

that the other relative, whom Rav Idi is closer to, was the rightful owner—

he admitted

, and this admission is effective even with regard to the eating of the produce retroactively, and he must return it to Rav Idi.

The Gemara discusses the case of two people who dispute ownership of a field:

This one says: It belonged to my ancestors

and I inherited the land from them,

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 had consumed the produce for the requisite years of possession

, meaning, the first brought witnesses that the land had belonged to his ancestors until the day they died, and that they had never sold the land to the ancestors of the other; whereas the second—the one who claims that the land belonged to his ancestors—found no witnesses to testify in support of his claim, but brought witnesses who testified that he had consumed its produce for two years of possession.

At first glance, we should establish the land as belonging to the one who brought witnesses that it had belonged to his ancestors, since the opposing party does not claim that he purchased the land from him, in which case his possession would substantiate his claim, whereas his claim against the witnesses is entirely ineffective. Nevertheless,

Rav Ḥisda said

that he should be believed in his claim that it had belonged to his ancestors, despite the witnesses, because

what reason would he have to lie

, meaning, he should be believed by virtue of a miggo?

For

if he had wanted, he could have said to him

, to his opponent:

I purchased it from you

—[if he had wished, he could have claimed, “I purchased it from you”]—

and

I would be believed in this, since

I consumed its produce for the requisite two years of possession;

and since he could make a claim that would establish him as the owner of the land, he may make the claim against the witnesses and say that it belonged to his ancestors.

However,

Abaye and Rava do not accept this ruling of Rav Ḥisda,

because

what reason would I have to lie

in the presence of witnesses

who contradict him—

we do not say this.

There was an incident involving

a certain

man

who said to another:

“What are you doing in this field [what are you doing in my field]?!”

He said to him,

the possessor said to the claimant:

“I purchased it from you and consumed its produce for the requisite two years of possession

, [I purchased it from you and consumed its produce for two years]!”

He went

the possessor and

brought witnesses that he had consumed its produce for two years [the possessor went and found witnesses only for two years during which he had possessed the field]!

Rav Naḥman said:

Since he has no testimony establishing possession for three years,

the land returns [the land returns to the claimant],

and the produce also returns

as well:

the produce

, and the possessor must pay the claimant the value of the produce that he consumed during the two years that he possessed it, since he consumed produce belonging to the claimant.

Rav Zevid said: If

when the claimant said to him, “What are you doing in this field,”

the possessor claimed

and

said:

“I entered only for the produce [I purchased from you the right to consume the produce of the land]”

, he is

believed,

and he is exempt from paying the claimant the value of the produce he consumed.

For

did Rav Yehuda not say:

One who is holding a sickle and a rope for climbing palm trees

in his hand, and says:

“I am going to cut [gather the produce of the date palms, which is called gedira]

the dates of so-and-so’s palm, which he sold to me,”

he is believed,

because

a person is not so brazen as to cut the dates of a palm that is not his.

One who takes a tool used for harvesting dates and says, “I am going to cut the dates of so-and-so’s palm, for he sold me this right”—when the owner of the palm is not present—the court does not prevent him from doing so, because it is reasonable to assume that a person would not be so brazen as to cut the dates of another’s palm.

And if so,

here—

where he claimed, “I entered only for the produce”

—

he is also believed, because

a person is not so brazen as to consume produce that is not his.

And we challenge this:

If so, the land as well—

meaning, if that is your reasoning, why is he exempt from returning the produce specifically when he initially claimed, “I entered only for the produce”? Even when he claims that the land is his, he should be believed with regard to the produce and not be required to return it, for the same reason!

And we answer: When he makes a claim concerning

the land

, he is not believed even with regard to the produce, because

we say to him: “Show your deed” [show your deed proving that you purchased the land]. Since he has no deed, this is a defect in his claim; but people do not ordinarily draw up a deed for produce, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And we challenge this:

If so, when he claims concerning

when he claims concerning

the produce

alone [“I entered only for the produce”],

also, should we say to him, “Show your deed” proving that you entered for the produce?!

And we answer:

People do not ordinarily draw up a deed for produce

; people do not ordinarily draw up a deed for the acquisition of the right to produce alone!

There was an incident involving

a certain

man

who said to another:

“What are you doing in this field [what are you doing in my land]?!”

He said to him,

the possessor said to the claimant:

“I purchased it from you and consumed its produce for the requisite two years of possession [I purchased it from you and also consumed its produce for two years]!”

However, he did not

bring

anything except

one witness that he had consumed its produce for three years [he had only one witness testifying to the three years of possession that he claimed]!

The Sages before Abaye thought to say:

He must return the land, since he does not have two witnesses establishing possession; and since it is not his, he is obligated by virtue of the single witness to pay for the produce he consumed, because

this is the case of Rabbi Abba’s silver ingot!

For

there was an incident involving

a certain man who seized a silver ingot from another [an incident involving a man who seized a piece of silver from another],

the one who had been robbed came

before him,

to Rabbi Ami, and Rabbi Abba was sitting before him [Rabbi Abba was sitting before Rabbi Ami when this case came before Rabbi Ami]:

He brought

the one who had been robbed

one witness that he had seized the silver ingot from him [the one who had been robbed had only one witness testifying that the ingot had been seized from him]!

And

he said to him,

the robber said to Rabbi Ami:

“Indeed, I seized it, but

nevertheless

I seized what belongs to me

, [I indeed admit that I seized it, but I seized what belongs to me].”

If two witnesses had come and testified that he had seized it, he would not be believed to say, “I seized what belongs to me.”

If there were not even one witness testifying to the seizure, he would be believed to say, “I seized what belongs to me,” even though he admits to the act of seizure itself, because he has a miggo: He could have said, “I did not seize it,” and he would have been believed; therefore, even when he claims, “I seized it, but I seized what belongs to me,” he is believed.

If one witness testified to the seizure, and he claimed, “I did not seize it,” he would be believed if he took an oath denying the witness’s testimony.

But in this case, where there was only one witness to the seizure, and the one who seized it does not deny the seizure, but claims, “I seized what belongs to me”—

Rabbi Ami said: