Bava Batra 33b — the Talmud in English

And because

once he admitted that

that relative whom Rav Idi is closer to—

he admitted,

and this admission is also effective concerning the retroactive consumption of the produce, and he must return it to Rav Idi.

The Gemara discusses the law concerning two who disputed ownership of a field:

One says: It belonged to my fathers,

and I inherited the land from them,

and this one says: It belonged to my fathers,

and it is mine, and I inherited it from them.

This one brought witnesses that it belonged to his fathers; and this one brought witnesses that he consumed [the produce] for the two years of presumptive possession,

the one brought witnesses that the land had belonged to his fathers until the day of their deaths, and that they had never sold the land to the fathers of this one; whereas the other—the one claiming that the land belonged to his fathers—did not find witnesses to testify in accordance with his claim, but brought witnesses who testified that he had consumed the produce for the two years of presumptive possession.

Simply, we should have placed the land in the possession of the one who brought witnesses that it had belonged to his fathers, for the one opposite him does not claim that he purchased the land from him, which would make presumptive possession effective for his claim, whereas his claim against the witnesses is nothing; nevertheless,

Rav Hisda said that he should be believed in his claim that it had belonged to his fathers, against the witnesses, because

because of

“What would he have to lie?”,

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

For

if he wished, he could have said to

the one opposite him:

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

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

and

I am believed in this, for

“I consumed its produce for the two years of presumptive possession;

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 belonged to his fathers.

However,

Abaye and Rava do not hold this opinion of Rav Hisda, because

because

“What would I have to lie?”

in a place where there are witnesses

who contradict him—

we do not say it.

There was an incident involving

a certain

man

who said to his fellow:

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

[что ты делаешь на моем поле]?!»

The possessor said to

the claimant:

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

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

The possessor went

and

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

[держатель земли пошел и нашел свидетелей только о двух годах, в течение которых он владел полем]!

Rav Naḥman said:

Since he has no testimony concerning presumptive possession for three years,

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

[земля возвращается предъявителю претензии],

and the

also

produce

returns, and the possessor pays the claimant the value of the produce that he consumed during the two years in which he possessed it, for he consumed the claimant’s produce.

Rav Zevid said: If,

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

the possessor claimed

the possessor

and said:

“I descended for the produce [I purchased from you the right to consume produce from the land],” then he is

, he is

believed,

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

For

did Rav Yehuda not say:

“One who holds a sickle and a tuvila

in his hand, and says:

в руках и говорит: «

‘I will go and harvest it [I will gather the produce of the date palms, which is called gedira]

[соберу плоды финиковой пальмы; это называется “сбор урожая”]

from so-and-so’s palm tree, which he sold to me,” is

believed,

because

“a person is not brazen enough to harvest a palm tree that is not his”—

One who takes in his hand a tool for harvesting dates and says, “I am going to harvest the dates of so-and-so’s palm tree; I purchased this right from the owner of the palm tree”—who is not present—the court does not restrain him, because it is a logical presumption: a person is not brazen enough to harvest the dates of another’s palm tree.

And if so,

here—

where he claimed, “I descended for the produce”—

also

he is believed, because

“a person is not brazen enough to consume produce that is not his.”

And we question:

“If so, the land also,”

that is: if it is as you say, why is he exempt from returning the produce specifically when he initially claimed, “I descended for the produce”? Even when he claims concerning the land that it is his, he should be believed regarding the produce, not to return it, for the same reason”?!

And we answer: when he claims concerning

the land,

he is not to be believed even concerning the produce, because

we say to him: “Show your deed [show your deed that you purchased the land],

and since he has no deed, this is a defect; but concerning produce, it is not customary to make a deed, as it proceeds to explain.

And we ask:

“If so,

when he claims concerning

produce

alone [“I descended for the produce”]

also,

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

And we answer:

“People do not make a deed for produce,

people do not customarily make a deed for “acquisition of produce” alone”!

There was an incident involving

a certain

man

who said to his fellow:

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

[что ты делаешь на моей земле]?!»

The possessor said to

the claimant:

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

[я купил ее у тебя и также пользовался ею два года, создающих חזקה]!»

But he did not

bring

anything except

one witness that he had consumed it for three years [he had only one witness testifying concerning the three years of presumptive possession that he claimed]!

[у него был только один свидетель, подтверждавший заявленное им владение в течение трех лет]!

The Sages before Abaye thought to say:

he should return the land, for he does not have two witnesses of presumptive possession; and since it is not his, he becomes liable, on the basis of the witness, to pay for the produce that he consumed, because

“this is the case of the silver ingot of Rabbi Abba!”

For

there was an incident involving

a certain man who snatched a silver ingot from his fellow [there was an incident involving a man who snatched a piece of silver from his fellow],

[был случай с человеком, который вырвал у своего товарища кусок серебра],

the one who was robbed came

the robbed man

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

[Рабби Абба сидел перед Рабби Ами, когда это дело предстало перед Рабби Ами]:

The robbed man brought

the robbed man

one witness that he had snatched the silver ingot from him, [the robbed man had only one witness testifying concerning the snatching of the silver ingot]!

[у потерпевшего был только один свидетель, подтверждавший факт похищения серебряного слитка]!

And

the snatcher said to

the snatcher said to Rabbi Ami:

“Indeed, I snatched it, and

nevertheless

I snatched my own, [I admit that the snatching occurred, but nevertheless I snatched my own]”.

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

If two witnesses had come testifying concerning the snatching, then he would not be believed to say, “I snatched my own.”

If there had not even been one witness testifying concerning the snatching, then he would have been believed to say, “I snatched my own,” even though he admits the snatching itself, because he has a migo: he could have said, “I did not snatch it,” and he would have been believed; likewise, when he claims, “I snatched it, and I snatched my own,” he is believed.

If one witness had testified concerning the snatching, and he had claimed, “I did not snatch it,” he would have been believed to swear in order to contradict the witness.

But in this case, where there was only one witness concerning the snatching, and the snatcher does not deny the snatching, but claims, “I snatched my own”—

Rabbi Ami said: