Bava Batra 34a (לד.) — the Talmud in English

How shall the judges adjudicate this case? [

How can the judges adjudicate this difficult case?]!

Perhaps you will say that

he should pay—that is, the snatcher should return the silver ingot, as we would have said had two witnesses testified that he snatched it?

But

there are

not two witnesses [

there are not two witnesses] to the snatching; there is only one witness. And since, by means of a migo, he could have claimed, “I did not snatch it,” he should also be believed when he claims, “I snatched what was mine.”

Perhaps you will say that

he should be exempt—on the basis of this migo, since he could have claimed, “I did not snatch it”?

But

there is

one witness [

there is one witness] who testifies that he snatched it. Had he claimed, “I did not snatch it,” he would have been required to take an oath to refute the witness.

Perhaps you will say that

he should take an oath, since the witness renders him liable to take one

the snatcher, since the witness renders him liable to take an oath?

He said:

He admits that he

did snatch it, whereas the witness renders him liable to take an oath that he did not snatch it—

and

therefore it turns out that, since

the snatcher

said

that he

snatched it, he has the status of a robber

with regard to the other oaths, which he cannot take in order to refute the witness, because he is disqualified from taking an oath—

And if so, how should this case be adjudicated?

Rabbi Abba said

to Rabbi Ami:

This

snatcher is

liable to take an oath

because of the witness,

but cannot take an oath

since he does not deny the witness’s testimony—

and anyone who is liable to take an oath but cannot take an oath

is

required to pay.

The case before us as well, in which one witness testifies that the person consumed the produce for three years, resembles the matter of “Rabbi Abba’s ingot.” We have before us one witness that he consumed the produce, and he cannot take an oath to refute him, since he admits that he consumed it, except that he claims, “I consumed my own produce.” If so, we should say: Since he cannot take an oath, he must pay for the produce that he consumed.

Abaye said

to the Sages who required him to return the produce he had consumed, as in the case of Rabbi Abba’s ingot:

Are the cases comparable?

Can this case really be compared to the case of Rabbi Abba’s ingot?!

There—

regarding Rabbi Abba’s ingot—

the witness comes to weaken his position

[

the witness comes to weaken the snatcher’s position], for according to his testimony, he is liable to return the ingot,

and if another witness comes together with him, we remove it from him [

and if another witness had come testifying similarly, we would have taken the ingot from the snatcher].

But

here—

regarding one witness testifying that the possessor held the land for three years—

the witness

comes to assist

the possessor, since according to his testimony the latter held it for three years and is believed in his claim;

and if another witness comes, we place it in his possession [

if another witness had come testifying as this witness did, we would have placed the land in the possessor’s possession].

That is, the case discussed by Rabbi Abba is understandable: On the basis of the witness’s testimony, we have grounds to obligate him. Here, however, if we accept the witness’s testimony, he is not liable at all, since he consumed the produce during the three years establishing possession and the land is his; there is no liability to take an oath here at all.

Rather, if this case of Rabbi Abba’s is comparable,

if you wish to know to what kind of case Rabbi Abba’s ingot is comparable, so that its law will be like it, it is comparable to the following case:

To one witness, two years, and produce!

That is, for example, one witness comes and testifies concerning a certain person that he consumed another person’s field produce for two years, and the consumer claims: “Indeed, I consumed it, but I consumed what was mine, because I purchased it from you.” In such a case, the consumer is indeed liable to pay for the produce of the two years, for according to the witness’s testimony he is liable to pay for the produce of the two years that he consumed, and since he cannot take an oath, he must pay.