Bava Batra 34b — the Talmud in English

An incident:

there was a certain boat over which two people were quarrelling; this one said "

It is mine,"

and this one said "

It is mine," [

An incident involving a boat on a river, over which two people were contending as to whose it was] — and had this case come before the court while they were contending with one another, the court would have ruled, because of the uncertainty, "whoever prevails prevails"; but

one of them came to the court and said "

Seize it until I bring witnesses that it is mine," [

the one came to the court and asked that the court seize the boat and prevent the other from selling it to someone else, until he brought witnesses testifying, as he said, that it was his].

And the Gemara discusses: whether

we seize

at his request,

or

perhaps

we do not seize?

Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda disagreed concerning this:

Rav Huna said: We seize.

Rav Yehuda said: We do not seize, [

and their reasons will be explained further in the discussion].

And the incident actually occurred in this manner: the court indeed seized the boat, but

this one went

away

and did not find witnesses, [

this one went and did not find witnesses that it was his], and therefore

he said to them "

Release it, and whoever prevails prevails,"

release the boat from your hands, and let the law between us be "whoever prevails prevails," for this is the essential law of this uncertainty!

And the Gemara discusses: since the boat is in the possession of the court in any event,

do we remove it [

we release the boat] to the law of "whoever prevails prevails,"

or

perhaps, since it is in the hands of the court,

we do not remove it

to the law of "whoever prevails prevails"?

And concerning this detail Rav Yehuda, Rav, and Rav Pappa disagreed:

Rav Yehuda said: We do not remove it,

for once the property of an Israelite has come into the hands of the court, they are not permitted to render it ownerless; rather, they hold that property until they know to whom to return it.

Rav Pappa said: We remove it,

and because they seized it initially with the intention that, if he did not bring witnesses, they would return it to the state in which it had been at the outset.

And the latter disagreement also underlies the first disagreement, for certainly, according to the fundamental law, we should have said that since this one claims that he has witnesses proving his words, and he is concerned lest the other perform an act through which he will be unable to receive what is his, we should have said, "We seize."

But if the law is that the court does not remove the boat from its hands for the law of "whoever prevails prevails," then the court should not seize the boat. For if there is no substance to the words of the claimant that he has witnesses, it follows that this other one loses through the court's seizure: for had they not seized it, he would have been able to prevail over his fellow and take the boat, whereas if the court seizes it, he will no longer be able to do so. Therefore:

Rav Huna holds: We seize, because he holds that if this one does not bring witnesses, the court will remove the boat from its hands; and if so, it is proper that they seize it in the meantime.

But Rav Yehuda holds: We do not seize, for he follows his own position, that if we seize, we no longer remove it.

And the halakha

is like Rav Yehuda, for

we do not seize; and where one has seized, we do not remove it [

the court should not seize it initially, and if they seized it, they should no longer remove it from their hands for the law of "whoever prevails prevails"], and for this very reason—that "we do not remove it"—we do not seize it initially.

The Gemara discusses the law of land or a boat over which two people contended:

This one says "

It belonged to my ancestors

and I inherited it from them,"

and this one says "

It belonged to my ancestors

it, and I inherited it," and this one has neither stronger testimony nor stronger possession than the other one.

Rav Nahman said:

since the matter is uncertain, for this one has no more proofs than that one,

whoever prevails

among them

prevails!

And

we raise an objection against it:

What is different

about this law of uncertainty

from

the law of uncertainty concerning

two bills

of sale—the owner of a field wrote one to Reuven and one to Shimon—

issued on the same day, [

the date of the bills is identical]: