Bava Batra 34b (לד:) — the Talmud in English

An incident involving

a certain boat over which two people were arguing: this one said "

It is mine," and

that one said "

It is mine," [the incident concerned a boat on a river, over which two people were contending as to whom it belonged]—had this case come before the court while they were contending with one another, the court would have ruled, because of the uncertainty, “the one who prevails is stronger”;

but

one of them came to court and said "

Seize it until I bring witnesses that it is mine," [the first person came to court and asked the court to seize the boat and prevent the other from selling it to someone else,

until he brought witnesses testifying, as he claimed, that it was his].

The Gemara asks: Is

it seized

at his request,

or

perhaps

is it not seized?

Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda disagree about this:

Rav Huna said: It is seized.

Rav Yehuda said: It is not seized, [their reasons will be explained later].

The incident in fact happened in this manner: the court did seize the boat,

but

he went

away and

did not find witnesses, [he went away and did not find witnesses that it was his], and therefore

he said to them "

Release it, and the one who prevails is stronger,"

release the boat from your possession, and let the law between us be “the one who prevails is stronger,” since that is the fundamental ruling in this case of uncertainty!

The Gemara asks: Since the boat is in the possession of the court in any event,

do we release it [we release the boat] for the ruling of “the one who prevails is stronger

”,

or

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

do we not release it

for the ruling of “the one who prevails is stronger”?

Rav Yehuda and Rav Pappa disagree specifically concerning this matter:

Rav Yehuda said: We do not release it,

because once Jewish property has come into the possession of the court, the court may not declare it ownerless; rather, the court holds the property until it knows to whom it should return it.

Rav Pappa said: We release it,

because they initially seized it with the understanding that if he did not bring witnesses, they would restore it to the state in which it had originally been.

This latter dispute also determines the earlier dispute. Certainly, the basic law would lead us to say that since this person claims that he has witnesses who can prove his claim, and he is concerned that the other may take some action that would prevent him from recovering what is his, we should say: “It is seized.”

However, if the law is that the court does not release the boat from its possession for the ruling of “the one who prevails is stronger,” then the court should not seize the boat. For if there is no substance to the claimant’s statement that he has witnesses, the other person suffers a loss because of the court’s seizure: without the court’s seizure, he could have prevailed over his fellow and taken the boat, whereas if the court seizes it, he can no longer do so. Therefore:

Rav Huna holds: It is seized, because he holds that if this person does not bring witnesses, the court will release the boat from its possession; consequently, it is proper to seize it in the meantime.

But Rav Yehuda holds: It is not seized, for he follows his own position, that once we seize it, we do not release it.

And the halakha

is according to Rav Yehuda, for

it is not seized, and where it was seized, we do not release it [the court should not seize it initially, and if it did seize it, it does not release it from its possession for the ruling of “the one who prevails is stronger”],

and for this very reason—that “we do not release it”—we do not seize it initially.

The Gemara discusses the law concerning 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

and I inherited it," and neither one has testimony, while the other has stronger possession.

Rav Naḥman said:

Since the matter is uncertain, and neither one has stronger evidence than the other,

the one who prevails

among them

is stronger!

And

we challenge this:

What is the difference

between this case of uncertainty

and

the case of uncertainty concerning

two bills of sale

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

that were issued on the same day, [the dates on the bills are identical]:

the date of the bills is identical]: