דְּהַאי אַרְעָא דִּידִי הִיא, וְאַתְּ לָא זְבִינְתָהּ מִינַּאי? זִיל, לָאו בַּעַל דְּבָרִים דִּידִי אַתְּ; אֲמַר רָבָא: דִּינָא קָאָמַר לֵיהּ.

that this land is formerly mine, and that you did not purchase it from me? Go away; I am not legally answerable to you. Rava said: The claimant stated the halakha to the possessor, as this is a legitimate claim, and Rava accepted his claim.

הַהוּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: מַאי בָּעֵית בְּהַאי אַרְעָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִפְּלָנְיָא זְבִינָא וַאֲכַלְתִּיהָ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פְּלָנְיָא גַּזְלָנָא הוּא.

There was a certain person who said to another: What do you want with this land of mine? The possessor said to him: I purchased it from so-and-so and then I worked and profited from it for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership. The claimant said to him: So-and-so is a robber who robbed me of the field, and he did not have the authority to sell it to you.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְהָא אִית לִי סָהֲדֵי דַּאֲתַאי אִימְלַכִי בָּךְ, וְאָמְרַתְּ לִי ״זִיל זְבֵין״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַשֵּׁנִי נוֹחַ לִי, הָרִאשׁוֹן קָשֶׁה הֵימֶנּוּ; אֲמַר רָבָא: דִּינָא קָאָמַר לֵיהּ.

The possessor said to him: But I have witnesses that I came and consulted with you, and you said to me: Go purchase the land, indicating that you conceded that he had the authority to sell it. The claimant said to him: The reason that I advised you to purchase it was because the second person, i.e., you, the possessor, is amenable to me, while the first, i.e., the purported thief, is more difficult than he, i.e., I prefer to litigate with you rather than with him. Rava said: The claimant stated the halakha to the possessor, as this is a legitimate claim, and Rava accepted his claim.

כְּמַאן, כְּאַדְמוֹן? דִּתְנַן: הָעוֹרֵר עַל הַשָּׂדֶה וְחָתוּם עָלֶיהָ בְּעֵד – אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר: הַשֵּׁנִי נוֹחַ לִי, הָרִאשׁוֹן קָשֶׁה הֵימֶנּוּ; וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אִיבֵּד אֶת זְכוּתוֹ.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is Rava’s statement? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Admon? As we learned in a mishna (Ketubot 109a): With regard to one who contests ownership of a field, claiming that a field possessed by someone else actually belongs to him, and the claimant himself is signed as a witness on the bill of sale of the field to that other person, Admon says: His signature does not disprove his claim of ownership of the property, as it is possible that the claimant said to himself: The second person is amenable to me to deal with, as I can reason with him, while the first owner, who sold the field to the current possessor, is more difficult to deal with than he. And the Rabbis say: He lost his right to contest, as he signed a bill of sale that states that the field belongs to the possessor. Rava’s ruling appears to be in accordance with the individual opinion of Admon, and not with the opinion of the Rabbis.

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, הָתָם עֲבַד לֵיהּ מַעֲשֶׂה, אֲבָל הָכָא דִּבּוּרָא, עֲבִיד אִינִישׁ דְּמִיקְרֵי וְאָמַר.

The Gemara explains: You may even say that Rava’s ruling is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. There, in the case of the mishna in tractate Ketubot, by signing the bill of sale the claimant performed an action indicating that the field was not his for the benefit of the possessor of the field, but here, in Rava’s case, there was no action, only speech, and a person is apt to casually say statements, and he does not lose his right by virtue of this.

הַהוּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: מַאי בָּעֵית בְּהַאי אַרְעָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִפְּלָנְיָא זְבִינְתָהּ וַאֲכַלְתִּיהָ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פְּלָנְיָא גַּזְלָנָא הוּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְהָא אִית לִי סָהֲדֵי דַּאֲתֵית בְּאוֹרְתָא וְאָמְרַתְּ לִי ״זַבְּנָהּ נִיהֲלִי״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אָמִינָא אִיזְבּוּן דִּינַאי; אֲמַר רָבָא: עֲבִיד אִינִישׁ דְּזָבֵין דִּינֵיהּ.

There was a certain person who said to another: What do you want with this land of mine? The possessor said to him: I purchased it from so-and-so and then I worked and profited from it for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership. The claimant said to him: So-and-so is a robber who robbed me of the field, and he did not have the authority to sell it to you. The possessor said to him: But I have witnesses that you came to me at night and you said to me: Sell it to me, indicating that it is not your land, as if it were yours, you would have demanded that I return it without your paying for it. The claimant said to him: I said to myself: Let me purchase the benefit of avoiding my litigation in order to reclaim my land. Rava said: A person is apt to pay money to purchase the benefit of avoiding his litigation.

הַהוּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: מַאי בָּעֵית בְּהַאי אַרְעָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִפְּלָנְיָא זְבִינָא וַאֲכַלְתִּיהָ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְהָא נָקֵיטְנָא שְׁטָרָא דִּזְבַנִי לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ הָא אַרְבָּעֵי שְׁנֵי!

There was a certain person who said to another: What do you want with this land of mine? The possessor said to him: I purchased it from so-and-so and then I worked and profited from it for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership, indicating that he possessed it for three years, as this is the minimum number of years required for establishing the presumption of ownership. The claimant said to him: But I am holding a document stating that I purchased it from that seller four years ago. Therefore, if it was sold to you three years ago, as you claim, he did not have the authority to sell it at that time.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי סָבְרַתְּ ״שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה״ – תְּלָת שְׁנֵי קָא אָמִינָא? שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה טוּבָא קָא אָמִינָא! אֲמַר רָבָא: עֲבִידִי אֱינָשֵׁי דְּקָרוּ לִשְׁנֵי טוּבָא ״שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה״.

The possessor said to him: Do you maintain that when I said: I profited from the land for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership, that I was saying I worked and profited from the land for precisely three years? What I actually was saying was that I worked and profited from the land for many years and thereby established the presumption of ownership. Since my purchase predated yours, it was effective. Rava said: It is common for people to refer to many years as: Years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership, and his claim is accepted.

וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דַּאֲכָלָהּ שְׁבַע, דְּקָדֵים חֲזָקָה דְּהַאי לִשְׁטָרָא דְּהָךְ,

The Gemara comments: And this matter applies only if he profited from the land for seven years, that presumptive ownership of this possessor preceded the document of that claimant.