כֵּיוָן דְּאוֹדֵי – אוֹדֵי.

as they hold that once it is so that the other relative admitted that he is not a closer relative, he admitted that he never had any right to the produce of the tree. Therefore, by his own admission, he is liable to reimburse Rav Idi bar Avin.

זֶה אוֹמֵר ״שֶׁל אֲבוֹתַי״ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר ״שֶׁל אֲבוֹתַי״, הַאי אַיְיתֵי סָהֲדֵי דַּאֲבָהָתֵיהּ הוּא, וְהַאי אַיְיתֵי סָהֲדֵי דַּאֲכַל שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה,

§ There was an incident where two people dispute the ownership of land. This one says: The land belonged to my ancestors and I inherited it from them, and that one says: The land belonged to my ancestors and I inherited it from them. This one brings witnesses that the land belonged to his ancestors, and that one brings witnesses that he worked and profited from the land for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership.

אֲמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַה לּוֹ לְשַׁקֵּר? אִי בָּעֵי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִינָּךְ זְבִינְתָהּ וַאֲכַלְתִּיהָ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אַבַּיֵי וְרָבָא לָא סְבִירָא לְהוּ הָא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, ״מַה לִּי לְשַׁקֵּר״ בִּמְקוֹם עֵדִים לָא אָמְרִינַן.

Rav Ḥisda said: The one who is in possession of the land is deemed credible due to the legal principle that if one would have been deemed credible had he stated one claim but instead stated another claim that accomplishes the same result, he has credibility, because why would he lie and state this claim? If he wants to lie, he could have said to him: I purchased it from you and I worked and profited from it for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership. Abaye and Rava do not hold in accordance with this opinion of Rav Ḥisda, because they hold that we do not say that the principle of: Why would I lie, applies in a case where there are witnesses contradicting the claim he is stating, and in this case, witnesses testify that it belonged to the ancestors of the other claimant.

הַהוּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: מַאי בָּעֵית בְּהַאי אַרְעָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִינָּךְ זְבַנִי וַאֲכַלְתִּיהָ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה, אֲזַל אַיְיתֵי סָהֲדֵי דַּאֲכָלָהּ תַּרְתֵּי שְׁנֵי; אֲמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הָדְרָא אַרְעָא וְהָדְרִי פֵּירֵי.

There was a certain person who said to another: What do you want with this land of mine? The possessor said to him in response: I purchased it from you and I worked and profited from it for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership. He then went and brought witnesses that he had profited from the land for two years, but he was unable to bring witnesses to testify about a third year. Rav Naḥman said: The land reverts back to the prior owner, and payment for the produce consumed during those two years reverts to the prior owner. Since the possessor was unable to substantiate his claim to the land, the assumption is that he consumed the produce unlawfully.

אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: אִם טָעַן וְאָמַר ״לְפֵירוֹת יָרַדְתִּי״ – נֶאֱמָן; לָאו מִי אֲמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הַאי מַאן דְּנָקֵיט מַגָּלָא וְתוֹבְלַיָא, וַאֲמַר: אֵיזִיל אִיגְדְרֵיהּ לְדִיקְלָא דִּפְלָנְיָא דְּזַבְּנֵיהּ נִיהֲלִי – מְהֵימַן? אַלְמָא לָא חֲצִיף אִינִישׁ דְּגָזַר דִּיקְלָא דְּלָאו דִּילֵיהּ. הָכָא נַמִי לָא חֲצִיף אִינִישׁ לְמֵיכַל פֵּירֵי דְּלָאו דִּילֵיהּ.

Rav Zevid said: If initially, when questioned by the other, the one occupying the land claimed and said: I entered the land to consume its produce that I had purchased, he is deemed credible. After all, didn’t Rav Yehuda say: This one who is holding a sickle and rope [ vetovelaya ] and says: I will go cull [ igderei ] the dates from the date tree of so-and-so who sold it to me, is deemed credible that he has the right to do so? Apparently, a person is not so brazen that he would cull the dates of a date tree that is not his. Here too, in the case discussed by Rav Zevid, a person is not so brazen as to consume produce that is not his.

אִי הָכִי, אַרְעָא נַמִי! אַרְעָא, אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: אַחֲוֵי שְׁטָרָךְ. אִי הָכִי, פֵּירֵי נַמִי! שְׁטָרָא לְפֵירֵי לָא עָבְדִי אֱינָשֵׁי.

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that the assumption is that he would not lie, let one be deemed credible with regard to the land as well. The Gemara answers: In terms of the land, we say to him: Show your bill of sale if you indeed purchased it. The Gemara challenges: If that is so, then in terms of the produce as well, let him be deemed credible only if he can produce documentation of his claim. The Gemara explains: It is not common for people to write documents to establish the right to consume produce alone, and one can therefore claim to have consumed the produce based on an oral agreement.

הַהוּא דַּאֲמַר לְחַבְרֵיהּ: מַאי בָּעֵית בְּהַאי אַרְעָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִינָּךְ זְבַנִית וַאֲכַלְתִּיהָ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אַיְיתֵי חַד סָהֲדָא דַּאֲכָלָהּ תְּלָת שְׁנֵי; סְבוּר רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבַּיֵי לְמֵימַר: הַיְינוּ נַסְכָא דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא;

There was a certain person who said to another: What do you want with this land of mine? The possessor said to him in response: I purchased it from you and I worked and profited from it for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership. He then brought one witness who testified that he profited from the land for the necessary three years. The Rabbis who were studying before Abaye maintained that it made sense to say that the principle in this case is the same as that in the case of the piece of cast metal [ naskha ] adjudicated by Rabbi Abba.

דְּהַהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּחֲטַף נַסְכָא מֵחַבְרֵיהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמִי, הֲוָה יָתֵיב רַבִּי אַבָּא קַמֵּיהּ, אַיְיתֵי חַד סָהֲדָא דְּמִיחְטָף חֲטַפָא מִינֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, חֲטַפִי וְדִידִי חֲטַפִי; אֲמַר רַבִּי אַמִי:

The Gemara now presents that case: As there was a certain man who snatched a piece of cast metal from another. The one from whom it was taken came before Rabbi Ami while Rabbi Abba was sitting before him, and he brought one witness who testified that it was, in fact, snatched from him. The one who snatched it said to him: Yes, it is true that I snatched it, but I merely snatched that which was mine. Rabbi Ami said: