Today's Daf Yomi
February 24, 2017 | 讻状讞 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讝
-
This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
Bava Batra 33
More cases are over doubts about land are brought. 聽One who was living on property that others claimed belonged to orphans. 聽Another involved a disagreement about inheritors – who was the closest inheritor. 聽Since neither had proof, one went to live on the land and when he later admitted he was not the closer relative, there was a debate whether he needed to return all the produce he had eaten or did he just have to return the land from the point of his admission. 聽If one brings one witness to support his claim that he ate for 3 years, can we turn that witness against him and say that he now needs to pay for the produce that he ate, based on the law that one witness requires him to swear and in this case since he cannot swear (because he already said he ate the produce), he needs to pay?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
讝讜讝讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讙讘讬讛 讜讗讻诇转讛 砖谞讬 诪砖讻谞转讗
other money with him, i.e., he owed me money for a different reason, for which I had no collateral, and I profited from the land for the duration of the years of the collateral.
讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬 诪讛讚专谞讗 诇讛 讗专注讗 诇讬转诪讬 讜讗诪讬谞讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讙讘讬 讚讗讘讜讻讜谉 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讛讘讗 诇讬驻专注 诪谞讻住讬 讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讗 讬驻专注 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讗诇讗 讗讻讘砖讬讛 诇砖讟专 诪砖讻谞转讗 讜讗讜讻诇讛 砖讬注讜专 讝讜讝讬 讚诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇拽讜讞讛 讛讬讗 讘讬讚讬 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讻讬 讗诪讬谞讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讙讘讬讬讻讜 诪讛讬诪谞谞讗
I then said to myself: If I return the land to the orphans now that the years of collateral have finished, and I say that I have other money with your late father, I will not be able to collect it, as the Sages say that one who comes to collect a debt from the property of orphans can collect only by means of an oath, and I do not wish to take an oath. Rather than do that, I will suppress the document detailing the terms of the collateral, and profit from the land up to the measure of the money that their father owed me. This is legitimate, since if I so desire I can say: It is purchased, and that is why it is in my possession, and I would have been deemed credible, as I profited from the land for the years necessary to establish the presumption of ownership, so when I say that I have money with you, I am also deemed credible.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇拽讜讞讛 讘讬讚讬 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚讛讗 讗讬讻讗 注诇讛 拽诇讗 讚讗专注讗 讚讬转诪讬 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讝讬诇 讗讛讚专讛 谞讬讛诇讬讬讛讜 讜讻讬 讙讚诇讬 讬转诪讬 讗砖转注讬 讚讬谞讗 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜:
Abaye said to Rava bar Sharshom: Your reasoning is incorrect. You would not have been able to say: It is purchased, and that is why it is in my possession, as there is publicity concerning it that it is land of orphans. Therefore, you are unable to collect your debt based on the fact that you could have made a more advantageous claim [miggo]. Rather, return the land to the orphans now, and when the orphans become adults, then litigate with them, as you have no other option.
拽专讬讘讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 砖讻讬讘 讜砖讘拽 讚讬拽诇讗 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 讗谞讗 拽专讬讘谞讗 讟驻讬 讜讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讗诪专 讗谞讗 拽专讬讘谞讗 讟驻讬 诇住讜祝 讗讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讚讗讬讛讜 拽专讬讘 讟驻讬 讗讜拽诪讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘讬讚讬讛
The Gemara relates: A relative of Rav Idi bar Avin died and left a date tree as an inheritance. Another relative took possession of the tree, claiming to be a closer relative than Rav Idi bar Avin. Rav Idi bar Avin said: I am closer in relation to the deceased than he, and that man said: I am closer in relation to the deceased than Rav Idi bar Avin. Ultimately, the other man admitted to Rav Idi bar Avin that, in fact, Rav Idi was closer in relation to the deceased. Rav 岣sda established the date tree in the possession of Rav Idi bar Avin.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬讛讚专 诇讬 驻讬专讬 讚讗讻诇 诪讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 注讚 讛砖转讗 讗诪专 讝讛 讛讜讗 砖讗讜诪专讬诐 注诇讬讜 讗讚诐 讙讚讜诇 讛讜讗 讗诪讗谉 拽讗 住诪讬讱 诪专 讗讛讗讬 讛讗 拽讗诪专 讚讗谞讗 诪拽专讘谞讗 讟驻讬 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗
Rav Idi bar Avin said to Rav 岣sda: The value of the produce that he consumed unlawfully from that day when he took possession of the tree until now should be returned to me. Rav 岣sda said: Is this he about whom people say: He is a great man? On whom is the Master basing his claim to receive the value of the produce? On this other relative. But he was saying until this point: I am closer in relation to the deceased than he. Therefore, you have ownership of the tree only from the time of his admission, and not from when he took possession of the tree. The Gemara comments: Abaye and Rava do not hold in accordance with this opinion of Rav 岣sda,
讻讬讜谉 讚讗讜讚讬 讗讜讚讬:
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.
讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇 讗讘讜转讬 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇 讗讘讜转讬 讛讗讬 讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讚讗讘讛转讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讗讬 讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讚讗讻诇 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛
搂 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.
讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讛 诇讜 诇砖拽专 讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讱 讝讘讬谞转讛 讜讗讻诇转讬讛 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讛 诇讬 诇砖拽专 讘诪拽讜诐 注讚讬诐 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉
Rav 岣sda 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 岣sda, 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.
讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬转 讘讛讗讬 讗专注讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讱 讝讘谞讬 讜讗讻诇转讬讛 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 讗讝诇 讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讚讗讻诇讛 转专转讬 砖谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讚专讗 讗专注讗 讜讛讚专讬 驻讬专讬
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 Na岣an 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.
讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诐 讟注谉 讜讗诪专 诇驻讬专讜转 讬专讚转讬 谞讗诪谉 诇讗讜 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚谞拽讬讟 诪讙诇讗 讜转讜讘诇讬讗 讜讗诪专 讗讬讝讬诇 讗讬讙讚专讬讛 诇讚讬拽诇讗 讚驻诇谞讬讗 讚讝讘谞讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬 诪讛讬诪谉 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 讞爪讬祝 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讙讝专 讚讬拽诇讗 讚诇讗讜 讚讬诇讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞爪讬祝 讗讬谞讬砖 诇诪讬讻诇 驻讬专讬 讚诇讗讜 讚讬诇讬讛
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鈥檛 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.
讗讬 讛讻讬 讗专注讗 谞诪讬 讗专注讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讞讜讬 砖讟专讱 讗讬 讛讻讬 驻讬专讬 谞诪讬 砖讟专讗 诇驻讬专讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬
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.
讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬转 讘讛讗讬 讗专注讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讱 讝讘谞讬转 讜讗讻诇转讬讛 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 讗讬讬转讬 讞讚 住讛讚讗 讚讗讻诇讛 转诇转 砖谞讬 住讘讜专 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 诇诪讬诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 谞住讻讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗
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.
讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讞讟祝 谞住讻讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 讞讚 住讛讚讗 讚诪讬讞讟祝 讞讟驻讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讞讟驻讬 讜讚讬讚讬 讞讟驻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬
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:
-
This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!
Bava Batra 33
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
讝讜讝讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讙讘讬讛 讜讗讻诇转讛 砖谞讬 诪砖讻谞转讗
other money with him, i.e., he owed me money for a different reason, for which I had no collateral, and I profited from the land for the duration of the years of the collateral.
讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬 诪讛讚专谞讗 诇讛 讗专注讗 诇讬转诪讬 讜讗诪讬谞讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讙讘讬 讚讗讘讜讻讜谉 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讛讘讗 诇讬驻专注 诪谞讻住讬 讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讗 讬驻专注 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讗诇讗 讗讻讘砖讬讛 诇砖讟专 诪砖讻谞转讗 讜讗讜讻诇讛 砖讬注讜专 讝讜讝讬 讚诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇拽讜讞讛 讛讬讗 讘讬讚讬 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讻讬 讗诪讬谞讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讙讘讬讬讻讜 诪讛讬诪谞谞讗
I then said to myself: If I return the land to the orphans now that the years of collateral have finished, and I say that I have other money with your late father, I will not be able to collect it, as the Sages say that one who comes to collect a debt from the property of orphans can collect only by means of an oath, and I do not wish to take an oath. Rather than do that, I will suppress the document detailing the terms of the collateral, and profit from the land up to the measure of the money that their father owed me. This is legitimate, since if I so desire I can say: It is purchased, and that is why it is in my possession, and I would have been deemed credible, as I profited from the land for the years necessary to establish the presumption of ownership, so when I say that I have money with you, I am also deemed credible.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇拽讜讞讛 讘讬讚讬 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚讛讗 讗讬讻讗 注诇讛 拽诇讗 讚讗专注讗 讚讬转诪讬 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讝讬诇 讗讛讚专讛 谞讬讛诇讬讬讛讜 讜讻讬 讙讚诇讬 讬转诪讬 讗砖转注讬 讚讬谞讗 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜:
Abaye said to Rava bar Sharshom: Your reasoning is incorrect. You would not have been able to say: It is purchased, and that is why it is in my possession, as there is publicity concerning it that it is land of orphans. Therefore, you are unable to collect your debt based on the fact that you could have made a more advantageous claim [miggo]. Rather, return the land to the orphans now, and when the orphans become adults, then litigate with them, as you have no other option.
拽专讬讘讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 砖讻讬讘 讜砖讘拽 讚讬拽诇讗 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 讗谞讗 拽专讬讘谞讗 讟驻讬 讜讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讗诪专 讗谞讗 拽专讬讘谞讗 讟驻讬 诇住讜祝 讗讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讚讗讬讛讜 拽专讬讘 讟驻讬 讗讜拽诪讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘讬讚讬讛
The Gemara relates: A relative of Rav Idi bar Avin died and left a date tree as an inheritance. Another relative took possession of the tree, claiming to be a closer relative than Rav Idi bar Avin. Rav Idi bar Avin said: I am closer in relation to the deceased than he, and that man said: I am closer in relation to the deceased than Rav Idi bar Avin. Ultimately, the other man admitted to Rav Idi bar Avin that, in fact, Rav Idi was closer in relation to the deceased. Rav 岣sda established the date tree in the possession of Rav Idi bar Avin.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬讛讚专 诇讬 驻讬专讬 讚讗讻诇 诪讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 注讚 讛砖转讗 讗诪专 讝讛 讛讜讗 砖讗讜诪专讬诐 注诇讬讜 讗讚诐 讙讚讜诇 讛讜讗 讗诪讗谉 拽讗 住诪讬讱 诪专 讗讛讗讬 讛讗 拽讗诪专 讚讗谞讗 诪拽专讘谞讗 讟驻讬 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗
Rav Idi bar Avin said to Rav 岣sda: The value of the produce that he consumed unlawfully from that day when he took possession of the tree until now should be returned to me. Rav 岣sda said: Is this he about whom people say: He is a great man? On whom is the Master basing his claim to receive the value of the produce? On this other relative. But he was saying until this point: I am closer in relation to the deceased than he. Therefore, you have ownership of the tree only from the time of his admission, and not from when he took possession of the tree. The Gemara comments: Abaye and Rava do not hold in accordance with this opinion of Rav 岣sda,
讻讬讜谉 讚讗讜讚讬 讗讜讚讬:
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.
讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇 讗讘讜转讬 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇 讗讘讜转讬 讛讗讬 讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讚讗讘讛转讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讗讬 讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讚讗讻诇 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛
搂 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.
讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讛 诇讜 诇砖拽专 讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讱 讝讘讬谞转讛 讜讗讻诇转讬讛 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讛 诇讬 诇砖拽专 讘诪拽讜诐 注讚讬诐 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉
Rav 岣sda 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 岣sda, 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.
讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬转 讘讛讗讬 讗专注讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讱 讝讘谞讬 讜讗讻诇转讬讛 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 讗讝诇 讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讚讗讻诇讛 转专转讬 砖谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讚专讗 讗专注讗 讜讛讚专讬 驻讬专讬
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 Na岣an 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.
讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诐 讟注谉 讜讗诪专 诇驻讬专讜转 讬专讚转讬 谞讗诪谉 诇讗讜 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚谞拽讬讟 诪讙诇讗 讜转讜讘诇讬讗 讜讗诪专 讗讬讝讬诇 讗讬讙讚专讬讛 诇讚讬拽诇讗 讚驻诇谞讬讗 讚讝讘谞讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬 诪讛讬诪谉 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 讞爪讬祝 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讙讝专 讚讬拽诇讗 讚诇讗讜 讚讬诇讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞爪讬祝 讗讬谞讬砖 诇诪讬讻诇 驻讬专讬 讚诇讗讜 讚讬诇讬讛
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鈥檛 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.
讗讬 讛讻讬 讗专注讗 谞诪讬 讗专注讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讞讜讬 砖讟专讱 讗讬 讛讻讬 驻讬专讬 谞诪讬 砖讟专讗 诇驻讬专讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬
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.
讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬转 讘讛讗讬 讗专注讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讱 讝讘谞讬转 讜讗讻诇转讬讛 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 讗讬讬转讬 讞讚 住讛讚讗 讚讗讻诇讛 转诇转 砖谞讬 住讘讜专 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 诇诪讬诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 谞住讻讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗
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.
讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讞讟祝 谞住讻讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 讞讚 住讛讚讗 讚诪讬讞讟祝 讞讟驻讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讞讟驻讬 讜讚讬讚讬 讞讟驻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬
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:
