I really did not have a lot to add to this subject but for now I want to introduce it briefly. It relates to a Tosphot in Bava Metzia page 110. But the basic subject is in Bava Batra 31.
Two people come to court. Each one says, ''This land was my father's and I have been on it three years.'' Then two sets of witnesses come to court. One set says it was his father's. The other set says about the other person, "He was on it three years." Raba says , "Why should he have lied? He could have said, "I bought it from you. Abyee says, "We do not say 'He could have said' in a place there are witnesses."
[This already brings up the subject of Migo--when do we say "He could have said"? And I tried to deal with that in my little book on Bava Metzia page 98. There it is about a loan.]
The issue here is that in Tosphot in Bava Metzia one opinion [page 110] is this. If it were so that a person can say that land you have been on for more than three years came to you as a guarantee for a loan, then even without מחאה [protest] within three years, one would always be believed, "that land you are on is mine and you have it because you stole it." For he could have said it is a משכון guarantee and be believed.So believe him now. That is a migo can take out of חזקה [prior possession]
Thus, the argument in תוספות seems to be the connected to the argument between רבה and אביי. Because in our situation in בבא בתרא, no witness is saying either plaintiff owned the land. Rather, the set of witnesses that said about one plaintiff that he was there for the years of possession. That means he has חזקה. The testimony is that he has a חזקה, not that he has ownership. Thus the argument between רבה and אביי is if there is a מיגו in the place where there are witnesses is connected with case of תוספות.
___________________________________________________________________________
תוספות בבא מציעא דף ק''י ע''א But the basic subject is in בבא בתרא דף ל''א.
Two people come to court. Each one says, ''this field was my fathers and I have been on it three years שני חזקה.'' Then two sets of witnesses come to court. One set says it was his father's. The other set says about the other טוען, " he was on it three years. רבה says he could have said, Why should he have lied? He could have said "I bought it from you." אביי says, "We do not say 'He could have said' in a place there are witnesses."
The issue here is that in תוספות בבא מציעא one opinion is this. If it were so that a person can say that land you have been on for more than three years came to you as a guarantee for a loan, then even without מחאה protest within three years, one would always be believed that land you are on is mine and you have it because you stole it. For he could have said it is a משכון guarantee and be believed. So believe him now. That is a מיגו can take out of חזקה.
Thus, the argument in תוספות seems to be the connected to the argument between רבה and אביי. Because in our situation in בבא בתרא, no witness is saying either plaintiff owned the land. Rather, the set of witnesses that said about one plaintiff that he was there for the years of possession. That means he has חזקה. The testimony is that he has a חזקה, not that he has ownership. Thus the argument between רבה and אביי is if there is a מיגו in the place where there are witnesses is connected with case of תוספות.
But the difference is this. In בבא בתרא רבה is not saying we believe a מיגו to take of of חזקה. just the opposite. We believe the person that has the חזקה because he also has a מיגו. It is rather אביי that says we o not even believe him because of his מיגו and also not because of his חזקה.
But w can also see that the person with the מיגו is in fact taking out of the חזקה מעיקרא of the other טוען. That is we put his חזקת השתא and חזקת שלש שנים together with the מיגו to take out of חזקה מעיקרא. I am assuming here that the fact that the land once belonged to his father that at least gives him the standpoint of חזקה מעיקרא
In any case, I think that this argument between רבה and אביי might also depend on the argument in תוספות in נידה whether חזקה מעיקרא וחזקה דהשתא are equal. If that is the case then we can understand רבה that if you add a מיגו to the חזקה דהשתא that can outweigh the חזקה מעיקרא of the other טוען. But if חזקה מעיקרא is stronger then we can understand אביי that does not think putting together a מיגו with חזקה דהשתא can overpower a חזקה מעיקרא. But to him it might be that even so חזקה מעקרא in our case might also not be enough. After all the other טעון was on the land three years
z
_____________________________________________________________________________
At any rate, the Gemara goes on. "He says, 'I meant I considered it as my fathers's '" Ula said טוען וחוזר וטוען he can make a plea and then change it. The people in city of Naharda said he can not make a plea and then change it.. But if he said it was was fathers's who bought it from your fathers" even the people of Naharda agree. If outside of courts he said one thing he can change his plea since a person is not used to revealing all that he has to say outside of court.
The Rashbam says if he said outside of court ''the land is yours' then he can not change that in court.
but if he said "it never was your father's" [in direct contradiction to the witnesses but not a direct admission.] then he can change that plea.
Rav Akiva Eigger has a doubt about a different subject which is relevant to this,
The law is if one says "I never borrowed " and witnesses said he borrowed and paid back, it is as if he said I never paid back. But is that because I it is like a complete admission or just and implied admission?
The Rambam says about this last case "If he said in court 'I never borrowed' it is admission" thus it is clear he holds it is only implied admission, and therefore if he said it outside of court, he can change his plea. That is it is not straightforward admission. That is like the Rashbam. The Rashba (Rav Shelomo ben Aderet) and Rabbainu Yona said even if he said it outside of court, he can not change his plea in court. Thus they think of it as a explicit admission.
The problems here are so many I could not even begin to count them,but like I said I only wanted to introduce the subject for now.
תוספות בבא מציעא דף ק''י ע''א. הנושא הבסיסי הוא בבבא בתרא דף ל''א. שני אנשים מגיעים לבית המשפט. כל אחד אומר, "השדה זה היה של אבותיי ואני עובד שם שני חזקה, שלוש שנים." ואז שני סטים של עדים באים לבית המשפט. קבוצה אחת אומרת ששדה זה היה לאביו. הסט השני אומר על טוען האחר, "הוא היה על שדה זה שלוש שנים. רבה אמר למה לשני לשקר? הוא היה יכול לומר, "קניתי את השדה הזה ממך." אביי אמר," אנחנו עושים לא אומרים 'הוא היה יכול לומר' במקום שישנם עדים". כאן הבעיה היא כי תוספות בבא מציעא דעה אחת היא זו. אם זה היה כך שאדם יכול לומר כי הקרקע שיש לך כבר למעלה משלוש שנים בא לך כערובה להלוואה, אז גם בלי מחאת מחאה בתוך שלוש שנים, אחד תמיד יהיה אמין בטענה "הקרקע שאתה עליה היא שלי ויש לך את זו כי אתה גזלת אותה" עבור שהוא היה יכול לומר את זו היא ערובת משכון ושיאמין. אז מאמינים לו עכשיו. זהו מיגו יכול להוציא חזקה. לפיכך, טיעון תוספות נראה את מחובר להוויכוח בין רבה ואביי. כי במצב שלנו בבבא בתרא, לא אף עד אומר שהתובע היה בעל האדמה. במקום זאת, הקבוצה של עדים שאמרו על תובע אחד שהוא היה שם לשלשת השנים. כלומר, יש לו חזקה. העדות היא כי יש לו חזקה, לא כי יש לו בעלות. לכן הוויכוח בין רבה ואביי הוא אם יש מיגו במקום שבו יש עדים קשורים במקרה של תוספות. אבל ההבדל הוא זה. בבבא בתרא רבה הוא לא אומר שאנחנו מאמינים מיגו לקחת של של חזקה. רק להפך. אנו מאמינים האדם שיש לו את החזקה כי יש לו גם מיגו. זה לא לאביי שאומר שאנחנו אפילו לא מאמינים לו בגלל מיגו שלו וגם לא בגלל החזקה שלו. אבל ניתן גם לראות כי האדם עם מיגו הוא למעשה לוקח מתוך חזקה מעיקרא של טוען האחר. כלומר שמיגו שלו עם חזקת השתא, ואת החזקה של שלש שנים יחד יכולים להוציא מחזקת מעיקרא. אני מניח כאן כי העובדה שהקרקע שייכת פעם לאביו שלפחות נותן לו מבחינת החזקה מעיקרא. בכל מקרה, אני חושב כי מחלוקת בין רבה ואביי אולי גם תלוי טיעון בתוספות בנידה ב: אם חזקה מעיקרא וחזקה דהשתא שווות. אם זה נכון אז נוכל להבין רבה שאם תוסיף מיגו אל חזקת השתא שזה יכול להכריע את חזקא מעיקרא של טוען האחר. אבל אם חזקה מעיקרא חזקה, אז נוכל להבין את אביי שלא חושב להרכיב מיגו עם חזקה דהשתא כדי להכניע חזקה מעיקרא. אבל לו יכול להיות שגם כך חזקה מעקרא בענייננו אולי גם לא יספיק. אחרי שהטוען השני היה שם בשלוש שני חזקה.
I know you could argue with all this. I imagine if I was learning with David Bronson he would challenge every single assumption here. He would first attack the idea that because it was on one of the plaintiff' father's that does not necessarily make it חזקה מעיקרא. Plus plenty of other objections I was thinking of as I was writing this.
He would also wonder about if the fact one person was there three years if that makes it חזקה דהשתא. And probably a few tons of other objections. Anyway there tons of problems here that I just can not imagine right now how to handle.
Two people come to court. Each one says, ''This land was my father's and I have been on it three years.'' Then two sets of witnesses come to court. One set says it was his father's. The other set says about the other person, "He was on it three years." Raba says , "Why should he have lied? He could have said, "I bought it from you. Abyee says, "We do not say 'He could have said' in a place there are witnesses."
[This already brings up the subject of Migo--when do we say "He could have said"? And I tried to deal with that in my little book on Bava Metzia page 98. There it is about a loan.]
The issue here is that in Tosphot in Bava Metzia one opinion [page 110] is this. If it were so that a person can say that land you have been on for more than three years came to you as a guarantee for a loan, then even without מחאה [protest] within three years, one would always be believed, "that land you are on is mine and you have it because you stole it." For he could have said it is a משכון guarantee and be believed.So believe him now. That is a migo can take out of חזקה [prior possession]
Thus, the argument in תוספות seems to be the connected to the argument between רבה and אביי. Because in our situation in בבא בתרא, no witness is saying either plaintiff owned the land. Rather, the set of witnesses that said about one plaintiff that he was there for the years of possession. That means he has חזקה. The testimony is that he has a חזקה, not that he has ownership. Thus the argument between רבה and אביי is if there is a מיגו in the place where there are witnesses is connected with case of תוספות.
___________________________________________________________________________
תוספות בבא מציעא דף ק''י ע''א But the basic subject is in בבא בתרא דף ל''א.
Two people come to court. Each one says, ''this field was my fathers and I have been on it three years שני חזקה.'' Then two sets of witnesses come to court. One set says it was his father's. The other set says about the other טוען, " he was on it three years. רבה says he could have said, Why should he have lied? He could have said "I bought it from you." אביי says, "We do not say 'He could have said' in a place there are witnesses."
The issue here is that in תוספות בבא מציעא one opinion is this. If it were so that a person can say that land you have been on for more than three years came to you as a guarantee for a loan, then even without מחאה protest within three years, one would always be believed that land you are on is mine and you have it because you stole it. For he could have said it is a משכון guarantee and be believed. So believe him now. That is a מיגו can take out of חזקה.
Thus, the argument in תוספות seems to be the connected to the argument between רבה and אביי. Because in our situation in בבא בתרא, no witness is saying either plaintiff owned the land. Rather, the set of witnesses that said about one plaintiff that he was there for the years of possession. That means he has חזקה. The testimony is that he has a חזקה, not that he has ownership. Thus the argument between רבה and אביי is if there is a מיגו in the place where there are witnesses is connected with case of תוספות.
But the difference is this. In בבא בתרא רבה is not saying we believe a מיגו to take of of חזקה. just the opposite. We believe the person that has the חזקה because he also has a מיגו. It is rather אביי that says we o not even believe him because of his מיגו and also not because of his חזקה.
But w can also see that the person with the מיגו is in fact taking out of the חזקה מעיקרא of the other טוען. That is we put his חזקת השתא and חזקת שלש שנים together with the מיגו to take out of חזקה מעיקרא. I am assuming here that the fact that the land once belonged to his father that at least gives him the standpoint of חזקה מעיקרא
In any case, I think that this argument between רבה and אביי might also depend on the argument in תוספות in נידה whether חזקה מעיקרא וחזקה דהשתא are equal. If that is the case then we can understand רבה that if you add a מיגו to the חזקה דהשתא that can outweigh the חזקה מעיקרא of the other טוען. But if חזקה מעיקרא is stronger then we can understand אביי that does not think putting together a מיגו with חזקה דהשתא can overpower a חזקה מעיקרא. But to him it might be that even so חזקה מעקרא in our case might also not be enough. After all the other טעון was on the land three years
z
_____________________________________________________________________________
At any rate, the Gemara goes on. "He says, 'I meant I considered it as my fathers's '" Ula said טוען וחוזר וטוען he can make a plea and then change it. The people in city of Naharda said he can not make a plea and then change it.. But if he said it was was fathers's who bought it from your fathers" even the people of Naharda agree. If outside of courts he said one thing he can change his plea since a person is not used to revealing all that he has to say outside of court.
The Rashbam says if he said outside of court ''the land is yours' then he can not change that in court.
but if he said "it never was your father's" [in direct contradiction to the witnesses but not a direct admission.] then he can change that plea.
Rav Akiva Eigger has a doubt about a different subject which is relevant to this,
The law is if one says "I never borrowed " and witnesses said he borrowed and paid back, it is as if he said I never paid back. But is that because I it is like a complete admission or just and implied admission?
The Rambam says about this last case "If he said in court 'I never borrowed' it is admission" thus it is clear he holds it is only implied admission, and therefore if he said it outside of court, he can change his plea. That is it is not straightforward admission. That is like the Rashbam. The Rashba (Rav Shelomo ben Aderet) and Rabbainu Yona said even if he said it outside of court, he can not change his plea in court. Thus they think of it as a explicit admission.
The problems here are so many I could not even begin to count them,but like I said I only wanted to introduce the subject for now.
תוספות בבא מציעא דף ק''י ע''א. הנושא הבסיסי הוא בבבא בתרא דף ל''א. שני אנשים מגיעים לבית המשפט. כל אחד אומר, "השדה זה היה של אבותיי ואני עובד שם שני חזקה, שלוש שנים." ואז שני סטים של עדים באים לבית המשפט. קבוצה אחת אומרת ששדה זה היה לאביו. הסט השני אומר על טוען האחר, "הוא היה על שדה זה שלוש שנים. רבה אמר למה לשני לשקר? הוא היה יכול לומר, "קניתי את השדה הזה ממך." אביי אמר," אנחנו עושים לא אומרים 'הוא היה יכול לומר' במקום שישנם עדים". כאן הבעיה היא כי תוספות בבא מציעא דעה אחת היא זו. אם זה היה כך שאדם יכול לומר כי הקרקע שיש לך כבר למעלה משלוש שנים בא לך כערובה להלוואה, אז גם בלי מחאת מחאה בתוך שלוש שנים, אחד תמיד יהיה אמין בטענה "הקרקע שאתה עליה היא שלי ויש לך את זו כי אתה גזלת אותה" עבור שהוא היה יכול לומר את זו היא ערובת משכון ושיאמין. אז מאמינים לו עכשיו. זהו מיגו יכול להוציא חזקה. לפיכך, טיעון תוספות נראה את מחובר להוויכוח בין רבה ואביי. כי במצב שלנו בבבא בתרא, לא אף עד אומר שהתובע היה בעל האדמה. במקום זאת, הקבוצה של עדים שאמרו על תובע אחד שהוא היה שם לשלשת השנים. כלומר, יש לו חזקה. העדות היא כי יש לו חזקה, לא כי יש לו בעלות. לכן הוויכוח בין רבה ואביי הוא אם יש מיגו במקום שבו יש עדים קשורים במקרה של תוספות. אבל ההבדל הוא זה. בבבא בתרא רבה הוא לא אומר שאנחנו מאמינים מיגו לקחת של של חזקה. רק להפך. אנו מאמינים האדם שיש לו את החזקה כי יש לו גם מיגו. זה לא לאביי שאומר שאנחנו אפילו לא מאמינים לו בגלל מיגו שלו וגם לא בגלל החזקה שלו. אבל ניתן גם לראות כי האדם עם מיגו הוא למעשה לוקח מתוך חזקה מעיקרא של טוען האחר. כלומר שמיגו שלו עם חזקת השתא, ואת החזקה של שלש שנים יחד יכולים להוציא מחזקת מעיקרא. אני מניח כאן כי העובדה שהקרקע שייכת פעם לאביו שלפחות נותן לו מבחינת החזקה מעיקרא. בכל מקרה, אני חושב כי מחלוקת בין רבה ואביי אולי גם תלוי טיעון בתוספות בנידה ב: אם חזקה מעיקרא וחזקה דהשתא שווות. אם זה נכון אז נוכל להבין רבה שאם תוסיף מיגו אל חזקת השתא שזה יכול להכריע את חזקא מעיקרא של טוען האחר. אבל אם חזקה מעיקרא חזקה, אז נוכל להבין את אביי שלא חושב להרכיב מיגו עם חזקה דהשתא כדי להכניע חזקה מעיקרא. אבל לו יכול להיות שגם כך חזקה מעקרא בענייננו אולי גם לא יספיק. אחרי שהטוען השני היה שם בשלוש שני חזקה.
I know you could argue with all this. I imagine if I was learning with David Bronson he would challenge every single assumption here. He would first attack the idea that because it was on one of the plaintiff' father's that does not necessarily make it חזקה מעיקרא. Plus plenty of other objections I was thinking of as I was writing this.
He would also wonder about if the fact one person was there three years if that makes it חזקה דהשתא. And probably a few tons of other objections. Anyway there tons of problems here that I just can not imagine right now how to handle.
