))
Bava Batra 33 - July 28, 22 Tamuz
Manage episode 431048582 series 2972470
Content provided by Michelle Cohen Farber. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Michelle Cohen Farber or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.
More cases regarding disagreements about land ownership are discussed. Rava bar Sharshom was living on property that others claimed belonged to orphans. What did he do to try to prove he was the owner? Was his claim accepted? Another involved a disagreement about heirs - which was the closer relative who was supposed to inherit the property? Since neither had proof, one went to live on the land based on the principle of kol d'alim gvar, whoever is stronger, wins. When he later admitted he was not the closer relative, there was a debate about whether he needed to return all the produce he had eaten or to only return the land at the time of the admission.
A case is brought where the possessor brought testimony that he had eaten produce for two years and couldn't produce a witness for the third year. Rav Nachman ruled that the possessor needed to return the land and the value of the produce he ate. Rav Zevid held that he did not need to return the value of the produce if he were to say that he possessed the right to eat the fruit (like a sharecropper) but not the land.
A case is brought where a possessor brought one witness to support his claim that he ate produce for three years. One witness's testimony is not sufficient to prove ownership, but can the witness be used against him and the court will rule that he now needs to pay for the produce that he ate, based on the law that one witness requires him to swear, and since in this case he cannot swear (because he already said he ate the produce), he needs to pay? Is this like the case of the naska d'Rabbi Abba?
1724 episodes
Share
