Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHAT IS A GOOD CLAIM WITH A CHAZAKAH?

(a) Levi and Yehudah both claim to have inherited a field from their fathers. Levi brings witnesses that it was his father's; Yehudah brings witnesses that he has used the field for the years of Chazakah.
(b) (Rabah): Certainly, Yehudah is telling the truth - why should he lie and say that it belonged to his father? If he wanted to lie, he could make a better claim - that he bought it from Levi, and used it for the years of Chazakah!
(c) Objection (Abaye): We do not say the principle 'why should he lie' to contradict witnesses (that say it belonged to Levi's fathers)!

1. Yehudah later retracted: Yes, it belonged to your fathers - I bought it from them.

(d) Question: Can a person claim, and then change his claim?
(e) Answer #1 (Ula): Yes.
(f) Answer #2 (Chachamim of Neharde'a): No.

1. In two cases, Ula admits that he cannot change his claim.

i. If he initially sad 'It belonged to my fathers, not to your fathers'.
ii. If he did not make a claim in Beis Din, and after he left Beis Din, he returns and claims.
iii. Question: Why is this not allowed?
iv. Answer: We suspect that others instructed him how he should claim.

2. In two cases, Chachamim of Neharde'a admit that he can change his claim.

i. If he later says 'It belonged to my fathers, who bought it from your fathers'.
ii. If they were discussing the case outside of Beis Din, and he did not make any claim, and when he came to Beis Din, he made a claim.
iii. Question: Why is this allowed?
iv. Answer: It is normal that a person only reveals his claims to the Beis Din.

(g) (Ameimar): I am from Neharde'a, yet I hold that a person may change his claim.
(h) The law is, a person may change his claim.

(a) Levi and Yehudah both claim to have inherited a field from their fathers. Levi brings witnesses that it was his father's and that he has used the field for the years of Chazakah; Yehudah brings witnesses that he has used the field for the years of Chazakah.
(b) (Rav Nachman): The contradictory testimonies on the Chazakah cancel each other - we are left with testimony that it belonged to Levi's fathers.
(c) Question (Rava): But the testimonies contradict each other, we cannot rely on it!
(d) Answer (Rav Nachman): The contradiction is only regarding Chazakah, not regarding to whose fathers it belonged.

(e) Suggestion: Rava and Rav Nachman argue as Rav Huna and Rav Chisda.

1. (Rav Huna): If two sets of witnesses contradict each other - either set may testify by itself in a different case.
2. (Rav Chisda): Since we are in doubt which set consists of liars, we do not accept the testimony of either set.
3. Indeed, Rav Chisda must hold as Rava.

(f) Rejection: Rav Huna could hold as Rav Nachman, or even as Rava.

1. Rav Huna only said that we accept the testimony of one set of witnesses in subsequent cases - he could admit, we do not accept their testimony in the case in which they were contradicted!

(g) After Rav Nachman ruled that the field belongs to Levi, Yehudah brought witnesses that he had eaten the produce the years of Chazakah.

1. Rav Nachman: We established Levi as the owner of the field, we remove him from it (and whoever is stronger will prevail); we are not concerned for the disgrace to Beis Din (that we contradict our previous ruling).
2. Question (Rava - Beraisa): two witnesses say that Leah's husband died, two say that he did not die; or, two witnesses say that Leah was divorced, two say that she was not divorced - she may not remarry. If she remarried, we do not force her husband to divorce her;
3. R. Menachem b'Rebbi Yosi says, he must divorce her; this is only if she remarried after the witnesses came that said that she is still married;

i. If she remarried before witnesses said that she is still married, she may remain married. (This shows, we are concerned for disgrace to Beis Din!)

4. Retraction (Rav Nachman): I was about to rule as I taught - now that you refuted me, I will abstain.

(h) Rav Nachman reversed the decision of Beis Din, and was not concerned for the disgrace to Beis Din.

1. An observer thought he erred - but this is not true. Rather, he found that Tana'im argue whether we are concerned for disgrace to Beis Din.
2. (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): We do not establish a man to be a Kohen based on one witness;

i. R. Elazar says, this is only if this is challenged; if no one argues, we establish a man to be a Kohen based on one witness;
ii. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, we establish a man to be a Kohen based on one witness.