Disputes over land have been recorded since time immemorial: Early in Genesis, Abraham and his nephew Lot separate over an inability to share the land near the west bank of the Jordan River. On today’s daf, we read a number of cases in which competing claimants try to prove that the land belongs (or should belong) to them alone, including the following:
This one says: The land belonged to my ancestors.
That one says: The land belonged to my ancestors.
This one brings witnesses that the land belonged to his ancestors.
That one brings witnesses that he currently possesses the land and that he worked and profited from the land long enough to establish presumption of ownership.
Two claimants (we’ll call them Reuven and Shimon) each say that a parcel of land belongs to them by virtue of an inheritance. To shore up their claims, Reuven, who does not currently have possession, brings witnesses who testify that the land belonged to his ancestors. In contrast, Shimon, who currently has possession, brings witnesses who testify that he has worked and profited from the land for the amount of time necessary to establish ownership. Who has the stronger claim?
In order to answer that question, the Gemara relies on two principles: chazakah (presumption of ownership) and the principle of why-would-I-lie, meaning that the court believes a person who brings a weaker claim when he could have brought a stronger one.
Rabba said: Why would he lie and state this claim? If the possessor wanted to lie, he could have said to the claimant: “I purchased the land from you and I worked and profited from it for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership (in which case he would have been awarded the land).”
Abaye said to Rabba: We do not say the principle of why-would-I-lie in a case where there are witnesses contradicting his current claim.
Rabba relies on the why-would-I-lie principle and rules in Shimon’s favor. Shimon could have claimed to have purchased the land, which might have made a neater and cleaner case for himself, but he didn’t. Abaye disagrees and says that why-would-I-lie doesn’t apply when there are competing sets of witnesses, as there are here. The Gemara now provides additional information:
The possessor then said to the claimant: Yes, it is true that it had belonged to your ancestors, but I purchased it from you, and by originally stating that it belonged to my ancestors, I merely meant that I rely on my ownership of it as if it belonged to my ancestors.
Shimon now explicitly claims to have purchased the land from Reuven and explains his earlier claim that, “it belonged to my ancestors” as a figure of speech — it was as if that particular parcel had belonged to his family for generations.
This seems fishy. After a discussion about whether it’s kosher to change one’s testimony mid-trial, as Shimon appears to have done, and whether that brings condemnation upon the court itself, the Gemara returns to the more granular matter at hand: Whose claim is stronger?
The Gemara itself does not issue a definitive judgment, but Maimonides rules that: “we grant the field to the person who produced witnesses that it belonged to his ancestors, and give him possession of it. However, if the second person also brought witnesses who testify that the field belonged to his ancestors, and so this testimony also involves a contradiction, the court rescinds its initial ruling, removes the first claimant from it, and leaves it in possession of both of them.” (Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant 15:5) Maimonides concludes by stating that “the one who overpowers the other acquires the right of ownership.”
Back in Genesis, Abraham resolved the dispute with Lot by doing the opposite of “overpowering” him. Instead, even though he had been promised the land by God, he bowed out of a particularly fertile portion chosen by his nephew. Thanks to Abraham’s generosity, Lot ends up in the land of Sodom which, ironically, doesn’t end well for him.
Read all of Bava Batra 31 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on July 26, 2024. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
