daf bit: Bava Batra 32
The g'mara on today's daf discusses two cases of disputed ownership. In the first case, a man said to another: "what are you doing on my land?" The other said "I bought it from you; here's the deed of sale". The first said it's a forgery; the second then said to Rabbah "yes it's a forgery; I had a real deed and lost it". Rabbah rules in favor of the man occupying the land, saying why would he lie? He could have claimed the deed is genuine; since he instead told us this story about having had a deed, we accept his lesser claim. But R' Yosef objected, saying it's mere clay (and he's admitted it!). Rabbah wins this round.
In the second case, a man said to another: "pay me the hundred zuz you owe me; here's the bond". The second says "that's forged". The first again told Rabbah that yes it's a forgery but he had a real one before. Rabbah again says "why would he lie?". And R' Yosef again says it's mere clay. R' Yosef wins this round.
What's the difference between the two cases? R' Idi b. Amin says in the land we follow Rabbah because we say "let the land remain in its present ownership", and in the money we follow R' Yosef because we also say "let the money remain in its present ownership". It's not about land verses money; possession, according to this g'mara, determines the outcome absent proof. (32b)
Originally posted at http://cellio.dreamwidth.org/2017/02/23/bava-batra-32.html.
comments there. Reply there (preferred) or here.