## Bava Batra Daf 34a

###### Bava Batra 34a:1
[Bava Batra 34a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/34a:1)

הֵיכִי נִידַיְּינוּהּ דַּיָּינֵי לְהַאי דִּינָא? לִישַׁלֵּם? לֵיכָּא תְּרֵי סָהֲדִי! לִיפְטְרֵיהּ? אִיכָּא חַד סָהֲדָא! לִישְׁתְּבַע, הָא אָמַר מִיחְטָף חַטְפַהּ, וְכֵיוָן דְּאָמַר דְּחַטְפַהּ – הָוֵה לֵיהּ כְּגַזְלָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**How should judges judge for this judgment?** There are reasons not to implement all potential rulings. If they were to order the one who snatched the metal **to pay** for it, that would not be the correct ruling, because **there are not two witnesses** who saw him snatch it, and the court does not force payment based on the testimony of one witness. If they were **to** accept his claim and **exempt him** entirely, that would not be the correct ruling, because **there is one witness** who testified against him. If they were to order him **to take an oath,** which is the usual response to counter the testimony of one witness, **didn’t he say** that he did in fact **snatch it, and since he said that he snatched it** and there is no proof that it is his, **he is like a robber,** and the court does not allow a robber to take an oath.


###### Bava Batra 34a:2
[Bava Batra 34a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/34a:2)

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי אַבָּא: הָוֵי מְחוּיָּב שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִישָּׁבַע, וְכׇל הַמְחוּיָּב שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִישָּׁבַע – מְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba said to them: He** is one who **is liable** to take **an oath who is unable to take an oath, and anyone who is liable** to take **an oath who is unable to take an oath** is liable to **pay.** The Rabbis who were studying before Abaye thought that the case of the witness to the years of profiting and Rabbi Abba’s case are similar, in that since the possessor is unable to take an oath to refute the witness, as he concedes that he profited from the land for those years, he should have to pay for his consumption of the produce.


###### Bava Batra 34a:3
[Bava Batra 34a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/34a:3)

אֲמַר לְהוּ אַבָּיֵי: מִי דָּמֵי?! הָתָם סָהֲדָא לְאוֹרוֹעֵי קָאָתֵי – כִּי אָתֵי אַחֲרִינָא בַּהֲדֵיהּ, מַפְּקִינַן לַהּ מִינֵּיהּ; הָכָא לְסַיּוֹעֵי קָא אָתֵי – כִּי אֲתָא אַחֲרִינָא, מוֹקְמִינַן לַהּ בִּידֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** these Rabbis: **Are** these two cases **comparable? There,** in Rabbi Abba’s case, **the witness is coming to undermine** the position of the one who snatched the metal. This can be seen from the fact that **when** it would be the case that **another** witness **comes** to court and testifies **with** the first witness, **we** would **take away** the piece of metal **from** the one who snatched it. By contrast, **here,** in the case of the individual who brought one witness to attest to his profiting from the land, the witness **is coming to support** the possessor. This can be seen from the fact that **when another** witness would **come** to court and testify with the first witness, **we** would **establish** the land **in his possession.** Therefore, the testimony of the one witness does not render the one who profited from the land liable to take an oath.


###### Bava Batra 34a:4
[Bava Batra 34a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/34a:4)

אֶלָּא אִי דָּמְיָא הָא דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא – לְחַד סָהֲדָא וּלְתַרְתֵּי שְׁנֵי – וּלְפֵירֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, if this** case **of Rabbi Abba is comparable** to a case such as this, it is comparable **to** a case where there is **one witness and** he testifies **to** someone’s profiting from land for **two years, and** the comparison is in terms of payment **for** the **produce** that he consumed. In terms of the consumption of the produce, two witnesses would have rendered the possessor liable to pay, as consumption of the produce for only two years does not establish the presumption of ownership. Therefore, one witness renders him liable to take an oath. Since he himself claimed that he profited from the land as the witness testified, he cannot take an oath to contest the testimony. Therefore, he would have to pay for the produce.