Other money with him - which he owed me, for which I did not have collateral. After the end of the mortgage term, I said [to myself], if I return the land to the orphans and ask them [to repay the other] debt that their father owed me, I would have to swear, as the Sages say that one who comes to collect, etc. Even if I would have a promissory note, they would require me to take an oath.

I will suppress - I will conceal it.

It is purchased - [which would be believable] since I profited from it for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership during their father's lifetime.

I would have been deemed credible - without an oath, since one does not take an oath concerning land; furthermore, the presumption of ownership after three years can take the place of a [sale] document.

He said - [that is,] Abaye [said to Rava bar Sharshom,] that which you thought that if you had wanted to, you could have claimed that you had purchased it -- since it was known that [the land] was mortgaged, you cannot claim it was purchased, since it is common knowledge [i.e., a rumor based in fact constituting] testimony that the land belongs to the orphans, since now the term of the mortgage has expired. Since you knew that there was common knowledge that this land was mortgaged to you, and not purchased -- there is no "protest" [counterclaim of the original owner] greater than this, and you should have been careful about your [supposed] document [of sale]. Therefore go return the land to the orphans now, and when the orphans grow up -- that is, they become of age with regard to mitzvah observance, which iss from age thirteen and on when one is obligated in the commandments -- then litigate with them regarding the promissory note you have from their father. Swear and obtain payment according to the law of one who comes to collect from orphans' property: as long as they are underage, you may not go down to their property in order to collect from it, as was stated in Tractate Arakhin in the chapter of "Appraisal of the Orphans": "The court attends to the property of [minor] orphans only if the debt was accruing interest" [Arakhin 22a:6] and as Rava rules there, the halakhah is that we do not attend to the property of orphans, but if [the father] said "give" we give [Arakhin 22b:11]. Therefore we wait until they become of age, which is from age thirteen and on, as is made clear there. That which is stated in the chapter of "One who Died" that in order to sell his father's property he must be twenty years old [Bava Batra 156a:3] -- that applies when he is selling it for his own spending needs. But in order to pay his father's debts, the court may sell it from when he is age thirteen and onward. Similarly, if this had been a verbal loan [without a promissory note], litigate with them when they come of age, and swear and collect, as Rav Papa stated in the final discussion of our tractate: the halakhah is that a verbal loan may be collected from the heirs, providing that there are witnesses as to the loan and that [the creditor] swear that he had not been repaid -- then he may collect. [Bava Batra 176a:1]

That man came and said, I am closer in relation - and since it is not known who is closer in relation, that man took possession of the land, since he was stronger. As Rav Naḥman said below: Whoever is stronger prevails [Bava Batra 34b:3] regarding one who said it belong to my ancestors and the other who said it belonged to my ancestors -- whoever is stronger prevails.

Ultimately - after a year or two.

He admitted to him - the one who took possession [admitted] to Rav Idi bar Avin.

Rav Ḥisda established it in his possession - of Rav Idi.

He said to him - Rav Idi to Rav Ḥisda.

Return to me - that man [should return to me] the produce that he consumed from that day until today -- from the day my relatives died -- since he consumed them unlawfully.

On whom are you basing your claim - in order to gain ownership of the tree?

On this - on his admission, that he is now admitting that you are the closer relative. From the fact that it was he who had been saying until now that he is the closer relative, and was consuming the produce according to the law of "whoever is stronger prevails", and it is he who is now admitting -- it is as if he is willingly giving you the tree even though you are not by law entitled to it.