ואי טעין ואמר לפירות ירדתי כולי—And if he claimed and said, I descended for fruits, etc.

OVERVIEW רב זביד ruled that if the מחזיק told the מערער that he is in the field for the פירות only (but he did not buy the field),¹ the מחזיק is believed regarding the פירות which he already consumed that he need not pay for them. The reason given is that no one will be that brazen to consume someone else’s פירות, unless he has a right to them. תוספות qualifies the case and explains the necessity for the abovementioned reason.

פירוש תחלה כי אמר ליה מאי בעית בהאי ארעא – The explanation is that this claim of לפירות ירדתי was made initially when the מערער asked him מאי בעית בהאי ארעא; but not that initially he claimed מינך זביני and later (when he could not find עדי חזקה) he retracted and said לפירות ירדתי.²**** תוספות anticipates a difficulty: אף על גב דבשעה שאכל היה בעל השדה יכול לעכב ולא היה נאמן לומר לפירות הורדתני – Even though that while he was eating the פירות, the owner of the field could have prevented him from continuing to eat, and the מחזיק would not be believed to claim לפירות הורדתני, so why is he believed regarding the past? תוספות replies: מיהו כיון שכבר אכלו וזה בא להוציא נאמן לומר לפירות ירדתי – Nonetheless since the מחזיק ate the פירות already, and the מערער comes to take it away from the מחזיק, therefore the מחזיק is believed to claim לפירות ירדתי. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר מאי איריא משום דלא חציף תיפוק ליה משום דתפיס³ – And if you will say; why mention that the מחזיק is believed because no one is so brazen to eat the פירות that do not belong to him, the same ruling can be derived because he already seized the פירות and the onus of proof is on the מערער who is a מוציא מחבירו. This is – מידי דהוה אמטלטלין שאין עשויין להשאיל ולהשכיר דאי אמר לקוחין הן בידי נאמן – Similar to movable objects which are not made to lend or to rent out, in which case if the מחזיק of these מטלטלין says, ‘I bought them’, he is believed, even against a known מרא קמא. The reason is because (by מטלטלין) possession determines ownership. The same should apply here by לפירות ירדתי regarding the פירות which he already consumed. We do not know whether he had the right of לפירות ירדתי or not, therefore we maintain the status quo; for whatever he consumed he is פטור, but he cannot continue to consume. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דאיצטריך טעמא דלא חציף אם לקטן והניח ברשות שאינן שלו דלא תפיס בהן – And one can say; that the reason of לא חציף is necessary in a case where the מחזיק harvested the פירות (but did not consume them; they are still here), and he placed them in a domain which does not belong to him, so he did not seize them; they are not in his possession, the law of המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה does not apply here. Nevertheless he is believed that לפירות ירדתי and is exempt from returning the פירות because of לא חציף. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר כי לא אמר נמי לפירות ירדתי אלא דאייתי סהדי דאכל ב' שנים כי הך דשמעתין – And if you will say; even in a case where the מחזיק did not claim לפירות ירדתי, but rather brought witnesses that he consumed the פירות for two years, as this case of our גמרא, nevertheless – יהא נאמן⁴ בטענתיה במיגו דאי בעי אמר לפירות ירדתי – He should be believed with his claim that he bought it from the מערער with a מיגו that he could have claimed לפירות ירדתי! תוספות responds: לאו פירכא היא דאין זה מיגו שהרי בא לתבוע גם הקרקע⁵ – This is not a challenge! For it is not a valid מיגו, since the מחזיק comes to claim the קרקע as well; not only the פירות. תוספות concludes: ודוקא פירי דתרתי שנין הדרי אבל פירי דשנה שלישית לא הדרי – And the מחזיק is obligated to return only the פירות of the two years (for which there are עדים that he consumed them), however the פירות of the third year are not returned to the מערער, even though the מחזיק claims/admits to eating פירות for three years. The reason is –

For if the מחזיק is believed in that which he said that he ate פירות for three years (and therefore we obligate him to pay for all three years), then even the land should belong to the מחזיק for he has a חזקת ג' שנים.

SUMMARY The claim of לפירות ירדתי must be made initially and does not allow for the מחזיק to continue eating the פירות, however it allows him (even) to keep the פירות which are not ברשותו. There can be no מיגו of לפירות ירדתי since it is a weaker claim that מינך זביני. The מחזיק returns the פירות of the two years (for which there are עדים), but not for the third year, for if he ate three years he has a חזקה and should keep the land.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות asks that the מחזיק should be believed regarding the פירות even if he claims מינך זביני [and brings עדים that אכל ב' שנים], since he has a מיגו of לפירות ירדתי.⁷ It is evident [from תוספות]⁸ that in a case where there are no עדים and the מחזיק claims מינך זביני and he ate פירות for two years that he must return (the קרקע and) the פירות of two years, even though he has a מיגו (regarding the פירות) of לא אכלתי.⁹ Why is it that in this last case the מיגו is ineffective (and he must return the פירות), while in our case תוספות claims that he should be believed with a מיגו of לפירות ירדתי?! ¹⁰ Appendix A possible solution to the ‘Thinking it over’ question. There is a difference between the מיגו of לא אכלתי (when he claims מינך זביני ואכלי ב' שנים) where the rule is הדרי ארעא והדרא פירי (for the two years), and the מיגו of לפירות ירדתי (when he claims מינך זביני and there are עדים that he ate two years) where תוספות asks that this מיגו should exempt him from paying for the פירות (even though the land reverts to the מערער). When the מחזיק claims מינך זביני and I ate the פירות of ב' שנים, the קרקע reverts to the מערער (since he is the מרא קמא) and once we establish that the field belongs to the מערער inevitably he is owed the פירות that were eaten בגזל. If the מערער would have claimed לא אכלתי (and therefore no חזקה) and the מערער would argue that you ate ב' שנים, indeed the מחזיק would be פטור for the פירות, but not because we believe him or grant him any right to the פירות, but rather only because המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, and as long as the מערער cannot prove that the מחזיק ate the פירות the מחזיק is פטור. However if the מחזיק admits that ate the פירות, we say that since the field reverts to the מחזיק, the מיגו of לא אכלתי, which does not give the מחזיק any rights to the פירות, is not sufficiently ‘strong’ to deny the מערער his payment for the פירות, for since the field is his (as a מרא קמא), the פירות are also his. However in the case where the מחזיק has the מיגו of לפירות ירדתי, this מיגו gives the מחזיק a right to the פירות (because of the סברא of לא חציף). Had the מחזיק claimed לפירות ירדתי not only would he be exempt from paying the מערער for the פירות which he consumed (because of המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה), but he would be able to retain the פירות which are here and are not (even) in his רשות because of לא חציף. It is the view of תוספות that since the טענה of לפירות ירדתי gives the מחזיק the right to the פירות, that should be sufficient (as a מיגו) to deny the מערער payment for these פירות, even though the מערער receives the field; taking into consideration that we are not (as) certain that the field belongs to the מערער (he receives it only because he is the מרא קמא [and the ריעותא of אחוי שטרך]), but we are (more) certain that the פירות belong to the מערער, if he claims לפירות ירדתי. This certainty should outweigh the rights of the מערער (since the מחזיק has the מיגו of לפירות ירדתי). [תוספות concludes that there is no מיגו since it is a מיגו לגרוע.] We will now also understand the order of תוספות. Initially תוספות states that the claim of לפירות ירדתי is effective only if he initially claimed it; indicating that there is room (even for a fleeting moment) to consider that לפירות ירדתי may be effective even later (for it is such an effective claim). After תוספות establishes that לפירות ירדתי is not effective for the future פירות, but only for those consumed, תוספות asks why the need for לא חציף; it is a regular case of המע"ה. תוספות responds that the סברא of לא חציף is necessary where the פירות are still בעין and not ברשות המחזיק, and nevertheless the מחזיק gets to keep them. Once תוספות establishes that the claim of לפירות ירדתי gives the מחזיק a right to the פירות, then תוספות asks that even if he claims מינך זביני, he should still be פטור from the פירות because he has a מיגו with the powerful טענה of לפירות ידרתי.

footnotes: ¹ See רשב"ם ד"ה אמר that the מחזיק claims that he is employed by the מערער as a sharecropper, or that he bought the rights of the פירות from the מערער for a specific amount of time. ² In this case he will not be believed since he is a חוזר וטוען (see רשב"ם ד"ה מהימן). This may be the interpretation which תוספות is rejecting by saying 'פירוש'. ³ תוספות has just established that the rule of נאמן by לפירות ירדתי is only concerning the פירות which he already consumed (and the מערער wants him to pay for it), but not for future פירות, therefore תוספות asks that the logic of לא חציף is unnecessary; we can derive the same ruling on account of המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. ⁴ תוספות is (seemingly) asking that he should not be required to return the פירות of the two years, because he could have kept those פירות, by claiming לפירות ירדתי, so even though he claimed מינך זביני (for which he is not believed concerning the קרקע), nevertheless he should be believed regarding the פירות. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁵ His claim is מינך זביני which (if substantiated) would give him the קרקע and the פירות. We cannot say that he had a ‘better’ claim of לפירות ירדתי, since that claim at best would give him only the פירות, but not the קרקע. ⁶ See previous תוספות on לג,א ד"ה ה"ג (footnote # 30). We will assume here that he only ate פירות for two years as the עדים testified. ⁷ See footnote # 4. ⁸ See previous תוס' לג,א ד"ה ה"ג. ⁹ The reason (seemingly) is because we cannot differentiate between the קרקע and the פירות. Since the מערער receives the קרקע (for there is no חזקה) he also receives the פירות. The same should apply in our case that even though he has the מיגו of לפירות ירדתי (regarding the פירות), nevertheless we cannot separate the פירות from the קרקע! ¹⁰ See נח"מ and סוכ"ד אות קצט. See ‘Appendix’.

איזיל ואגדריה לדיקלא—I will go and harvest the date palm

OVERVIEW The גמרא relates that if someone proclaimed איזיל ואגדריה לדיקלא, he is believed and בי"ד will not prevent him from doing so in the absence of the owner. תוספות clarifies what אגדריה means.

פירוש לגדור תמרים שעל הדקל דגדירה שייכא בתמרים¹ – The explanation of ואגדריה לדיקלא is to harvest the dates which are on the date palm, for the**** term גדירה applies to dates – ולא איירי בקציצת הדקל דאם כן הוה ליה למימר ואיקטליה – However we are not discussing a case regarding chopping down the דקל, for if indeed that was so, the person should have said ואקטליה (and I will ‘kill’ the tree), for that is the word that is used in chopping down a tree – כדאמרינן בפרק כל הנשבעין (שבועות דף מו,א ושם) אמר רב נחמן – As the גמרא states in פרק כל הנשבעין; ר"נ said – האי מאן דנקיט נרגא ואמר איזיל ואקטליה לדיקלא דפלניא כולי² – This person who is holding an ax and says, ‘I will go and chop down that person’s tree’, etc. It is evident from that גמרא that the term איקטליה is used for chopping down a tree, but not the word אגדריה which means harvesting the dates. תוספות discusses what would be the rule if indeed he said, ‘I intend to chop down the tree’:³ ונראה לרבינו יצחק ולרבינו יצחק בן מרדכי שאם היה בא לקצוץ הדקל עצמו לא היה נאמן – And it is the view of the ר"י and the ריב"ם that if he would come to chop down the דקל itself, he would not be believed that he bought the rights to chop down the tree⁴ – דדוקא פירות הוא דעבדי אינשי דמזבני אבל דקל אין דרך בני אדם למכור לקוץ – For it is only specifically regarding פירות that it is usual for people to sell the fruit of the tree, however it is unusual for people to sell the rights to chop down their tree. ⁵ תוספות proves his point: תדע דאמרינן בפרק החובל (בבא קמא דף צא,ב ושם)– You know that this is so for the ברייתא in פרק החובל states; if one accuses his friend – שורי הרגת נטיעותי קצצת אתה אמרת לי להרגו אתה אמרת לי לקצצו פטור – ‘You killed my ox; you chopped down my trees’ and his friend responded; you told me to kill him; you told me to chop it down the rule is that the accused is פטור from paying – ופריך אם כן לא שבקת חיי לכל בריה וכולי – And רב challenged this ברייתא; if indeed this is so, you will not let anyone live, etc. The conclusion therefore is that he is liable to pay and we do not believe the accused that he was told to destroy the ox or the tree.

It seems that the accused is not believed that he was told to do it, with a מיגו that he could have said you sold me the tree to chop it down. The reason this מיגו is not effective proves that even if he claimed that he bought it, he will not be believed, since it is unusual for people to sell their (fruit bearing) trees to be chopped down.

SUMMARY One is believed to claim that he bought the right for the fruit, but not that he bought the rights to destroy (the tree).

THINKING IT OVER

1. What is a better claim; אתה אמרת לי לקוצצו or אתה מכרת לי לקוצצו; why?
2. Can we infer from this תוספות, what causes the נאמנות of לא חציף; is it the act of חציפות or the proclaiming of his intention to do this act?⁷

footnotes: ¹ In לשון הקודש the harvesting of grapes is called בצירה, of olives is מסיקה, of dates is גדירה, etc. ² ר"נ concludes there that if after this person made this ‘threat’, we found that indeed that tree was chopped down, nevertheless the person who made the threat is פטור (if there are no witnesses), for we assume that his threat was merely an exaggeration and someone else may have chopped down the tree.. ³ Do we apply the rule of לא חציף איניש למיקטל דקל דלאו דיליה? In fact it would seem that cutting down a דקל is a greater חוצפה than harvesting its fruit; thereby proving that indeed he had רשות to chop down the tree. It would seem that since חוצפה is the criterion for assuming he has permission, then the greater the חוצפה the more reason to assume he has permission. ⁴ It would seem from the conclusion of תוספות (see footnote # 6) that not only do we not allow him to chop down the tree, but even if he already chopped it down, he will be liable and we will not accept his claim of אתה מכרת לי. The reason תוספות writes בא לקצוץ which indicates that we (merely) do not allow him, is because we are discussing here a case where the original tree owner is not present. It is incumbent upon בי"ד to prevent him from chopping down the tree (even without the protest of the owner), however if the owner is present and claims that he chopped it down without his permission, he will have to pay. ⁵ The unlikelihood that permission would be granted to chop down a tree is more persuasive than the חוצפה which supports his claim of receiving permission. ⁶ If he would be believed if he claimed אתה מכרת לי, why then is he not believed when he claims אתה אמרת לי with a מיגו of אתה מכרת לי. See footnote # 4. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁷ See בל"י אות רא. See following תוס' ד"ה לא.

לא חציף איניש—A person is not that brazen

OVERVIEW רב יהודה ruled, if a person takes his harvesting tools and proclaims that he bought someone’s dates from his date palm and is going to harvest them, he is believed and בי"ד will not prevent him, even though there is no proof that the owner sold him the rights to the dates. The reason is because לא חציף איניש to eat fruit that does not belong to him. Therefore we assume he is telling the truth (unless the owner is present and denies selling him the rights to the dates). תוספות explains what the חוצפה would be;¹ is it (only) the actual harvesting of the dates, or saying publicly that he will harvest the dates (and then harvesting them).

לאו משום דקאמר בפרהסיא איזיל ואיגדריה קאמר דלא חציף² – רב יהודה does not say the reason of לא חציף is because it is a חוצפה to announce publicly that איזיל ואיגדריה (if it does not belong to you) – דאפילו ליקט בצנעא נמי שייך לא חציף איניש³ – For even if he gathered the dates quietly the concept of לא חציף also applies; a person will not have the חוצפה to harvest פירות דלאו דליה even בצנעה –

Unless he took them in a manner which indicates that he is stealing. Then the rule of לא חציף does not apply and if בי"ד sees him (for instance breaking and entering someone’s property in a surreptitious manner), בי"ד will prevent him even if he claims that he bought the rights to whatever he is taking.****

SUMMARY The חוצפה is on account of the harvesting alone even without an announcement.

THINKING IT OVER Why did רב יהודה mention that the person said איזיל ואיגדריה לדיקלא לפלניא, if it is a חוצפה (according to תוספות) even without an announcement?⁴

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Thinking it over’ in previous תוספות ד"ה איזיל (footnote # 7) ² If we would assume this (that לא חציף applies only when he makes a public announcement), then if he does not make a public announcement, but merely goes (openly) and begins to harvest someone’s produce and claims (when confronted [by neighbors or בי"ד) that he bought the פירות he would not be believed. ³ תוספות infers this from the fact that רב זביד derived from the case of רב יהודה, the rule of לא חציף regarding the case of לפירות ירדתי where the מחזיק made no previous announcement [and (perhaps) since רב יהודה states לא חציף איניש [דגדר] (דגזר] דיקלא דלאו דיליה, but does not say לא חציף איניש לומר איזיל ואיגדריה לדיקלא דלאו דידיה]. ⁴ See סוכ"ד אות סט.

אי הכי אפילו ארעא נמי—If so; then even the land as well

OVERVIEW The גמרא explains the reason why if he claims לפירות ירדתי (or he states איזיל ואיגדריה לדיקלא דפלוני) he is believed, is because לא חציף איניש to eat פירות (or harvest a tree) which does not belong to him. [This reason allows him to keep what was already harvested, but he may not continue to harvest in the future.] The גמרא asks if this is so, that he may keep the פירות on account of לא חציף, then אפילו ארעא נמי. Seemingly the גמרא means to ask that he should be allowed to keep the land.¹ תוספות rejects this interpretation and offers a different explanation of the גמרא.

למאי דפרישית לעיל² דאינו נאמן אלא בפירות שלקט³ כבר – According to what I explained previously that if the מחזיק claims לפירות הורדתני, he is believed only regarding the פירות that he already gathered – אבל מכאן ואילך אינו נאמן אפילו בפירות אף על גב דשטרא בפירי⁴ לא עבדי אינשי⁵ – However, from now and for the future he is not believed even regarding the פירות; this is true even though people do not make written contracts for פירי, so how can the גמרא ask א"ה אפי' ארעא נמי, since we are (seemingly) discussing the future status of the קרקע, how can the גמרא even entertain the thought that he should be allowed to keep the קרקע for the future – תוספות responds: צריך לפרש אפילו ארעא⁶ אם הוא טוען שהקרקע שלו שלקחה לא יחזיר פירות שכבר אכל⁷ – It will be necessary to explain the question of א"ה אפי' ארעא to mean that [even] if he claims that the land is his (he did not claim לפירות הורדתני, but rather) that he bought it, he should not be obligated to return the פירות which he already consumed⁸ – אבל קרקע פשיטא שיחזיר דאינו נאמן להבא: However, regarding the קרקע it is obvious that he returns it to the מערער for he is not believed regarding the future (even without the ריעותא of אחוי שטרא).

SUMMARY The גמרא never entertained the thought that the מחזיק should keep the land; only that he should keep the פירות שאכל.

THINKING IT OVER Why is it that initially תוספות writes אלא בפירות שלקט כבר;⁹ however in his explanation (of the sגמרא' question) תוספות writes לא יחזיר פירות שכבר אכל,¹⁰ why is not the question that he should keep [even] the פירות שכבר לקט (even though he was not אכל yet)?!

footnotes: ¹ See רשב"ם ד"ה אי הכי. ² בתוס' ד"ה ואי (on this עמוד). ³ תוספות writes purposefully שלקט (and not שאכל) because according to תוספות ד"ה ואי if he claims לפירות ירדתי, not only is he exempt from paying for the פירות he already consumed (since המע"ה) but he is believed (because of לא חציף) even for פירות which he already harvested and did not consume even though they are not in his רשות. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read לפירי (instead of בפירי). ⁵ Therefore there is no ריעותא of אחוי שטרך (since no שטר is written for a פירות contract), and nevertheless he is not believed for the future פירות, so obviously he cannot be believed regarding the [future] possession of קרקע (where there is [in addition] the ריעותא of אחוי שטרך). ⁶ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read ארעא אפילו אם. ⁷ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁸ The גמרא is asking since the חזקה of לא חציף is effective that he may keep whatever he harvested, so even if he claims מיניך זביני, since it is a חוצפה, he should be believed for the past. [Even though we are returning the קרקע to the owner, so how can we separate the קרקע from the פירות, nevertheless one may argue (see ‘Appendix’ to תוס' ד"ה ואי) that we return the קרקע to the מערער, only because he is a מרא קמא (but not because we ‘know’ that he is the rightful owner), therefore regarding the past we should rely on (the מוחזקות of the מחזיק and on) the לא חציף and let him keep the פירות, and regarding the future where there is no מוחזקות, and לא חציף is not effective, we return the קרקע to the מרא קמא. The גמרא answered that since there is the ריעותא of אחוי שטרך, therefore we return the קרקע to the מערער (not only because he is the מרא קמא, but also) because there is proof that the מחזיק is lying, for he has no שטר. In that case it is obvious that the מערער receives the פירות (of the past), since we have ascertained that indeed he is the owner.] ⁹ See footnote # 3. ¹⁰ See footnote # 7.

היינו נסכא דרבי אבא—This is the same as the case of נסכא דר' אבא

OVERVIEW The גמרא told of a case where the מחזיק brought only one עד to testify that he made a חזקת ג' שנים. The רבנן who were there assumed that this case parallels that of נסכא דר"א, where the ruling is מתוך שאינו יכול לישבע משלם, here too the מחזיק is not believed and is liable (to pay) The גמרא was not explicit whether we are discussing the obligation to pay for the פירות that he ate (for three years!),¹ or whether we are discussing the obligation to return the field to the מערער. Our תוספות clarifies this.

לא אקרקע קאי² דפשיטא שמחזיר הקרקע אחר שאין לו שנים עדים – This comparison to נסכא דר"א was not in reference to the land, for it is obvious that he returns the land to the מערער even without the comparison to נסכא דר"א, since he does not have two witnesses that he ate שני חזקה – אלא השתא נמי אפירי מסיק – But rather even now the רבנן were discussing only that the פירי need to be returned (on account of the ruling by נסכא דר"א) – וסבר השתא כאילו חד סהדא לאורועי למחזיק קאתי על הפירות שאכל – And the רבנן presently assumed that it is considered as if the single עד is testifying against the מחזיק regarding the stolen פירות which he ate – ואינו יכול לכפור ולימא לא אכלתי – So that the מחזיק cannot deny and claim, ‘I did not eat the פירות’ since the ע"א contradicts him – וכאילו בא לחייבו שבועה על הפירות אם יכפור ויאמר לא אכלתי – And it should be considered as if the ע"א is coming to obligate the מחזיק to swear regarding the פירות, should he deny and claim, ‘I did not eat them**’ –** תוספות anticipates a difficulty with this line of reasoning: ואף על פי שמעיד שהחזיק בה ג' שנים – And even though this ע"א is testifying on behalf of the מחזיק, that he made a חזקה in this field for three years, so how can it be considered as if the ע"א is testifying against the מחזיק and is seeking to obligate him to swear, when in fact he is testifying on behalf of the מחזיק that the field is his for he made a proper חזקה?! תוספות replies; nevertheless – כיון דאין אחר עמו הרי כאילו אינו מעיד על החזקה אלא נעשה עד אחד לתובעו פירות³ – Since there is no other witness with this ע"א to support this חזקה claim, it is considered as if the ע"א is not testifying on the חזקה to support the מחזיק, but rather he becomes a prosecuting ע"א to demand payment for the פירות. הכי סלקא דעתיה וטועה עד דאמר⁴ אביי דלא דמי לדרבי אבא – This was the initial thought of the רבנן, until אביי told [them] that this case is not similar to the case of נסכא דר"א – דהכא חד סהדא לסיועי קאתי בין לקרקע⁵ בין לפירות שהרי הוא מעיד שגם הקרקע שלו – For here the ע"א comes to assist the מחזיק both regarding the קרקע as well as the פירות, for the ע"א is testifying that even the קרקע belongs to the מחזיק. תוספות anticipates a difficulty regarding what he said in the beginning that (even) in the ס"ד the discussion revolved around the פירות [exclusively]: והא דאמרינן במסקנא אלא אי דמיא לדרבי⁶ אבא לחד סהדא לתרתין שנין ולפירי – And regarding that which אביי stated in the conclusion of this סוגיא, ‘however, the case of ר"א is comparable to a case regarding פירי where an ע"א testified that the מחזיק ate the פירות for two years’ (not three years as in our case) – לא הוה צריך למינקט ולפירי כיון דעד השתא נמי לא איירי אלא בפירי – There was no need for אביי to mention 'ופירי', since even up to this מסקנא (in the ס"ד) we were only discussing פירי and not קרקע, so why mention פירי?! תוספות responds:

Rather we must say that since he needed to mention two years (as opposed to three), he also mentioned one עד and פירי (even though ע"א and פירי are the same as in the previous case).

SUMMARY The comparison to נסכא דר"א (even in the ס"ד) was only regarding the פירי.

THINKING IT OVER Can we perhaps distinguish between the reference to פירי that the רבנן were discussing, and the reference to פירי that אביי mentions?⁸

footnotes: ¹ It would seem difficult to assume that we are discussing the payment of the פירי for three years. If we assume that he ate פירות for three years then he is a מוחזק (as he claims) and not only is he not obligated to pay for the פירות but he should receive the קרקע as well since he is a מוחזק (see end of תוס' ד"ה ואי on this עמוד). See footnote # 3. ² See previous footnote # 1. Regarding קרקע at least the ruling would be correct that the קרקע reverts back to the מערער (even though it may be פשיטא), as opposed to פירי where the ruling is (seemingly) incorrect. ³ A possible explanation (see footnote # 1) may be as follows. The מחזיק claims that he bought the field (and lost the שטר). Had there been two עדים that he was in the field for three years we would believe him that he bought the field. The fact that he does not have two עדים (and no שטר) indicates that he did not buy the field at all. Once we make that assumption then it would be similar to case where the מחזיק does not claim that he bought the field but admits to eating the פירות for three years, where he would have to pay for all three years (because it is חזקה שאין עמה טענה). Similarly here we disregard the claim of מינך זביני and consider it as if the עד is only testifying that he ate the פירות of three years בגזל. See עליות דר"י and בל"י אות רה. ⁴ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to reads דאמר להו אביי. ⁵ See footnote # 3. אביי argues that we cannot consider the עד as only testifying on the פירות, for he is testifying to support the מחזיק that the קרקע is his. If we believe him regarding פירות, we believe him regarding the קרקע. ⁶ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read דרבי (deleting the 'ל'). ⁷ תוספות mentions חד סהדא in the reply (even though he did not ask about חד סהדא) to point out that things can be restated even though they applied in the first case as well. ⁸ See כוס הישועות on the גמרא לד,א.

הוה¹ יתיב רבי אבא קמיה—ר' אבא was sitting before him

OVERVIEW The גמרא relates that by the case of נסכא דר' אבא when the claimant approached ר' אמי with his complaint, ר' אבא was sitting before ר' אמי [seemingly] as a student sits before his master. תוספות has some difficulty with this.

משמע דרבי אבא היה תלמידו של רבי אמי² – It seems (from the fact that ר' אבא was sitting before ר' אמי) that ר' אבא was a student of ר' אמי. תוספות asks: וקשה דאמר בפרק כל הנשבעין (שבועות דף מז,א ושם) אמר רבי אמי – And there is a difficulty for the גמרא in פרק כל הנשבעין states, ‘ר' אמי said – רבותינו שבארץ ישראל אמרו חזרה שבועה למחויב לה³ – Our teacher in א"י rule; the oath returns to the one who was initially obligated to swear’ – ואמר התם דרבותינו שבארץ ישראל היינו רבי אבא – And רב פפא stated there that רבותינו שבא"י (which ר' אמי referred to) is ר' אבא. This indicates that ר' אבא was the רבי of ר' אמי, since ר' אמי refers to ר' אבא as רבותינו שבא"י. This contradicts our גמרא where it appears that ר' אבא was a student of ר' אמי. תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דאשכחן בפרק חבית (שבת דף קמו,ב) דקרי רב לרב כהנא ולרב אסי רבותינו – And the ר"י answers that we find in פרק חבית that רב called ר"כ and ר"א with the term רבותינו – אף על גב שהיו תלמידיו – Even though ר"כ ור"א were his students. Therefore we may say also regarding ר' אמי, that even though ר' אבא was his student (as indicated in our גמרא), nevertheless he (occasionally) referred to ר' אבא as רבותינו (out of respect [for his student]). תוספות asks: אבל קשה לרבינו יצחק דבאלו מציאות (בבא מציעא דף כד,ב) אמר – However, the ר"י has a difficulty for in פרק אלו מציאות the גמרא relates – דרבי אמי אשכח פרגיות שחוטות אתא לקמיה דרבי אבא אמר ליה זיל שקול לנפשך – That ר' אמי found [ritually] slaughtered pigeons; he came before ר' אבא who told ר' אמי, ‘go take them for yourself’ (you may keep them). It is evident from that גמרא that ר' אבא was the master, since ר' אמי asked him for a ruling. תוספות offers a solution: ולפי ספרים דגרסינן התם⁴ רבי אמי אתא לקמיה דרבי אסי ניחא טפי – And according to the text there that read; ר' אמי came before ר' אסי, it is better understood. תוספות continues to explain why according to the גירסא of ר' אמי it is ניחא טפי**** for – אף על גב דרבי אמי היה גדול מרבי אסי דבכל מקום מזכיר ר' אמי קודם רבי אסי – Even though ר' אמי was greater than ר' אסי; we know this is so, for everywhere the גמרא mentions ר' אמי before ר' אסי (indicating that ר' אמי was of a greater stature) – ובהניזקין (גיטין דף נד,ב) אמר⁵ ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבי אמי כולי – And the גמרא also relates in פרק הניזקין, there was this one who came before ר' אמי, etc. – אמר לפניו רבי אסי רבי אתה אומר כן הכי אמר רבי יוחנן כולי – רב אסי said before ר' אמי, ‘my teacher you rule thus; however, this is what ר"י ruled, etc. It is therefore evident that ר' אמי was greater – ומכל מקום חבירו היה ולפי שהיה גדול ממנו קורהו רבי – However, nevertheless ר' אמי was his contemporary and because ר' אמי was greater that ר' אסי, so ר' אסי called ר' אמי, my רבי – ולפי שחבירו היה בא רבי אמי לפניו ליטול עצה ממנו ואמר ליה זיל שקול לנפשך:⁶ But because ר' אסי was his contemporary, therefore ר' אמי came before him to consult with him regarding the פרגיות שחוטות and ר' אסי told him זיל שקול לנפשך.

SUMMARY It is appropriate for a רבי to refer to his student as 'רבותינו'.

THINKING IT OVER Why is this case known as נסכא דר' אבא and not נסכא דר' אמי?⁷

footnotes: ¹ This תוספות references the גמרא on לג,ב. ² The expression יתיב ר' פלוני קמי' וכו'; (usually) indicates that ר' פלוני was a student sitting before his master. ³ The גמרא there is referring to the משנה, which states that if both parties were חשוד על השבועה (the מודה במקצת and the מלוה); the rule is that חזרה שבועה למקומה. The interpretation according to רבותינו שבא"י is that חזרה שבועה למחויב לה; this refers to the מוב"מ, and since he cannot swear, he must pay. ⁴ In our texts there we read אתא לקמיה דר' אסי ואמרי לה לקמיה דר' יוחנן. ⁵ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read אמר נמי ההוא ⁶ It is therefore understood that even though ר' אמי was greater than ר' אסי, nevertheless since they were contemporary colleagues, ר' אמי consulted with ר' אסי. ⁷ Can the answer to this question answer perhaps תוספות initial question?