{"id":3980,"date":"2017-02-24T09:25:54","date_gmt":"2017-02-24T07:25:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/?p=3980"},"modified":"2017-02-24T09:25:54","modified_gmt":"2017-02-24T07:25:54","slug":"bava-batra-33-34a","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/2017\/02\/bava-batra-33-34a\/","title":{"rendered":"Bava Batra 33-34a"},"content":{"rendered":"

More cases are over doubts about land are brought. \u00a0One who was living on property that others claimed belonged to orphans. \u00a0Another involved a disagreement about inheritors – who was the closest inheritor. \u00a0Since neither had proof, one went to live on the land and when he later admitted he was not the closer relative, there was a debate whether he needed to return all the produce he had eaten or did he just have to return the land from the point of his admission. \u00a0If one brings one witness to support his claim that he ate for 3 years, can we turn that witness against him and say that he now needs to pay for the produce that he ate, based on the law that one witness requires him to swear and in this case since he cannot swear (because he already said he ate the produce), he needs to pay?<\/p>\n

\n