זוּזִי אַחֲרִינֵי גַּבֵּיהּ וַאֲכַלְתַּהּ שְׁנֵי מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא other money with him, i.e., he owed me money for a different reason, for which I had no collateral, and I profited from the land for the duration of the years of the collateral.
אָמֵינָא אִי מַהְדַּרְנָא לַהּ אַרְעָא לְיַתְמֵי וְאָמֵינָא דְּאִית לִי זוּזִי אַחֲרִינֵי גַּבֵּי דַּאֲבוּכוֹן אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן הַבָּא לִיפָּרַע מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים לֹא יִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה אֶלָּא אֶכְבְּשֵׁיהּ לִשְׁטַר מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא וְאוֹכְלַהּ שִׁיעוּר זוּזֵי דְּמִיגּוֹ דְּאִי בָּעֵינָא אָמֵינָא לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי מְהֵימַנָּא כִּי אָמֵינָא דְּאִית לִי זוּזִי גַּבַּיְיכוּ מְהֵימַנְנָא I then said to myself: If I return the land to the orphans now that the years of collateral have finished, and I say that I have other money with your late father, I will not be able to collect it, as the Sages say that one who comes to collect a debt from the property of orphans can collect only by means of an oath, and I do not wish to take an oath. Rather than do that, I will suppress the document detailing the terms of the collateral, and profit from the land up to the measure of the money that their father owed me. This is legitimate, since if I so desire I can say: It is purchased, and that is why it is in my possession, and I would have been deemed credible, as I profited from the land for the years necessary to establish the presumption of ownership, so when I say that I have money with you, I am also deemed credible.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְקוּחָה בְּיָדִי לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ דְּהָא אִיכָּא עֲלַהּ קָלָא דְּאַרְעָא דְיַתְמֵי הִיא אֶלָּא זִיל אַהְדְּרַהּ נִיהֲלַיְיהוּ וְכִי גָּדְלִי יַתְמֵי אִשְׁתַּעִי דִּינָא בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ: Abaye said to Rava bar Sharshom: Your reasoning is incorrect. You would not have been able to say: It is purchased, and that is why it is in my possession, as there is publicity concerning it that it is land of orphans. Therefore, you are unable to collect your debt based on the fact that you could have made a more advantageous claim [miggo]. Rather, return the land to the orphans now, and when the orphans become adults, then litigate with them, as you have no other option.
קְרִיבֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין שְׁכֵיב וּשְׁבַק דִּיקְלָא רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין אָמַר אֲנָא קָרִיבְנָא טְפֵי וְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא אֲמַר אֲנָא קָרִיבְנָא טְפֵי לְסוֹף אוֹדִי לֵיהּ דְּאִיהוּ קָרִיב טְפֵי אוֹקְמַהּ רַב חִסְדָּא בִּידֵיהּ The Gemara relates: A relative of Rav Idi bar Avin died and left a date tree as an inheritance. Another relative took possession of the tree, claiming to be a closer relative than Rav Idi bar Avin. Rav Idi bar Avin said: I am closer in relation to the deceased than he, and that man said: I am closer in relation to the deceased than Rav Idi bar Avin. Ultimately, the other man admitted to Rav Idi bar Avin that, in fact, Rav Idi was closer in relation to the deceased. Rav Ḥisda established the date tree in the possession of Rav Idi bar Avin.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ לַיהְדַּר לִי פֵּירֵי דַּאֲכַל מֵהָהוּא יוֹמָא עַד הַשְׁתָּא אָמַר זֶה הוּא שֶׁאוֹמְרִים עָלָיו אָדָם גָּדוֹל הוּא אַמַּאן קָא סְמִיךְ מָר אַהַאי הָא קָאָמַר דַּאֲנָא מְקָרַבְנָא טְפֵי אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא לָא סְבִירָא לְהוּ הָא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא Rav Idi bar Avin said to Rav Ḥisda: The value of the produce that he consumed unlawfully from that day when he took possession of the tree until now should be returned to me. Rav Ḥisda said: Is this he about whom people say: He is a great man? On whom is the Master basing his claim to receive the value of the produce? On this other relative. But he was saying until this point: I am closer in relation to the deceased than he. Therefore, you have ownership of the tree only from the time of his admission, and not from when he took possession of the tree. The Gemara comments: Abaye and Rava do not hold in accordance with this opinion of Rav Ḥisda,