זוזי אחריני גביה ואכלתה שני משכנתא
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.
אמינא אי מהדרנא לה ארעא ליתמי ואמינא דאית לי זוזי אחריני גבי דאבוכון אמור רבנן הבא ליפרע מנכסי יתומים לא יפרע אלא בשבועה אלא אכבשיה לשטר משכנתא ואוכלה שיעור זוזי דמיגו דאי בעינא אמינא לקוחה היא בידי מהימנא כי אמינא דאית לי זוזי גבייכו מהימננא
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.
א"ל לקוחה בידי לא מצית אמרת דהא איכא עלה קלא דארעא דיתמי היא אלא זיל אהדרה ניהלייהו וכי גדלי יתמי אשתעי דינא בהדייהו:
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.
קריביה דרב אידי בר אבין שכיב ושבק דיקלא רב אידי בר אבין אמר אנא קריבנא טפי וההוא גברא אמר אנא קריבנא טפי לסוף אודי ליה דאיהו קריב טפי אוקמה רב חסדא בידיה
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.
א"ל ליהדר לי פירי דאכל מההוא יומא עד השתא אמר זה הוא שאומרים עליו אדם גדול הוא אמאן קא סמיך מר אהאי הא קאמר דאנא מקרבנא טפי אביי ורבא לא סבירא להו הא דרב חסדא
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,