Bava Batra 61
אבל שית אין לך מחאה גדולה מזו:
but if only six years, then no protest could be more effective than this.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Namely, the action of the original owner in selling the land after the occupier had been on it only two years, so that in reality he never acquired hazakah. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
אמר רבה מה לו לשקר אי בעי א"ל מינך זבנתה ואכלתיה שני חזקה א"ל אביי מה לי לשקר במקום עדים לא אמרינן
and the other pleaded, 'It belonged to my father'. The one brought witnesses to prove that it belonged to his father, and the other brought witnesses to prove that he had had the use of it for the period of <i>hazakah</i>. Rabbah said [in giving judgment]: What motive had he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The latter, who occupied the field. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
הדר א"ל אין דאבהתך היא וזבנתה מינך והאי דאמרי לך דאבהתי דסמיך לי עלה כדאבהתי
to tell a falsehood? If he liked, he could have pleaded [without fear of contradiction], 'I bought it from you and had the use of it for the period of <i>hazakah</i>.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is a stronger plea and therefore we believe him when he says that he inherited it from his father. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
טוען וחוזר וטוען או אין טוען וחוזר וטוען עולא אמר טוען וחוזר וטוען נהרדעי אמרי אינו טוען וחוזר וטוען
Said Abaye to him: But the consideration, 'why should he tell a falsehood,' is not taken into account where it conflicts with evidence?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case, the evidence brought by the claimant that the land had belonged to his father. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ומודי עולא היכא דא"ל של אבותי ולא של אבותיך דאינו טוען וחוזר וטוען והיכא דהוה קאי בי דינא ולא טען ואתא מאבראי וטען אינו חוזר וטוען מאי טעמא טענתיה אגמריה
So the occupier pleaded again, 'Yes, it did belong to your father, but I bought it from you, and what I meant by saying that it belonged to my father was that I felt as secure In it as if it had belonged to my father.'
ומודו נהרדעי היכא דאמר ליה של אבותי שלקחוה מאבותיך דחוזר וטוען והיכא דאישתעי מילי אבראי ולא טען ואתא לבי דינא וטען דחוזר וטוען מאי טעמא עביד איניש דלא מגלי טענתיה אלא לבי דינא
[The question here arises:] Is a litigant allowed to alter his pleas<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'plead and again plead,' i.e., modify or expand the first plea, but not contradict it entirely. V. infra. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
אמר אמימר אנא נהרדעא אנא וסבירא לי דטוען וחוזר וטוען והלכתא טוען וחוזר וטוען:
[in the course of the case], or is he not allowed to alter his pleas? 'Ulla said: He is allowed to alter his pleas; the Nehardeans say, he is not allowed to alter his pleas. 'Ulla, however, admits that if this man had pleaded at first,' It belonged to my father and not to yours,' he could not later alter his plea [to say, 'It did belong to yours']. 'Ulla also admits that if a man does not amend his pleas in any way when in court, but after leaving the court comes In again and amends them, the rule that he may alter his original plea does not apply, because we assume that someone has suggested the amended plea to him. The Nehardeans [on their side] admit that if [after saying, 'It belonged to my father'] he pleads, 'my father who bought it from your father,' he is allowed to alter his plea [to this effect];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he is simply making his former plea more emphatic, and not altering it. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
זה אומר של אבותי וזה אומר של אבותי האי אייתי סהדי דאבהתיה ואכלה שני חזקה והאי אייתי סהדי דאכלה שני חזקה
also that if a man makes certain statements outside [the court] and then wants to plead something quite different in court, he may do so, because a man often does not wish to state his case save in actual court. Amemar said: I am a Nehardean, and I hold that pleas may be altered. And such is the accepted ruling, that pleas may be altered.
אמר רב נחמן אוקי אכילה לבהדי אכילה ואוקי ארעא בחזקת אבהתא א"ל רבא הא עדות מוכחשת היא אמר ליה נהי דאיתכחש באכילתה
[A case arose in which] one said, 'This [land belonged] to my father,' and the other said, 'To my father,' but the one brought witnesses to prove that it had belonged to his father and that he had had the use of it for the period of <i>hazakah</i>, and the other brought witnesses [only] to prove that he had had the use of it for a sufficient number of years to confer a legal title. Said R. Nahman: The evidence that the one has had the use of it cancels out the evidence that the other has had the use of it, and the land is therefore assigned to the one who brings evidence that it belonged to his father. Said Raba to him: But the evidence has been confuted? — He replied: Granted that it has been confuted in regard to the user,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the eating of it.' ');"><sup>8</sup></span>