Bava Batra 30B

דהאי ארעא דידי היא, ואת לא זבינתה מינאי? זיל, לאו בעל דברים דידי את. אמר רבא: דינא קאמר ליה.

that this land is formerly mine, and that you did not purchase it from me? Go away; I am not legally answerable to you. Rava said: The claimant stated the halakha to the possessor, as this is a legitimate claim, and Rava accepted his claim.

ההוא דאמר ליה לחבריה: מאי בעית בהאי ארעא? אמר ליה: מפלניא זבינתה, ואכלתיה שני חזקה. אמר ליה: פלניא גזלנא הוא.

There was a certain person who said to another: What do you want with this land of mine? The possessor said to him: I purchased it from so-and-so and then I worked and profited from it for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership. The claimant said to him: So-and-so is a robber who robbed me of the field, and he did not have the authority to sell it to you.

אמר ליה: והא אית לי סהדי דאתאי אימלכי בך, ואמרת לי: ״זיל זבין״! אמר ליה: השני נוח לי; הראשון קשה הימנו. אמר רבא: דינא קאמר ליה.

The possessor said to him: But I have witnesses that I came and consulted with you, and you said to me: Go purchase the land, indicating that you conceded that he had the authority to sell it. The claimant said to him: The reason that I advised you to purchase it was because the second person, i.e., you, the possessor, is amenable to me, while the first, i.e., the purported thief, is more difficult than he, i.e., I prefer to litigate with you rather than with him. Rava said: The claimant stated the halakha to the possessor, as this is a legitimate claim, and Rava accepted his claim.

כמאן, כאדמון? דתנן: העורר על השדה וחתום עליה בעד ⁠– אדמון אומר: השני נוח לי; הראשון קשה הימנו. וחכמים אומרים: איבד את זכותו.

The Talmud asks: In accordance with whose opinion is Rava’s statement? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Admon? As we learned in a Mishnah (Ketubot 109a): With regard to one who contests ownership of a field, claiming that a field possessed by someone else actually belongs to him, and the claimant himself is signed as a witness on the bill of sale of the field to that other person, Admon says: His signature does not disprove his claim of ownership of the property, as it is possible that the claimant said to himself: The second person is amenable to me to deal with, as I can reason with him, while the first owner, who sold the field to the current possessor, is more difficult to deal with than he. And the Rabbis say: He lost his right to contest, as he signed a bill of sale that states that the field belongs to the possessor. Rava’s ruling appears to be in accordance with the individual opinion of Admon, and not with the opinion of the Rabbis.