Bava Batra 31B

באבהתא מי אתכחש?!

was the testimony contradicted with regard to ownership of the ancestors?

לימא רבא ורב נחמן ⁠– בפלוגתא דרב הונא ורב חסדא קמיפלגי?

The Talmud asks: should we say that Rava and Rav Naḥman disagree in the dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda?

דאיתמר: שתי כתי עדים המכחישות זו את זו ⁠– אמר רב הונא: זו באה בפני עצמה ומעידה, וזו באה בפני עצמה ומעידה. ורב חסדא אמר: בהדי סהדי שקרי למה לי? לימא רב נחמן ⁠– דאמר כרב הונא, ורבא כרב חסדא?

As it was stated concerning two groups of witnesses that contradict each other, that Rav Huna says: This one comes to court on its own and testifies, and that one comes to court on its own and testifies. Despite the fact that one group certainly testified falsely, which should serve to disqualify one of the groups, each group is able to testify in another case. And Rav Ḥisda says: Why do I need these lying witnesses? In other words, they are all disqualified to testify in another case until it is clarified which of them had testified falsely. The Talmud asks: should we say that Rav Naḥman is the one who says his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, and Rava says his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda?

אליבא דרב חסדא ⁠– כולי עלמא לא פליגי, כי פליגי ⁠– אליבא דרב הונא. רב נחמן ⁠– כרב הונא. ורבא ⁠– עד כאן לא קאמר רב הונא אלא לעדות אחרת, אבל לאותה עדות ⁠– לא.

The Talmud explains: According to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, who holds that the witnesses are disqualified, everyone agrees that the testimony concerning ancestral ownership is not accepted, as the witnesses were contradicted concerning their testimony of usage of the land, and Rav Naḥman’s ruling cannot accord with his opinion. When Rav Naḥman and Rava disagree it is according to the opinion of Rav Huna, who does not disqualify the witnesses. The ruling of Rav Naḥman is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, and he therefore accepts the testimony with regard to ancestral ownership, and Rava would say: Rav Huna says that the witnesses are accepted only for another testimony, i.e., in a different case. But they are not accepted for the same testimony, as in this incident, where both testimonies concerned ownership of the same land.