Bava Batra 33B

כיון דאודי ⁠– אודי.

as they hold that once it is so that the other relative admitted that he is not a closer relative, he admitted that he never had any right to the produce of the tree. Therefore, by his own admission, he is liable to reimburse Rav Idi bar Avin.

זה אומר: ״של אבותי״, וזה אומר: ״של אבותי״; האי אייתי סהדי דאבהתיה הוא, והאי אייתי סהדי דאכל שני חזקה –

§ There was an incident where two people dispute the ownership of land. This one says: The land belonged to my ancestors and I inherited it from them, and that one says: The land belonged to my ancestors and I inherited it from them. This one brings witnesses that the land belonged to his ancestors, and that one brings witnesses that he worked and profited from the land for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership.

אמר רב חסדא: מה לו לשקר? אי בעי, אמר ליה: מינך זבינתה ואכלתיה שני חזקה. אביי ורבא לא סבירא להו הא דרב חסדא ⁠– ״מה לי לשקר״ במקום עדים ⁠– לא אמרינן.

Rav Ḥisda said: The one who is in possession of the land is deemed credible due to the legal principle that if one would have been deemed credible had he stated one claim but instead stated another claim that accomplishes the same result, he has credibility, because why would he lie and state this claim? If he wants to lie, he could have said to him: I purchased it from you and I worked and profited from it for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership. Abaye and Rava do not hold in accordance with this opinion of Rav Ḥisda, because they hold that we do not say that the principle of: Why would I lie, applies in a case where there are witnesses contradicting the claim he is stating, and in this case, witnesses testify that it belonged to the ancestors of the other claimant.