Implied question: Even with a Shevu'ah, he would not be able to collect from them, like we say "when they mature, you will take them to [Beis] Din"! (It connotes that Rava needed the Migo only to avoid the Shevu'ah.)

Answer: He was not concerned about waiting [for them to mature]. He was concerned only about the Shevu'ah.

Assertion: Rava bar Sharshum holds like Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua, who explains (below, 174a) that the reason why we do not collect from property of [minor] orphans is due to concern for Tzerari (perhaps their father deposited money with the creditor, to ensure that he be able to collect).

Suggestion: Perhaps he held like Rav Papa, who explains that it is because paying a creditor is a Mitzvah, and [minor] orphans are not obligated in Mitzvos (until they mature)!

Rejection: If so, even if he were correct, he would not be able to keep the land for his debt, since they (the orphans) are not obligated in Mitzvos (to pay debts now).

Support: We rule like Rav Huna there.

Explanation: Only because he hid the mortgage document, he could say "I bought it." It was not known that he initially took it as a Mashkanta;

If it were known that he initially took it as a Mashkanta, Rava bar Sharshum would not claim that he could say that he bought it;

This is just like a craftsman or sharecropper cannot make a Chazakah in the field he works, since it is known that initially it came to him for [fixing or] sharecropping.

The same applies to things that are normally lent or rented.

Also a Gazlan, that it is known that he stole this field, has no Chazakah.

Question: What did Rava bar Sharshum think? Even if he claimed "I bought it", he always needs Shevu'as Heses!

Granted, we do not swear about land mid'Oraisa. Mid'Rabanan we swear about it, like Rav Hai Gaon derived from Kesuvos 87a;

Citation (87a - Mishnah): If a woman admits that she already received partial payment of her Kesuvah, or one witness says that it was paid, she must swear to collect [the rest].

Citation (cont.): Rami bar Chama thought that the oath is mid'Oraisa. Rava rejected this... Also, we do not swear about denial of debts with a lien to be paid from land!

Inference: Mid'Rabanan, we swear about land. The same applies to Shevu'as Heses. Why should it be different?!

Answer: One must take Shevu'as Heses only when [his opponent] claims Vadai. Here there is not a Vadai claim, for the orphans are not sure that Rava did not buy the land;

Therefore, if he claimed that he bought it, he would not need to swear Heses.

Explanation: Even though if he would have said "I bought it", he would be believed, even so it is not a Migo;

It means as follows. "You could not say", i.e. you would not be able to be brazen and say so, since there are rumors, so there is no Migo.

Support: We find like this in Kidushin (50a). We asked "if he wanted, he could say that he was Mezid [to exempt himself from a Korban Chatas]!", and answered "he does not establish himself to be a Rasha."

Explanation: He would not willingly say "I was Mezid", so there is no Migo. However, surely if he said "I was Mezid", obviously he is believed!

Version #1: If the text says only "Shavak Dikla", we must say that he did not have sons, and the closer relative inherits him;

Version #2: If the text says "to his relative", we can say that he had sons. Therefore, he needed to say that the date tree is to his relative.

Version #1: The text does not say "that he is closer." Rather, he did not want to argue with Rav Idi, and he gave the date tree to him for free, and not because he is closer.

Therefore, Rav Chisda said that he (Rav Idi's opponent) said "I am closer." He willingly gave to you, and not because you are closer.

Abaye and Rava hold that since he admitted, he admitted. Presumably, he pardoned to him only because he (Rav Idi) is closer.

Objection: The word "admitted" in the text is difficult. Also the reasoning of Abaye and Rava is difficult.

Suggestion: The text says "that he is closer." He claimed that he did not eat the Peros, and Rav Idi had witnesses that he ate.

Implied question: Why does it say 'he said "I am closer"'?

Initially, he said so. Therefore, also now he is believed to say that he did not eat, Migo he would not admit.

He holds that we say a Migo against witnesses, like below.

Rejection #1: If so, [Rav Chisda] should have said "he said 'I did not eat', and if he wanted, he could have said 'I am closer'"!

Rejection #2: If so, he should have concluded also here with this expression like we conclude below (33b) 'Abaye and Rava do not hold like Rav Chisda. We do not say "why should I lie" against witnesses.'

Version #2: The Ri says that R. Chananel's text is primary. The text does not say "at the end, he admitted to him", rather, "at the end he brought witnesses that he is his relative";

The text does not say "closer", for they did not testify that Rav Idi was closer than the other man;

They testified only that Rav Idi was his relative. They did not recognize whether or not the other man was a relative or not. The other man had no witnesses that he was a relative.

Even if the text says "closer", we can explain that he is closer than all the [relatives] that the witnesses knew. Therefore, Rav Chisda established it in the hands of Rav Idi, for he is a Vadai [heir], and the other man is Safek.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Rav Idi claimed also Peros, since [the man] admitted that he ate.

Rav Chisda exempted him due to a Migo. If he wanted, he could say that he did not eat. Also now that he said that "I ate, and I ate my own", he is believed.

Rava and Abaye hold that since he ate Peros, and admitted, he is obligated to pay. He is not believed through a Migo, since the law is that the land leaves him, since there is no Migo for the land.

Question: Below (34a), we say "if the case of [the ingot of] R. Aba resembles [a case of one who did not get Chazakah], it is like one witness and two years, and for Peros;

When [the Machazik] admits that he ate Peros, and there is one witness, he is obligated to pay, because he cannot swear;

However, if there is not one witness, he would not be obligated to pay.

Summation of question: What is the reason? We should say that since the land leaves him, he must pay also for the Peros!

Answer: There we discuss when he says that he ate three years, and the witness testifies only about two years. There surely, if there were not one witness, obviously he is exempt, even though the land leaves him;

If he were believed about what he says that he ate three years, we would not take the land from him, since he ate the years of Chazakah!

Suggestion: We should believe him that he ate three years, but not believe him that he bought it. Rather, he ate through theft;

This is like we say in Gitin (54a) [about a scribe hired to write a Sefer Torah, who said that he wrote the names of Hash-m Lo Lishmah. R. Ami said] "you are believed to forfeit your wage, but you are not believed to disqualify the Sefer Torah."

Rejection: There is different. Since it is in the buyer's hands, it is as if there are witnesses that [the names of Hash-m] were written Lishmah;

In any case, he forfeits his wage, for he admits that they do not owe him anything.

Explanation: If initially, when he said "what are you doing in this land?" [he answered "I bought the rights to eats the Peros"], even though at the time he ate, the owner of the field could have stopped him, and he would not be believed to say "you authorized me to eat the Peros"...

However, since he already ate, and [the owner] comes to take from him, he is believed to say "I came to the field to eat the Peros [with your permission]."

Question: Why is this only because one is not brazen [to lie about this]? It should suffice that he is Tafis (they are in his possession), just like the case of Metaltelim not normally lent or rented out;

If one says "I bought them", he is believed!

Answer: We need the reason that one is not brazen for a case in which he picked the Peros and put them in another's Reshus. He is not Tafis in them.

Question: Even when he did not say "I came to the field to eat the Peros", rather, he brings witnesses that he ate for two years, like in our Sugya, he should be believed with this claim, through a Migo. If he wanted, he could have said that he came for Peros!

Answer: This is not difficult. This is not a Migo, because he comes to claim also the land.

Pesak: He must return only the Peros for two years. He need not return Peros of the third year. If he were believed to say that he ate three years, also the land would be his!

Explanation: He will pick dates from the tree. "Gedirah" applies to [picking] dates. We do not discuss cutting down the tree, for if so, it should have said "v'Iktelei";

Source (Shevuos 46a - Rav Nachman): One who took an axe and said 'Iktelei (I will cut) Ploni's date tree...'

Assertion (Ri and Rivam): If he comes to cut the date tree itself, he is not believed. It is normal to sell the fruits, but it is not normal to sell the tree to cut it.

Proof: It says in Bava Kama (91b) that if Reuven says to Shimon "you killed my ox and cut my young trees", and Shimon answers "you told me to kill it. You told me to cut them", he is exempt;

The Gemara asks "if so (Shimon is believed to say so), no one can survive!..."

Inference: He is not believed through a Migo, that if he wanted, he could say "you sold it to me to cut it."

Explanation: This is not because he says publicly "I will pick", that we say that one is not brazen;

Even if he picked them covertly, we say that one is not brazen, unless he took them in the way of thievery.

Explanation: Based on what I explained above (DH v'Iy Ta'in), that he is believed only for Peros that he already picked, but from now and onwards he is not believed, even though people do not write documents for Peros...

We must explain that even the land, if he claims that the land is his, that he bought it, he does not return Peros that he already ate;

However, obviously he must return the land. He is not believed for the future.

Explanation: This does not refer to the land, for obviously, he must return the land, since he does not have two witnesses. Rather, also now (in the Hava Amina) we discuss Peros;

We hold now that it is as if one witness comes to weaken the Machazik regarding the Peros he ate, and he cannot deny and say "I did not eat";

It is as if he comes to obligate a Shevu'ah about the Peros he ate, if he will deny and say "I did not eat."

Implied question: He testifies that he made Chazakah for three years (he comes to support the Machazik)!

Answer: Since there is no other [witness] with him, it is as if he does not testify about the Chazakah. Rather, he becomes one witness to claim Peros from him (the Machazik).

So they thought and erred, until Abaye told them that it is unlike R. Aba's case. Here, one witness comes to help [the Machazik], both regarding the land and Peros, for he testifies that also the land is his.