Bava Batra — Daf 31a

אבל שית אין לך מחאה גדולה מזו:

זה אומר של אבותי וזה אומר של אבותי האי אייתי סהדי דאבהתיה היא והאי אייתי סהדי דאכלה שני חזקה

אמר רבה מה לו לשקר אי בעי א"ל מינך זבנתה ואכלתיה שני חזקה א"ל אביי מה לי לשקר במקום עדים לא אמרינן

הדר א"ל אין דאבהתך היא וזבנתה מינך והאי דאמרי לך דאבהתי דסמיך לי עלה כדאבהתי

טוען וחוזר וטוען או אין טוען וחוזר וטוען עולא אמר טוען וחוזר וטוען נהרדעי אמרי אינו טוען וחוזר וטוען

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

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

אמר אמימר אנא נהרדעא אנא וסבירא לי דטוען וחוזר וטוען והלכתא טוען וחוזר וטוען:

זה אומר של אבותי וזה אומר של אבותי האי אייתי סהדי דאבהתיה ואכלה שני חזקה והאי אייתי סהדי דאכלה שני חזקה

אמר רב נחמן אוקי אכילה לבהדי אכילה ואוקי ארעא בחזקת אבהתא א"ל רבא הא עדות מוכחשת היא אמר ליה נהי דאיתכחש באכילתה

but if only six years, then no protest could be more effective than this. [There was a case] where one said, '[This land belonged] to my father,'  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 hazakah. Rabbah said [in giving judgment]: What motive had he  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 hazakah.'  Said Abaye to him: But the consideration, 'why should he tell a falsehood,' is not taken into account where it conflicts with evidence?  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.' [The question here arises:] Is a litigant allowed to alter his pleas  [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];  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. [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 hazakah, 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,