Bava Batra — Daf 47a

קבלן אמרי לה מעיד ואמרי לה אינו מעיד אמרי לה מעיד כערב דמי ואמרי לה אינו מעיד דניחא ליה דלהוו בידיה תרוייהו דכי אתי בע"ח מאי דבעי שקיל

אמר רבי יוחנן אומן אין לו חזקה בן אומן יש לו חזקה אריס אין לו חזקה בן אריס יש לו חזקה גזלן ובן גזלן אין להן חזקה בן בנו של גזלן יש לו חזקה

היכי דמי אי אתו בטענתא דאבוהון אפילו הנך נמי לא אי דלא אתו בטענתא דאבוהון אפילו בן גזלן נמי

לא צריכא דקא אמרי עדים בפנינו הודה לו הנך איכא למימר קושטא קא אמרי האי אע"ג דאודי נמי לא מהימן כדרב כהנא דאמר רב כהנא אי לאו דאודי ליה הוה ממטי ליה ולחמריה לשחוור

אמר רבא פעמים שאפילו בן בנו של גזלן נמי אין לו חזקה היכי דמי כגון דקא אתי בטענתא דאבא דאבוה

היכי דמי גזלן אמר רבי יוחנן כגון שהוחזק על שדה זו בגזלנותא ורב חסדא אמר כגון דבית פלוני שהורגין נפשות על עסקי ממון:

תנו רבנן אומן אין לו חזקה ירד מאומנותו יש לו חזקה אריס אין לו חזקה ירד מאריסותו יש לו חזקה בן שחלק ואשה שנתגרשה הרי הן כשאר כל אדם

בשלמא בן שחלק איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא אחולי אחיל גביה קמ"ל דלא אלא אשה שנתגרשה פשיטא לא צריכא

In regard to a go-between,  some say that he may testify [on behalf of the borrower] and some say that he may not. Those who say that he may testify regard him as being on the same footing as a surety, whereas those who say that he may not [consider] that he prefers fields of both qualities  to be in the hands of the borrower, so that the creditor can have the choice of seizing from either. R. Johanan said: A craftsman has no hazakah, but the son of a craftsman has hazakah.  A metayer has no hazakah, but the son of a metayer has hazakah. Neither a robber nor the son of a robber has hazakah, but the grandson of a robber has hazakah. How are we to interpret this? If [we suppose that] they base their title [solely] on [the possession of] their father, then the son of a craftsman and the son of a metayer should also not have hazakah.  If again they do not base their title on [the possession of] their fathers [but on claims of their own].  then the son of a robber should also [have hazakah]? — [They do base their title on the possession of their fathers], and our rule applies to the case where witnesses declare: The claimant admitted to him [the father] in our presence [that he had sold the land to him].  In the case of the others [the son of the craftsman and the metayer and the grandson of the robber] the presumption is that they are telling the truth, but in the case of the son of the robber, even though he [the claimant] admits [he sold it to [the father] we do not believe him, on the ground put forward by R. Kahana, that if he did not admit this, the other would hand him and his ass over to the town prefect. Raba said: There are occasions when even the grandson of a robber also has no hazakah, as for instance when he bases his title on the possession of his grandfather. What sort of man is meant here by 'robber'? — R. Johanan said: One, for instance, who is generally presumed to have obtained the field under consideration by robbery.  R. Hisda said: Those like the people of a certain family we know who do not shrink from committing murder to extort money. Our Rabbis taught: A craftsman has no hazakah, but if he abandons his trade he has hazakah.  A metayer has no hazakah, but if he ceases to be a metayer he has hazakah. A son who leaves [his father's roof]  and a woman when divorced are on the same footing as strangers [in relation to the father or husband].  [Why mention this?] It is true that for specifying the rule about the son who leaves his father's roof I can find a reason, since I might think that [we presume the father] to have tacitly consented [to his occupying the land],  but now I know that this is not so. But that the divorced woman [becomes a stranger to her former husband]  is surely self-evident? — No. The rule is required