Question (Rivam): Even if he brings witnesses that he ate only three years, he should be believed to say "I bought it before you did", Migo that if he wanted, he could say "I bought it from you"!

Answer (Ri): This is not a Migo, for initially he did not claim at all "I bought it from you." He does not know whether or not he (the protester) has a document that he bought it from him (the original owner).

Assertion: The text says Rabah [and not Rava], for below (33b), Abaye and Rava do not hold like Rav Chisda. [Rather, they hold that] we do not say "why should I lie" (believe me, for if I wanted to lie, I would have said a better claim) against witnesses.

Note: The Maharsha points out that according to the Rashbam, who says that Rabah retracted and agreed with Abaye, the text could say Rava. Below was after he retracted!

Question #1 (Rashba): Why is this against witnesses? We should say that it was his (the one who ate the years of Chazakah) fathers' one day, and say that they bought it from his (the others') fathers, for we claim for an heir!

We believe him regarding this that he says that his fathers lived there for one day, through a Migo that if he wanted, he could say "I bought it from you"!

Question #2: Also below, Neharda'ei say that when he said "of my fathers, who bought it from your fathers", he may change his claim;

Even if he does not claim that they bought it, only he says that they lived there for one day, we claim for him!

Answer (Rabbeinu Yitzchak): "Of my fathers" connotes that it was always of his fathers, and not that they bought it, until he specifies in his words;

Below, that he says that they bought it, he need not know that they bought it, only he must claim "it was my fathers'. I saw that they lived there for one day";

"Therefore, I want to acquire it, for perhaps they bought it legally from your fathers." We claim for an heir!

Question: The Ri was unsure, in a case when he went outside and returned to Beis Din, if he may say so.

Question #1: Why is this contradicted testimony? Rava holds in Bava Kama (72b) and Sanhedrin (27a) that an Ed Zomem is disqualified from now and onwards. He is disqualified only from when he is Huzam [but not from when he testified falsely];

We should say that regarding Chazakah, about which they were contradicted, they were contradicted, but regarding belonging to his fathers, about which they were not contradicted, they were not contradicted (and the testimony stands, for they were Kosher when they testified)!

We say so in Bava Kama (73a) regarding witnesses [about one who stole and slaughtered] who were Huzam about the Shechitah, but not about the theft!

This is even if Toch Kedei Dibur they testified about the theft and Shechitah, according to Rava, since they are disqualified [only] from when they are Huzam;

Regarding Shechitah, about which they were Huzam, they were Huzam (their testimony is Batel). Regarding theft, about which they were not Huzam, they were not Huzam (their testimony stands).

According to the version that Rava's reason is because Ed Zomem is a Chidush, so we apply it only from the time of the Chidush (when he is Huzam, we say that he lied), this is fine. (Here it is no Chidush to disqualify testimony that was contradicted, so it is Batel from when they testified.)

However, according to the version that Rava's reason is due to buyers' loss (we decreed to be Machshir him until he was Huzam, lest someone used him for a witness on a purchase, and if he is disqualified, they will lose what they bought), also here we should believe them [for all testimony until now]!

Even testimony that does not entail a loss to buyers is not disqualified retroactively according to that version!

Proof: The Gemara asked "what is the difference between the two versions?", and did not say that they argue about when there is no loss to buyers.

Question #2: We say below (31b) "according to Rav Chisda, they do not argue." This implies that Rav Nachman cannot hold like Rav Chisda at all, for [Rav Chisda] considers them to be lying witnesses;

What is the source for this? Perhaps Rav Nachman holds that [even though he is a liar,] he is disqualified [only] from now and onwards [like Rava]!

Partial Answer #1: We can answer Question #2. We do not hold like Rava regarding this (being Kosher retroactively. Since the Halachah follows Rav Nachman in monetary laws, surely he holds like the Halachah.)

Answer #2: Our Sugya holds like the version that [he is Kosher retroactively because] it is a Chidush. However, according to the version that it is due to buyers' loss, Rava never said to Rav Nachman [that they are totally disqualified].

Answer #3 (Riva): Here is different than in Bava Kama. There, theft and Shechitah are two matters. Therefore regarding theft, about which they were not Huzam, they were not Huzam, since [an Ed Zomem] is disqualified from now and onwards;

However, here, when they were contradicted about eating [the Peros], they were contradicted also about the fathers, for [belonging to] the fathers without eating does not help, for we would establish it in the hands of the one who has witnesses that he ate the years of Chazakah;

He is believed to say "it was my fathers' one day", through a Migo that if he wanted, he could have said "I bought it from you."

Question: However, still, since the Gemara considers it another testimony, this is problematic. (Chasam Sofer - Rav Chisda considers it one testimony, for the reason Tosfos gave. Rav Nachman holds unlike Rav Chisda!)

Question: Both according to Rav Huna and Rav Chisda, we should believe the latter witnesses through a Migo, that if they wanted, they could disqualify the first [witnesses] through saying that they stole!

Suggestion: Also, we should believe them through a Migo, that if they wanted, they could be Mezim them!

Rejection: They fear to be Mezim them, lest also they themselves will be Huzam.

Answer #1: We do not apply a Migo against witnesses, for a Migo cannot help them more than two witnesses, and even if 100 witnesses were with them, they are not believed, for two [witnesses] are like 100.

Answer #2 (Ri): Migo applies only to one person. It does not apply to two, for both do not have the same mindset. What one wants to claim, the other will not claim.

Question: In Kesuvos (19b), a Beraisa says that if two were signed on a document, and they died, and two came and said "these are their signatures, but they were minors or Pasul witnesses or coerced":

If their signatures are available elsewhere (we could validate their signature through comparison, without these witnesses), they are not believed.

The Gemara asks "do we collect through the document? There are contradictory testimonies!", and Rav Nachman concluded that we do not collect through the document. The witnesses cancel each other, and we establish the money in the Chazakah of its [original] owner.

Summation of question: Why don't we collect through it? Here he (Rav Nachman) holds like Rav Huna, that they are Kosher for another testimony, for we establish them in Chezkas Kashrus;

There, it is like another testimony, for they do not contradict the ones who signed on this loan, i.e. that they would say that he is not liable to him at all;

Rather, they say "you are not believed about this, for you were Pesulim"!

We should say that they are believed, like here, that they are Kesherim even though these contradict them and disqualify them and consider them like other Pesulim for all matters of testimony!

Answer (Ri): When they say that they were minors, we cannot establish them on their Chazakah. Similarly, when they say that they were coerced, they do not remove them from Chezkas Kashrus, for we say that they were mortally coerced. (They were permitted to sign falsely to save their lives);

Regarding Pasul witnesses, we can say that they disqualify them from when they were born. They say that they were relatives [through marriage], and now they became distant.

Question: If so, why does Rava in Bava Kama (72b) and Sanhedrin (27a) considered Ed Zomem to be a Chidush, and we apply this only from the time of the Chidush (when he is Huzam)?

This that he is disqualified is not a Chidush. According to letter of the law, both [pairs of witnesses] should be Pesulim, just like two pairs of contradictory witnesses!

If so, the Chidush is only that the Mezimim are Kesherim!

Answer (Ri): Rava, who says that it is a Chidush, this is only according to the conclusion, that he can hold properly like Rav Huna (that contradictory witnesses are Kesherim).

Explanation: If the one who had no Chazakah of ancestors was Muchzak first, this is fine. We removed him, and reinstate him to establish the land in his hand, like it was initially;

Even if neither was Muchzak, we can explain "we removed him" to give it to the other, and reinstate him to take it from the other's hand, and the law is Kol d'Alim Gavar. The Ri said so.

Explanation: In Kesuvos (22b) we establish this to be when she married one of her witnesses [who say that her husband died], and she says that she is sure that he died. There is no suspicion, like I explained there.

Explanation: The reason is due to disgrace of Beis Din.

Question (Rashba): You are forced to say that the reason is not due to disgrace of Beis Din. If it were, even if she did not marry, rather, they permitted her to marry, she may marry;

The entire Sugya connotes that there is disgrace even if no action was done!

Suggestion: Perhaps indeed, "she married" means that they permitted her to marry. Afterwards, she does not lose her first Heter.

Rejection: We cannot explain "witnesses came and afterwards she married" to mean that they permitted her to marry. Rather, she truly married;

You are forced to say that the reason is because we do not remove her from her husband due to Safek, and not due to disgrace!

Answer: Really, the reason is due to disgrace. Only when she married and afterwards witnesses came there is disgrace to Beis Din, for she was already forbidden to the entire world once she married;

It turns out that when we return to forbid her to the witness she married, we retract only for (to forbid) him;

However, if witnesses came before she married, there is no disgrace. You are forced to say that they retract from their first Heter in order to forbid her to the entire world;

Therefore, there is no disgrace if we forbid her also to her witnesses. The Ri said so.