Bava Batra 56a (נו.) — the Talmud in English

If they are

in one domain

, meaning, if he took out the second half of a dried fig to the same public domain into which he had taken out the first, he is

liable.

But if it was in one lapse of awareness

in two domains

, for example, he took out half a dried fig to one public domain, and half a dried fig to a public domain separated from the first public domain—and the Gemara proceeds to explain how it is separated—he is

exempt,

because the domains divide the acts.

With regard to “two domains” separated by a boundary or a ḥatzav, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rava, above, disagreed as to whether they are considered two domains.

And Rabba said

to explain what constitutes the separation that makes two domains:

There are four domains with regard to carrying on Shabbat:

a. A public domain; b. a private domain, which is a place ten handbreadths high or deep and four handbreadths by four handbreadths wide, or one enclosed by partitions ten handbreadths high; c. a karmelit, such as an open valley that is not enclosed by partitions but is not a place of public passage; likewise, a place more than three handbreadths high [but less than ten handbreadths] and four by four handbreadths wide, and other similar places; d. a “place of exemption,” which is a place three handbreadths or more high or deep, but which is not four handbreadths wide.

One who takes an object out from a private domain to a public domain, or brings it from there into a private domain, is liable to bring a sin-offering if he did so unwittingly. But one who takes an object from a private or public domain to a karmelit, or from a karmelit to either of them, is not liable to bring a sin-offering, although the Sages prohibited doing so. And one who takes an object from a place of exemption, or brings an object into it from any of the aforementioned domains, violates neither a prohibition from Torah law nor one of rabbinic origin.

And this is where there is liability for a sin-offering between them

, meaning: The division of two public domains from one another applies only when there is another domain between them such that, if one were to bring an object from the public domain into it, he would be liable to bring a sin-offering. This is the case when a private domain separates between the two public domains—

But

if a

karmelit separates between them,

and one who brings an object into it from a public domain is not liable to bring a sin-offering, since the prohibition against carrying from it or into it is only rabbinic—

it does not

constitute a separation according to Rabbi Yosei.

And

Abaye said:

Even

when there is a domain that is a

karmelit

separating between two public domains, it constitutes a separation according to Rabbi Yosei,

but a board [

a piece of wood or a post] that is not four handbreadths by four handbreadths wide—

does not

constitute a separation according to Rabbi Yosei!

Whereas

Rava said: Even a board

constitutes a separation.

And the statement that Rava made above, that the boundary and the ḥatzav interrupt with regard to Shabbat, follows his own view, since he maintains that even a board constitutes a separation.

And Rava proceeded—

who maintains that a boundary, a ḥatzav, and a board constitute a separation—

according to his reasoning [

Rava followed his own view]!

For Rava said:

If

A Shabbat domain

according to Rabbi Yosei

is like a domain with regard to bills of divorce,

meaning: Just as with regard to a bill of divorce, if he transferred ownership of his courtyard to her so that she could receive her bill of divorce there and thereby become divorced, and he placed her bill of divorce on a board in the courtyard, she is not divorced, because the board is distinct from the courtyard that he transferred to her and is not subsumed within it, and they are like two places ; so too with regard to Shabbat, the board between the two domains is not subsumed within the public domain, but is considered like another place, and it separates between the two domains. The Gemara is uncertain, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said [at the beginning of the matter above, on 55a]: A boundary and a ḥatzav interrupt with regard to the property of a convert, so that one does not acquire through possession of one part on behalf of his fellow until he takes possession of both parts:

If

there is neither—

in the field belonging to the property of the convert—

a boundary nor a ḥatzav, what is the law?

That is, in the case of a field whose boundaries are not marked, how much of it does one acquire through a single strike of a hoe, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan?

Rabbi Marinus explained in his name—

in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one struck the ground with a hoe in a field, he acquires

the entire

field

that is called by his name,

meaning, whenever it is called one field, such that people do not say, “These are so-and-so’s fields,” but rather, “This is so-and-so’s field.”

What are the circumstances?

He said,

he explained,

Rav Pappa:

The entire field

that they call

“the irrigation well of so-and-so,”

meaning, the entire field that the convert irrigated from one well, is acquired through one strike of a hoe.

Rav Aḥa bar Avya sat before Rav Asi, and sat and said in the name of Rav Asi bar Ḥanina

[Rav Aḥa bar Avya sat before Rav Asi and said this in the name of Rav Asi bar Ḥanina]:

A ḥatzov

[that is, the ḥatzav plant]

interrupts in the property of a convert,

and if one took possession from one side of it, he did not acquire the other side.

And we explain:

What is a ḥatzov

, meaning, what is this object, and why is it significant enough to be considered a boundary?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

It is a grass or tree

with which

[Joshua]

delimited the Land for Israel

, meaning, he planted the ḥatzav between the portion of each tribe and the portion of each individual within the tribe. He planted the ḥatzav there and used it to mark the boundaries because it stands on the boundary and draws nourishment from neither side, as its roots do not spread laterally.

And

he further

said, Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

Joshua apportioned only

the

towns situated

on the boundaries

alone.

That is, those towns—in the portion of each tribe—that Joshua mentioned in his book [“Joshua”] , why did he list these towns specifically?! Because these towns stood on the boundaries of the portions of those tribes, and this was to teach the extent of each tribe’s portion.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

Everything that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed

Moses

at the time of his death, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 34:1–5]: “Moses ascended from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the summit of the peak that faces Jericho, and the Lord showed him the entire Land: the Gilead as far as Dan. And all of Naphtali, and the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, and the entire land of Judah as far as the western sea. And the Negev and the plain, the valley of Jericho, the city of palms, as far as Zoar. And the Lord said to him: This is the Land that I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, ‘To your descendants I shall give it’; I have shown it to you with your eyes, but you shall not cross over there. And Moses died there . . .” This Land alone is

liable

for

tithes.

And we explain:

What does this exclude? [

What place does this tradition come to exclude, such that he is not obligated in tithe?]

It excludes

the land of the

Kenite

and the

Kenizzite and

the

Kadmonite,

which is the land of three nations in the Land of Israel that were promised to Abraham our forefather in the Covenant between the Pieces, but will be given to Israel only in the future; and even once they are given to them, they will not be subject to the obligation of tithe.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Meir says,

He explains: Where is the land of the Kenite, the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite?

Naftuha, Arva’a, and Shalme’a,

these are the lands of the Kenite, the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Mount Seir, Ammon, and Moab.

Rabbi Shimon says:

Ardiskis, Asia, and Hispania.

Mishna:

A. Our Mishna deals with the law governing witnesses who testified concerning a three-year חזקה and were found to be edim zomemim by other witnesses who said to them, “You were with us elsewhere.” The Torah states [Deuteronomy 19:18]: “And the judges shall investigate thoroughly, and behold, the witness is a false witness; he has testified falsely against his brother. And you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother.” Our Mishna explains how witnesses to a חזקה become edim zomemim and how they pay.

B. Witnesses do not become edim zomemim liable to pay money until all of them are refuted; and even if there were more than two witnesses, they do not become edim zomemim until all of them are refuted.

C. When monetary witnesses are found to be edim zomemim, they divide the money that they sought to obligate the defendant to pay among all the witnesses, even if there are one hundred of them.

If

there were two

witnesses

testifying about him [

the possessor]

that he had eaten the produce for three years

of the חזקה, and they came to support his claim, “I purchased it from the original owners,” and

the two were found

to be

zomemim:

those two witnesses together

pay him

the original owners

the entire amount [

the entire value of the land], for they had schemed to remove the land from its owners; and we maintain [Makkot 5a] that monetary liability is divided among edim zomemim—that is, the monetary loss is apportioned among the conspiring witnesses.

There were

two

testifying about him

concerning the first year,

that is, testifying that he had consumed its produce during the first year of his חזקה,

and two

others testifying about him

concerning the second year [

about the second year],

and two

others testifying about him

concerning the third year,

and all of them were found to be edim zomemim: