Bava Batra 56b — the Talmud in English

Behold, the three groups

divide among themselves

the payment of the value of the entire land.

If the witnesses were

three brothers,

each testifying about a different year,

and

there was

one

unrelated witness

joining with them

for each and every one:

These are three testimonies,

with regard to the fitness of the brothers to testify, for they are disqualified from testifying only in one testimony, and three years are like three testimonies.

And they,

all the testimonies,

are one testimony

they

for

the matter of

refutation.

For if they are refuted, they divide among themselves, and they do not refute them until all of them are refuted.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Two in the first year, two in the second, and two in the third, they divide among themselves:

And the Gemara explains:

Our Mishna,

our Mishna, which validates a group of witnesses that testifies only about one year out of the three years required for possession, necessarily is

not according to Rabbi Akiva,

who does not validate them, as it will explain below.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yose said: When Abba Halafta went

[my father, whose name was Halafta],

to Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri to study Torah.

And some say: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri

was the one who went

to Abba Halafta to study Torah—

He said to him:

The possessor consumed the produce

of the first year before two witnesses,

and

the second before two

other witnesses, and

the third before two

other witnesses;

what

is the ruling: shall we accept their testimony in order to consider this possession?

He said to him: This is possession.

He said to him: I too say so.

But Rabbi Akiva disputes this matter.

For Rabbi Akiva would say: It is written, “By the mouth of two witnesses a matter shall be established.” Thus, Scripture says that specifically a complete

“

matter”

shall the witnesses state,

and not a

half a matter.

For testimony joined from two groups of witnesses cannot be accepted, because each one of them relates only “half a matter.”

The same law applies to possession of three years: a group that does not testify about the consumption of the produce throughout all three years of the possession cannot be accepted, because the possession is completed through the three years together.

And the Gemara discusses:

And the Rabbis,

who dispute Rabbi Akiva,

this “

matter”

and not “

half a matter,”

what do they do with it,

what does it come to exclude according to them!?

If you say, to exclude

witnesses testifying about a girl’s maturity, by testifying that she produced two hairs, when

one says: “I saw

one

hair

on her

back,”

and

one

says: “I saw

one

hair

on her

belly”

[in that place], and Scripture teaches that they do not join because each one testifies only about half a matter, for she requires two hairs as signs of maturity!?

It is impossible to say this. For:

Is

this

testimony of each of the witnesses concerning one hair, in a separate place, considered testimony about

half a matter

!?

But it is

half a testimony

it,

and not “half a matter”!

The reason that their testimony is ineffective is that concerning each detail of the testimony, concerning each hair of the two hairs, there are not two witnesses, but only the testimony of one witness, which is considered “half a testimony.” But Scripture came to exclude testimony about “half a matter,” and not something that is also “half a testimony.”

Rather,

the words of Scripture, “matter,” teaching “a matter and not half a matter,” according to the Rabbis, come

to exclude

a case in which there were

two

witnesses

saying: “

One

hair

we saw

on her back,” and

two

other witnesses

saying: “

One

hair

we saw

on her belly.”

For here there are two complete testimonies concerning each detail of the testimony, and this is not half a testimony. Nevertheless, their testimony is not accepted, because each group testifies about only “half a matter.”

And in this manner, even the Sages, who dispute Rabbi Akiva concerning possession of two years, agree, since the two hairs must be in her simultaneously, for only two hairs are signs of maturity, whereas here each group of witnesses sees only one hair out of the two and does not see the additional existing hair, even though it could see it!

This is not so with possession, where the three years are not simultaneous, but rather are one after the other, and the group that saw the consumption of the produce of the first year could not see then, in that same year, also the consumption of the produce of the second and third years that complete the “matter”; therefore their testimony is accepted.

Rav Yehuda said:

If

one

of the witnesses

says: He consumed

the possessor

wheat,

that is, the possessor planted wheat for three years and consumed it,

and one

of the witnesses

says: He consumed barley

for three years,

this is possession;

that is, their testimony joins to establish him in possession of the field; and the explanation of the case and the reason are explained in the discussion.

And Rav Nahman thought that Rav Yehuda’s intention was not a case in which they contradict one another in their testimony, for if so, it would certainly be impossible to join their testimony. Rather, this was Rav Yehuda’s intention:

It is the practice of landowners that they sow wheat one year and barley one year, alternating repeatedly. And Rav Yehuda said that if one testified about the consumption of wheat—that is, that the possessor planted wheat and consumed it in the first, third, and fifth years—and the second testified about the consumption of barley, that is, the second, fourth, and sixth years, their testimony joins to establish possession. For although they do not testify about one act, this is like two witnesses who each testify about the loan of a maneh on a different day, whose testimony joins according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha, as one testimony to obligate a maneh, since according to each witness he owes a maneh, and these two witnesses also each testify about a complete possession.

Therefore

Rav Nahman challenged

this law:

But if that is so,

when

one says: He consumed

the first, third, and fifth, and

the

one says:

He consumed

the second, fourth, and sixth,

shall

it also be the case

that we say

that it is possession!?

But this matter is impossible, and it is not similar to the case in which one testifies about a maneh on a certain day and another testifies about a maneh on another day, where they join, because in testimony concerning a maneh each one by himself testifies about an obligation of a maneh; therefore, when two testify about an obligation of a maneh, the litigant becomes obligated to pay a maneh on their testimony. But in the present case, neither of them testifies that this person established possession lawfully, for possession through skipping is not possession, and if so, there is no possibility of joining them!?

He said

he explained

to him, Rav Yehuda,

to Rav Nahman: I too did not intend to validate them when one testified about the consumption of wheat in the first, third, and fifth years, and the second about the consumption of barley in the second, fourth, and sixth years. I validated them only when one testified about the consumption of wheat for three years, and the second testified about the consumption of barley for three years. Presumably, their intention is to those same three years, and since this is so, you cannot challenge me from one who says “first, third, and fifth” and one who says “second, fourth, and sixth,” for

how now

[is the case under discussion similar to the proof]!?

There,

in the manner that you said; therefore, it is impossible to combine them, because

in the year about which the master testifies, the master does not testify

[in the year about which this one testifies, the other does not testify]; rather, this one testifies concerning a hazaka that is not continuous, and that one testifies concerning a hazaka that is not continuous, and therefore it is impossible to combine them.

But

here,

in our case, presumably

both of them

testify concerning one and the same year

[the two witnesses testify concerning the same years]; rather, this one testifies concerning the eating of wheat during those years, and that one testifies concerning the eating of barley during those years—

And if so,

what is there to say!

And although they contradict one another, there is nothing in this, because

with regard to wheat and barley, people do not pay attention

[people do not properly distinguish between standing wheat and standing barley], and one of them is mistaken, and the two of them combine into one testimony.

We learned in the Mishna:

Three brothers, with one other person joining them—these are three testimonies, and they are one testimony for purposes of making them liable for conspiring: