Bava Batra 56b (נו:) — the Talmud in English

Behold, the three groups of witnesses

divide among themselves

the payment of the value of the entire property.

If the witnesses were

three brothers

, each testifying about a different year,

and

there was

one

distant witness who

joined them

[for each and every one]:

These are three testimonies

, with regard to the brothers’ fitness to testify, since they are disqualified from testifying only in a single testimony, and three years are like three testimonies.

And they

, all the testimonies,

are one testimony

they

with regard to

the matter of

hazamah.

For if they are refuted, they divide the payment among themselves, and they are not rendered zomemim 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 the payment among themselves”:

And the Gemara explains:

Our Mishna

, which validates a group of witnesses that testifies only about one year out of the three years required for a ḥazaka, must necessarily be

not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva

, who does not validate them, as the Gemara explains below.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei said: When Abba Ḥalafta went

[my father, whose name was Ḥalafta]

to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri to study Torah.

And some say: It was Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri

who went

to Abba Ḥalafta to study Torah—

He said to him

: The possessor consumed the produce

for the first year in the presence of two witnesses

,

and the second year in the presence of two

other witnesses, and

the third year in the presence of two

other witnesses;

what

is the ruling regarding accepting their testimony so as to establish this as a ḥazaka?

He said to him: This is a ḥazaka.

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 the matter shall be established.” The verse states that the witnesses must testify about a complete

V Pisme skazano: «Po slovam dvukh svidetelei ustanavlivaetsia delo»; eto oznachaet, chto tolko

matter

,

and not

half a matter.

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

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

And the Gemara asks:

And the Rabbis

, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva,

this “

matter

and not

half a matter,”

what do they make of it

, what does it exclude according to them?

If you say it comes to exclude witnesses testifying to a girl’s coming of age, by testifying that she developed two pubic hairs, where

svidetelei, svidetelstvuyushchikh o dostizhenii devushkoi vozrasta vzroslosti, utverzhdaia, chto u nee vyrosli dva vola, kogda

one says: “I saw

«Volos

one

hair on her

back,”

and

one

says: “I saw

«Volos

one

hair on her

abdomen”

[in that place], and the verse teaches that they do not join together, because each testifies only about half a matter, since she requires two hairs as signs of coming of age—!?

It is impossible to say so. For:

Would

this

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

half a matter

?

It is

half a testimony

;

not “half a matter”!

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

Rather

, according to the Rabbis, the verse’s wording “matter,” which teaches “a matter and not half a matter,” comes

to exclude a case in which

kogda

two

witnesses

say: “

«Volos

One

hair we saw

on her back,” while

two

other witnesses

say: “

«Volos

One

hair we saw

on her abdomen.”

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

In this situation, even the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva concerning a two-year ḥazaka, agree that the two hairs must be present together, because only two hairs are signs of coming of age. Here, however, each group of witnesses sees only one of the two hairs and does not see the additional hair that is present, although it could see it!

This is unlike a ḥazaka, where the three years do not occur together, but one after the other. The group that saw the consumption of the produce in the first year [which is indeed “half a matter”] could not at that time, in that year, also see the consumption of the produce in the second and third years that complete the “matter”; therefore their testimony is accepted.

Rav Yehuda said:

If

one

of the witnesses

says: “The possessor consumed

the possessor

wheat

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

one

of the witnesses

says: “He consumed barley

for three years

—this is a ḥazaka;

that is, their testimony joins together to establish his possession of the field. The explanation of the case and the reason are clarified in the discussion.

Rav Naḥman thought that Rav Yehuda’s intention was not a case in which they contradicted one another in their testimony, for if so, their testimony certainly could not be joined. Rather, this was Rav Yehuda’s intention:

It is the practice of landowners to sow wheat one year and barley the next, and then to repeat the cycle. Rav Yehuda said that if one testified about the consumption of wheat—that is, that the possessor planted wheat in the first, third, and fifth years and consumed it—and the other testified about the consumption of barley—that is, in the second, fourth, and sixth years—their testimony joins together to establish a ḥazaka. For although they do not testify about one act, this is like two witnesses who each testify that a maneh was lent on a different day, whose testimony joins together according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa as one testimony establishing liability for a maneh, since according to each witness the defendant owes a maneh; so too, each of these two witnesses testifies about a complete ḥazaka.

Therefore

Rav Naḥman challenged

this ruling:

But if that is so

when

one says: “He consumed

the first, third, and fifth [years], and

the

one says:

he consumed

the second, fourth, and sixth [years],”

will

this too

be said to be

a ḥazaka!?

But this is impossible, and it is not comparable to the case in which one testifies about a maneh on a particular day and the other testifies about a maneh on another day, where they join together. In testimony concerning a maneh, each witness independently testifies about liability for a maneh; therefore, when two testify about liability for a maneh, the defendant becomes liable for a maneh on their testimony. In the present case, however, neither of them testifies that this person established possession in accordance with the law, for possession established intermittently is not a ḥazaka. Therefore, there is no basis for joining them—!?

He said

in reply

to him, Rav Yehuda

: “I too did not intend to validate them when one testifies that he consumed wheat in the first, third, and fifth years, and the other about 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 other testified about the consumption of barley for three years. Presumably, their intention is to those same three years; and since that is so, there is no basis for your challenge from one who says the first, third, and fifth years and one who says the second, fourth, and sixth years, for

is this comparable [to the matter cited as proof]—!?

razve primer podob en rassmatrivaemomu sluch aiu ]?!

There

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

in the year about which one witness testifies, the other does not testify [

the year about which this one testifies is not the year about which his fellow testifies]; rather, this one testifies concerning an interrupted claim of possession, and that one testifies concerning an interrupted claim of possession, and therefore it is impossible to combine them.

But

here,

in our case, presumably

both of them

testify concerning a single year [

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

And if so,

what can be said!

And although they contradict one another, this is of no consequence, because

people do not pay attention to the distinction between wheat and barley [

people do not clearly distinguish between a standing crop of wheat and a standing crop of barley], and one of them is mistaken; therefore, the two testimonies combine to form a single testimony.

We learned in the Mishna:

If there are three brothers and one other person joins them, these are three separate testimonies, and they constitute a single testimony with regard to hazama: