Bava Kamma 70b (ע:) — the Talmud in English

He said to him:

This is a rabbinic enactment: anyone who possesses land for three years—that is, he consumes its produce—and claims that he purchased it from its original owners is believed in his claim and need not produce a deed of sale. The Sages enacted this because purchasers do not ordinarily preserve their deeds for more than three years. They relied on the assumption that, had the land not belonged to the purchaser, the original owners would not have allowed him to consume its produce without protesting.

If he consumed it

the purchaser—the produce of the field concerning which he claims, “It is purchased by me”—

for the first year in the presence of two witnesses,

that is, two testify concerning his consumption during the first year,

and for the second year in the presence of two

other witnesses,

and for the third year in the presence of two

other witnesses,

what

is the ruling? Can their testimony be combined to establish possession of the land in the hands of the purchaser?

He said to him: This is possession!

He said to him: I too say so; however, Rabbi Akiva disagrees in this matter, for Rabbi Akiva would say: “A matter

and not half a matter,”

and each group does not testify concerning a complete matter, namely, possession for three years.

If so, should we say that our Mishna—which validates witnesses to slaughter who are witnesses to “half a matter”—is not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva?

Abaye said: You may even say that it is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva

and that our Mishna is nevertheless valid.

Does Rabbi Akiva not concede that, when two witnesses say: “

He betrothed

a woman,”

and two

others

say

about another man that he

had relations

with this woman, they put the adulterer to death on the basis of this testimony? And this is because:

Although the witnesses to intercourse require the witnesses to betrothal,

and this is “half a matter,” nevertheless,

since the witnesses to betrothal do not require the witnesses to intercourse,

for even without the testimony of the second group that she committed adultery, they testify that she is a married woman and forbidden to everyone, therefore, even with regard to the testimony of the second group,

“a matter”

complete

is applicable to it. This is unlike witnesses to possession, where the testimony of each group, without the other groups, is entirely ineffective.

This case is not comparable to witnesses establishing possession, since the testimony of each group, without the other groups, has no significance at all.

If so,

here too,

in our Mishna,

although the witnesses to slaughter require the witnesses to theft,

for if there is no theft, there is neither slaughter nor sale, nevertheless,

since the witnesses to theft do not require the witnesses to slaughter,

for they make the thief liable to double payment whether he slaughtered the animal or did not slaughter it,

“a matter”

is applicable to it with regard to the testimony concerning the slaughter. Even Rabbi Akiva concedes in our Mishna that the witnesses to slaughter are accepted.

And we explain:

And we explain:

And the Rabbis,

who disagree with Rabbi Akiva even concerning witnesses to possession and validate testimony that is “half a matter,”

this

verse,

“a matter,”

which implies:

and not half a matter—what does it exclude

what instance of “half a matter” does the verse come to exclude?

And we explain:

To exclude

the witnesses to a woman’s maturity, established by two hairs, when one witness

says: One

hair I saw on her

back

between the joints of her fingers,

and one says: One

hair I saw on her

belly.

And we challenge this: But

this

testimony is

half a

matter

and half

testimony

as well!?

For you have no two witnesses testifying concerning two hairs: this one testifies concerning one hair, and that one testifies concerning a different hair, so that concerning each hair there is only one witness.

Rather, according to the Rabbis, the verse “a matter” comes

to exclude:

two say: One on her back, and two say: One on her belly.

And this is because

these—

the first group—

say: She is a minor, and

also

these—

the second group—

say: She is a minor.

We learned in the Mishna: “He stole and sold on Shabbat” ... and he pays the fourfold and fivefold payments. And we challenge this: But it was taught in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna, that one who sells on Shabbat is exempt from the fourfold and fivefold payments!? He said— he answered— Rami bar Hama: When that exemption was taught, it referred to a case in which the sale was performed in violation of Shabbat, and when he said to him, the purchaser said to the thief on Shabbat: “Cut off a fig from my fig tree”—for which he is liable to death— from my fig tree as payment for the stolen animal, “and let your thefts acquire me.”

We learned in the Mishna:

He stole and sold on Shabbat ...

he pays the fourfold and fivefold payment. And we challenge this:

But it was taught

in a beraita that one who sells on Shabbat

is exempt

from the fourfold and fivefold payment!?

He said

—he answered—

Rami bar Hama: When that exemption was taught,

it was referring to a case in which the sale was performed in violation of Shabbat,

and when he says to him,

the purchaser saying to the thief on Shabbat:

“Cut off a fig

from my fig tree—an act for which you are liable to death—

from my fig tree

as payment for the stolen animal,

and your thefts will thereby become mine.

Here too, in the beraita, even though with regard to payment, if the buyer sues