Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 19, 2017 | 讻状讗 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Batra 56

If there is a border or a sea quill plant in the middle of a field, it separates the field regarding certain halachot but not others. 聽One case it works for is acquiring land that belonged to a convert who died (hefker). 聽One opinion is that is is not considered a separation for carrying on Shabbat and Rava says that it is. 聽The exact details about what this means are described in the gemara. 聽If there is no border, how much of the field goes to the one who acquired it? 聽The gemara then discusses that the sea quill was used by Yehoshua to demarcate borders between the tribes when he conquered聽Israel. 聽From there the gemara聽mentions another issue relating to Yehoshua and then one relating to the borders of Israel that Moshe was shown by God right before he died which are the ones that are obligated in tithes. 聽The ones excluded from this are the lands that belonged to other neighbors (not from the 7 nations) – the Kini, Knizi and Kadmoni. 聽There is a 3 way argument about what geographic areas this is referring to. 聽 The next mishna聽and gemara discuss issues regarding testimony about the 3 year chazaka. 聽Can 3 groups of witnesses testify each about a separate year? 聽Is this considered a whole unit of testimony (which is acceptable) or a part of a testimony (which is not acceptable)?聽 What if 2 witnesses testified about all 3 years but disagreed about which type of produce the person benefitted from? 聽Would their testimony be accepted?

讘专砖讜转 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘 讘砖转讬 专砖讜讬讜转 驻讟讜专

and in one domain, i.e., he carried half the dried fig into the same public domain each time, he is liable, but if it was in two domains, i.e., he carried the item into two separate public domains, he is exempt.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讜讛讜讗 砖讬砖 讞讬讜讘 讞讟讗转 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讗讘诇 讻专诪诇讬转 诇讗 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讻专诪诇讬转 讗讘诇 驻讬住诇讗 诇讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讬住诇讗

And Rabba says in explanation of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion: And this division of the public domain applies only where there is a property where one would incur liability to bring a sin-offering if one unintentionally carried out of it or into it, i.e., a private domain, between the two sections. But if there was only a karmelit, i.e., an area that is not defined as either a private domain or public domain and to and from which the prohibition against carrying is only of rabbinic origin, it does not divide the public domain. Abaye says: Even a karmelit divides the public domain into separate sections, but a beam [pisela] does not. Rava says: Even a beam divides the public domain, since it is no less than a boundary or sea squill, which do serve as a barrier between fields.

讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 专砖讜转 砖讘转 讻专砖讜转 讙讬讟讬谉 讚诪讬

The Gemara notes: And Rava follows his own line of reasoning, as Rava says: The definition of a domain for the purpose of Shabbat is like the definition of a domain for the purpose of bills of divorce: Just as a beam is defined as a distinct domain for the purpose of bills of divorce, so too it is considered a distinct domain for the purpose of Shabbat.

讗讬谉 砖诐 诇讗 诪爪专 讜诇讗 讞爪讘 诪讗讬 驻讬专砖 专讘讬 诪专讬谞讜住 诪砖诪讜 讻诇 砖谞拽专讗转 注诇 砖诪讜 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚拽专讜 诇讬讛 讘讬 讙专讙讜转讗 讚驻诇谞讬讗

The Gemara returns to discuss the acquisition of a field that belonged to a convert who died without heirs. The Gemara asks: If there was no boundary and there was no sea squill, what are the limits to the acquisition? Rabbi Marinus explains in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Any area that is called by his name. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances where it is called by his name? Rav Pappa said: Where it is called: The place that is irrigated by so-and-so鈥檚 well. The entire area referred to as such would be considered one section with regard to acquisition.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 注讜讬讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗住讬 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讞爪讜讘讗 诪驻住讬拽 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专

Rav A岣 bar Avya sat before Rabbi Asi, and he sat and was saying the following in the name of Rabbi Asi bar 岣nina: A row of sea squill serves as a barrier with regard to the property of a convert who died without heirs, so that each section is considered a distinct field.

诪讗讬 讞爪讜讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讘讜 转讬讞诐 讬讛讜砖注 诇讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讛讗专抓

The Gemara asks: What is sea squill? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It is the growth by which Joshua established the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael for the Jews.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 诪谞讛 讬讛讜砖注 讗诇讗 注讬讬专讜转 讛注讜诪讚讜转 注诇 讛讙讘讜诇讬谉

The Gemara teaches a related statement. And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: In his book, Joshua enumerated only the towns that stand upon the borders, but not the towns that were within the portions of each tribe.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖讛专讗讛讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇诪砖讛 讞讬讬讘 讘诪注砖专

On the subject of the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Any area that the Holy One, Blessed be He, showed to Moses before his death, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the Lord showed him all the land, Gilead鈥s far as Zoar鈥 (Deuteronomy 34:1鈥3), is within the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael, and therefore produce that grows there is obligated in tithe.

诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 拽讬谞讬 拽谞讬讝讬 讜拽讚诪讜谞讬 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞驻转讜讞讗 注专讘讗讛 讜砖诇诪讗讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛专 砖注讬专 注诪讜谉 讜诪讜讗讘 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注专讚讬住拽讬住 讗住讬讗 讜讗住驻诪讬讗

The Gemara asks: To exclude what area? The Gemara answers: To exclude the lands of the Kenite, Kenizzite, and Kadmonite, as God had promised to Abraham at the Covenant between the Pieces: 鈥淭o your offspring have I given this land鈥o鈥he Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite鈥 (Genesis 15:18鈥19). These areas are not obligated in tithe. What are these three areas? It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: They are Naftu岣, Arva鈥檃, and Shalma鈥檃. Rabbi Yehuda says: They are Mount Seir, Ammon, and Moab. Rabbi Shimon says: They are Ardisekis, Asya, and Aspamya.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬讜 砖谞讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖讗讻诇讛 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讝讜诪诪讬诐 诪砖诇诪讬谉 诇讜 讗转 讛讻诇 砖谞讬诐 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 砖谞讬诐 讘砖谞讬讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讘砖诇讬砖讬转

MISHNA: If there were two witnesses testifying on his behalf that he, the possessor of the land, worked and profited from a field for three years, and therefore has presumptive ownership, and they were found to be conspiring witnesses, as it was proven that they were not present to witness the matter about which they had testified, they must pay the true owner of the field the full value of the field that they attempted, through their testimony, to remove from his possession, as it is written in the Torah: 鈥淭hen shall you do to him, as he had planned to do to his brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19). If two witnesses testify that he worked and profited from the field during the first year, another two testify that he worked and profited from it during the second year, and another two testify that he worked and profited from it during the third, and all were found to be conspiring witnesses,

诪砖诇砖讬谉 讘讬谞讬讛诐

payment of the value of the field to the owner is divided among them.

砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 诪爪讟专祝 注诪讛诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇砖 注讚讬讜转 讜讛谉 注讚讜转 讗讞转 诇讛讝诪讛

If the testimony was given by three brothers, each of whom testify about one year, and another unrelated individual joined with each of the brothers as the second witness, these are three distinct testimonies and they are accepted by the court. If they were to be considered one testimony, it would not be accepted, as brothers may not testify together. But they are one testimony for the purpose of rendering them as conspiring witnesses, and the payment is divided among them.

讙诪壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻砖讛诇讱 讗讘讗 讞诇驻转讗 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诇诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗爪诇 讗讘讗 讞诇驻转讗 诇诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖讗讻诇讛 砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 砖谞讬讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 砖诇讬砖讬转 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 讝讜 讞讝拽讛

GEMARA: The Gemara notes: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, 2:10) that Rabbi Yosei said: When Abba 岣lafta, Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 father, went to Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri to study Torah, and some say: When Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri went to Abba 岣lafta to study Torah, he said to him: What is the halakha if there is one who worked and profited from a field in the presence of two witnesses during the first year, then in the presence of two other witnesses during the second year, and finally in the presence of two other witnesses during the third year? He said to him: This is sufficient for establishing the presumption of ownership.

讗诪专 诇讜 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讗诇讗 砖专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讞讜诇拽 讘讚讘专 讝讛 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讚讘专 讜诇讗 讞爪讬 讚讘专

The latter said to him: I say this as well, but Rabbi Akiva disagrees with regard to this matter, as Rabbi Akiva would say that since the verse states: 鈥淎t the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:15), one can derive that testimony is accepted only with regard to a complete matter, and not with regard to half of a matter. In this mishna, although presumptive ownership requires testimony that the property had been worked and profited from for three years, testimony is accepted from each pair of witnesses with regard to one year. Consequently, the ruling of the mishna does not accord with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讚讘专 讜诇讗 讞爪讬 讚讘专 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 讘讙讘讛 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 讘讻专讬住讛 讛讗讬 讞爪讬 讚讘专 讜讞爪讬 注讚讜转 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, who accept the testimony of each of the three pairs of witnesses, what do they do with this derivation of: A complete matter, and not half of a matter, i.e., what type of testimony is disqualified based on this derivation? If we say that it serves to exclude a case where two witnesses testify that a young woman has two pubic hairs and has therefore reached maturity, where one says she has one hair on her back and one says she has one hair on her lower abdomen, i.e., they are testifying to two different pubic hairs, and in this case the Rabbis say this testimony is not accepted, since they each testify with regard to only half of the matter, that is difficult. But this is both half of a matter and half of a testimony, as there is only one witness with regard to each pubic hair. This testimony would not be valid even without the derivation.

讗诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞转 讘讙讘讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞转 讘讻专住讛

Rather, in the opinion of the Rabbis the derivation serves to exclude a case where two witnesses say she has one hair on her back and two witnesses say she has one hair on her lower abdomen. In this case, each group of witnesses gives full testimony with regard to half of a matter, i.e., one pubic hair, as both hairs must be present concurrently in order for her to assume the status of an adult. By contrast, in the case of the mishna, the years are by definition not concurrent. Therefore, the Rabbis rule that testimony with regard to one year is accepted.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讗讻诇讛 讞讟讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讗讻诇讛 砖注讜专讬诐 讛专讬 讝讜 讞讝拽讛 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讗讻诇讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 砖诇讬砖讬转 讜讞诪讬砖讬转 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讗讻诇讛 砖谞讬讛 专讘讬注讬转 讜砖砖讬转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讛讜讬讗 讞讝拽讛

搂 In a related matter, Rav Yehuda says: If two witnesses testify that one had worked and profited from a field for three years, where one witness says he consumed wheat from the field, and one says he consumed barley from it, this is sufficient for establishing the presumption of ownership. Rav Na岣an objects to this ruling: If that is so, then if one witness says he worked and profited from the field during the first, third, and fifth years; and one witness says he worked and profited from it during the second, fourth, and sixth years, would you also say that this is sufficient for establishing the presumption of ownership? What is the difference between testifying about different crops and testifying about different years?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讘砖转讗 讚拽讗 诪住讛讬讚 诪专 诇讗 拽讗 诪住讛讬讚 诪专 讛讻讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讞讚讗 砖转讗 拽讗 诪住讛讚讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘讬谉 讞讬讟讬 诇砖注专讬 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讬讛讜 讚讗讬谞砖讬

Rav Yehuda said to him: How can these cases be compared? There, i.e., in your example, with regard to the year about which one Master, i.e., witness, is testifying, the other Master is not testifying about it, while here, both are testifying with regard to one year. What is there to say, that there is a contradiction in their testimonies between wheat and barley? It does not enter people鈥檚 minds to note this distinction. Two witnesses did, however, testify that he worked and profited from the field for three years.

砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬谉 讜讗讞讚 诪爪讟专祝 注诪讛谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇砖 注讚讬讜转 讜讛谉 注讚讜转 讗讞转 诇讛讝诪讛

搂 The mishna teaches that if the testimony was given by three brothers, each of whom testified about one year, and another, unrelated individual joined with each of the brothers as the second witness, these are three distinct testimonies and they are accepted by the court. But they are one testimony for the purpose of rendering them as conspiring witnesses.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 56

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 56

讘专砖讜转 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘 讘砖转讬 专砖讜讬讜转 驻讟讜专

and in one domain, i.e., he carried half the dried fig into the same public domain each time, he is liable, but if it was in two domains, i.e., he carried the item into two separate public domains, he is exempt.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讜讛讜讗 砖讬砖 讞讬讜讘 讞讟讗转 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讗讘诇 讻专诪诇讬转 诇讗 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讻专诪诇讬转 讗讘诇 驻讬住诇讗 诇讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讬住诇讗

And Rabba says in explanation of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion: And this division of the public domain applies only where there is a property where one would incur liability to bring a sin-offering if one unintentionally carried out of it or into it, i.e., a private domain, between the two sections. But if there was only a karmelit, i.e., an area that is not defined as either a private domain or public domain and to and from which the prohibition against carrying is only of rabbinic origin, it does not divide the public domain. Abaye says: Even a karmelit divides the public domain into separate sections, but a beam [pisela] does not. Rava says: Even a beam divides the public domain, since it is no less than a boundary or sea squill, which do serve as a barrier between fields.

讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 专砖讜转 砖讘转 讻专砖讜转 讙讬讟讬谉 讚诪讬

The Gemara notes: And Rava follows his own line of reasoning, as Rava says: The definition of a domain for the purpose of Shabbat is like the definition of a domain for the purpose of bills of divorce: Just as a beam is defined as a distinct domain for the purpose of bills of divorce, so too it is considered a distinct domain for the purpose of Shabbat.

讗讬谉 砖诐 诇讗 诪爪专 讜诇讗 讞爪讘 诪讗讬 驻讬专砖 专讘讬 诪专讬谞讜住 诪砖诪讜 讻诇 砖谞拽专讗转 注诇 砖诪讜 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚拽专讜 诇讬讛 讘讬 讙专讙讜转讗 讚驻诇谞讬讗

The Gemara returns to discuss the acquisition of a field that belonged to a convert who died without heirs. The Gemara asks: If there was no boundary and there was no sea squill, what are the limits to the acquisition? Rabbi Marinus explains in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Any area that is called by his name. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances where it is called by his name? Rav Pappa said: Where it is called: The place that is irrigated by so-and-so鈥檚 well. The entire area referred to as such would be considered one section with regard to acquisition.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 注讜讬讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗住讬 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讞爪讜讘讗 诪驻住讬拽 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专

Rav A岣 bar Avya sat before Rabbi Asi, and he sat and was saying the following in the name of Rabbi Asi bar 岣nina: A row of sea squill serves as a barrier with regard to the property of a convert who died without heirs, so that each section is considered a distinct field.

诪讗讬 讞爪讜讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讘讜 转讬讞诐 讬讛讜砖注 诇讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讛讗专抓

The Gemara asks: What is sea squill? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It is the growth by which Joshua established the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael for the Jews.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 诪谞讛 讬讛讜砖注 讗诇讗 注讬讬专讜转 讛注讜诪讚讜转 注诇 讛讙讘讜诇讬谉

The Gemara teaches a related statement. And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: In his book, Joshua enumerated only the towns that stand upon the borders, but not the towns that were within the portions of each tribe.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖讛专讗讛讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇诪砖讛 讞讬讬讘 讘诪注砖专

On the subject of the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Any area that the Holy One, Blessed be He, showed to Moses before his death, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the Lord showed him all the land, Gilead鈥s far as Zoar鈥 (Deuteronomy 34:1鈥3), is within the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael, and therefore produce that grows there is obligated in tithe.

诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 拽讬谞讬 拽谞讬讝讬 讜拽讚诪讜谞讬 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞驻转讜讞讗 注专讘讗讛 讜砖诇诪讗讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛专 砖注讬专 注诪讜谉 讜诪讜讗讘 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注专讚讬住拽讬住 讗住讬讗 讜讗住驻诪讬讗

The Gemara asks: To exclude what area? The Gemara answers: To exclude the lands of the Kenite, Kenizzite, and Kadmonite, as God had promised to Abraham at the Covenant between the Pieces: 鈥淭o your offspring have I given this land鈥o鈥he Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite鈥 (Genesis 15:18鈥19). These areas are not obligated in tithe. What are these three areas? It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: They are Naftu岣, Arva鈥檃, and Shalma鈥檃. Rabbi Yehuda says: They are Mount Seir, Ammon, and Moab. Rabbi Shimon says: They are Ardisekis, Asya, and Aspamya.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬讜 砖谞讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖讗讻诇讛 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讝讜诪诪讬诐 诪砖诇诪讬谉 诇讜 讗转 讛讻诇 砖谞讬诐 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 砖谞讬诐 讘砖谞讬讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讘砖诇讬砖讬转

MISHNA: If there were two witnesses testifying on his behalf that he, the possessor of the land, worked and profited from a field for three years, and therefore has presumptive ownership, and they were found to be conspiring witnesses, as it was proven that they were not present to witness the matter about which they had testified, they must pay the true owner of the field the full value of the field that they attempted, through their testimony, to remove from his possession, as it is written in the Torah: 鈥淭hen shall you do to him, as he had planned to do to his brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19). If two witnesses testify that he worked and profited from the field during the first year, another two testify that he worked and profited from it during the second year, and another two testify that he worked and profited from it during the third, and all were found to be conspiring witnesses,

诪砖诇砖讬谉 讘讬谞讬讛诐

payment of the value of the field to the owner is divided among them.

砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 诪爪讟专祝 注诪讛诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇砖 注讚讬讜转 讜讛谉 注讚讜转 讗讞转 诇讛讝诪讛

If the testimony was given by three brothers, each of whom testify about one year, and another unrelated individual joined with each of the brothers as the second witness, these are three distinct testimonies and they are accepted by the court. If they were to be considered one testimony, it would not be accepted, as brothers may not testify together. But they are one testimony for the purpose of rendering them as conspiring witnesses, and the payment is divided among them.

讙诪壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻砖讛诇讱 讗讘讗 讞诇驻转讗 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诇诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗爪诇 讗讘讗 讞诇驻转讗 诇诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖讗讻诇讛 砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 砖谞讬讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 砖诇讬砖讬转 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 讝讜 讞讝拽讛

GEMARA: The Gemara notes: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, 2:10) that Rabbi Yosei said: When Abba 岣lafta, Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 father, went to Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri to study Torah, and some say: When Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri went to Abba 岣lafta to study Torah, he said to him: What is the halakha if there is one who worked and profited from a field in the presence of two witnesses during the first year, then in the presence of two other witnesses during the second year, and finally in the presence of two other witnesses during the third year? He said to him: This is sufficient for establishing the presumption of ownership.

讗诪专 诇讜 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讗诇讗 砖专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讞讜诇拽 讘讚讘专 讝讛 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讚讘专 讜诇讗 讞爪讬 讚讘专

The latter said to him: I say this as well, but Rabbi Akiva disagrees with regard to this matter, as Rabbi Akiva would say that since the verse states: 鈥淎t the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:15), one can derive that testimony is accepted only with regard to a complete matter, and not with regard to half of a matter. In this mishna, although presumptive ownership requires testimony that the property had been worked and profited from for three years, testimony is accepted from each pair of witnesses with regard to one year. Consequently, the ruling of the mishna does not accord with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讚讘专 讜诇讗 讞爪讬 讚讘专 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 讘讙讘讛 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 讘讻专讬住讛 讛讗讬 讞爪讬 讚讘专 讜讞爪讬 注讚讜转 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, who accept the testimony of each of the three pairs of witnesses, what do they do with this derivation of: A complete matter, and not half of a matter, i.e., what type of testimony is disqualified based on this derivation? If we say that it serves to exclude a case where two witnesses testify that a young woman has two pubic hairs and has therefore reached maturity, where one says she has one hair on her back and one says she has one hair on her lower abdomen, i.e., they are testifying to two different pubic hairs, and in this case the Rabbis say this testimony is not accepted, since they each testify with regard to only half of the matter, that is difficult. But this is both half of a matter and half of a testimony, as there is only one witness with regard to each pubic hair. This testimony would not be valid even without the derivation.

讗诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞转 讘讙讘讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞转 讘讻专住讛

Rather, in the opinion of the Rabbis the derivation serves to exclude a case where two witnesses say she has one hair on her back and two witnesses say she has one hair on her lower abdomen. In this case, each group of witnesses gives full testimony with regard to half of a matter, i.e., one pubic hair, as both hairs must be present concurrently in order for her to assume the status of an adult. By contrast, in the case of the mishna, the years are by definition not concurrent. Therefore, the Rabbis rule that testimony with regard to one year is accepted.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讗讻诇讛 讞讟讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讗讻诇讛 砖注讜专讬诐 讛专讬 讝讜 讞讝拽讛 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讗讻诇讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 砖诇讬砖讬转 讜讞诪讬砖讬转 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讗讻诇讛 砖谞讬讛 专讘讬注讬转 讜砖砖讬转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讛讜讬讗 讞讝拽讛

搂 In a related matter, Rav Yehuda says: If two witnesses testify that one had worked and profited from a field for three years, where one witness says he consumed wheat from the field, and one says he consumed barley from it, this is sufficient for establishing the presumption of ownership. Rav Na岣an objects to this ruling: If that is so, then if one witness says he worked and profited from the field during the first, third, and fifth years; and one witness says he worked and profited from it during the second, fourth, and sixth years, would you also say that this is sufficient for establishing the presumption of ownership? What is the difference between testifying about different crops and testifying about different years?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讘砖转讗 讚拽讗 诪住讛讬讚 诪专 诇讗 拽讗 诪住讛讬讚 诪专 讛讻讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讞讚讗 砖转讗 拽讗 诪住讛讚讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘讬谉 讞讬讟讬 诇砖注专讬 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讬讛讜 讚讗讬谞砖讬

Rav Yehuda said to him: How can these cases be compared? There, i.e., in your example, with regard to the year about which one Master, i.e., witness, is testifying, the other Master is not testifying about it, while here, both are testifying with regard to one year. What is there to say, that there is a contradiction in their testimonies between wheat and barley? It does not enter people鈥檚 minds to note this distinction. Two witnesses did, however, testify that he worked and profited from the field for three years.

砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬谉 讜讗讞讚 诪爪讟专祝 注诪讛谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇砖 注讚讬讜转 讜讛谉 注讚讜转 讗讞转 诇讛讝诪讛

搂 The mishna teaches that if the testimony was given by three brothers, each of whom testified about one year, and another, unrelated individual joined with each of the brothers as the second witness, these are three distinct testimonies and they are accepted by the court. But they are one testimony for the purpose of rendering them as conspiring witnesses.

Scroll To Top