If there is no border, how does one determine how much of the field was acquired by the buyer? The sea quill was used by Yehoshua to demarcate borders between the tribes when they conquered the land of Israel. In the book of Yehoshua, some cities were listed but not others – why? The boundaries given to Moshe are those used to determine which land is obligated in tithes. The ones excluded from this are the lands that belonged to other neighbors (not from the seven nations) – the Kini, Knizi and Kadmoni. There is a debate among three rabbis about where geographically these lands were. The Mishna and Gemara discuss issues regarding testimony for one who is trying to establish a three-year chazaka. Can three groups of witnesses testify each about a separate year? Is this considered a whole unit of testimony (which is acceptable) or a part of a testimony (which is not acceptable)? If two witnesses testified about all three years but disagreed about which type of produce the person benefitted from, would their testimony be accepted?
Bava Batra
Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z”l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z”l.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Bava Batra
Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z”l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z”l.
Bava Batra 56
בִּרְשׁוּת אַחַת – חַיָּיב, בִּשְׁתֵּי רְשׁוּיוֹת – פָּטוּר.
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.
וְאָמַר רַבָּה: וְהוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ חִיּוּב חַטָּאת בֵּינֵיהֶם, אֲבָל כַּרְמְלִית – לֹא. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ כַּרְמְלִית, אֲבָל פִּיסְלָא – לֹא. רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ פִּיסְלָא.
And Rabba says in explanation of Rabbi Yosei’s 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.
וְאַזְדָּא רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: רְשׁוּת שַׁבָּת כִּרְשׁוּת גִּיטִּין דָּמֵי.
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.
אֵין שָׁם לֹא מֶצֶר וְלֹא חָצָב, מַאי? פֵּירֵשׁ רַבִּי מָרִינוּס מִשְּׁמוֹ: כׇּל שֶׁנִּקְרֵאת עַל שְׁמוֹ. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דְּקָרוּ לֵיהּ ״בֵּי גַרְגּוּתָא דִּפְלָנְיָא״.
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 Yoḥanan: 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’s well. The entire area referred to as such would be considered one section with regard to acquisition.
יָתֵיב רַב אַחָא בַּר עַוְיָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַסִּי, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַסִּי בַּר חֲנִינָא: חֲצוּבָא מַפְסֵיק בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר.
Rav Aḥa bar Avya sat before Rabbi Asi, and he sat and was saying the following in the name of Rabbi Asi bar Ḥanina: 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.
מַאי חֲצוּבָא? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: שֶׁבּוֹ תִּיחֵם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הָאָרֶץ.
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.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לֹא מָנָה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶלָּא עֲיָירוֹת הָעוֹמְדוֹת עַל הַגְּבוּלִין.
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.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כֹּל שֶׁהֶרְאָהוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה – חַיָּיב בְּמַעֲשֵׂר.
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: “And the Lord showed him all the land, Gilead…as far as Zoar” (Deuteronomy 34:1–3), is within the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael, and therefore produce that grows there is obligated in tithe.
לְאַפּוֹקֵי מַאי? לְאַפּוֹקֵי קֵינִי, קְנִיזִּי וְקַדְמוֹנִי. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: נַפְתּוֹחָא, עַרְבָאָה וְשַׁלְמָאָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַר שֵׂעִיר, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: עַרְדִּיסָקִיס, אַסְיָא וְאַסְפַּמְיָא.
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: “To your offspring have I given this land…to…the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite” (Genesis 15:18–19). These areas are not obligated in tithe. What are these three areas? It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: They are Naftuḥa, Arva’a, and Shalma’a. Rabbi Yehuda says: They are Mount Seir, Ammon, and Moab. Rabbi Shimon says: They are Ardisekis, Asya, and Aspamya.
מַתְנִי׳ הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים, וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִים – מְשַׁלְּמִין לוֹ אֶת הַכֹּל. שְׁנַיִם בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, שְׁנַיִם בַּשְּׁנִיָּה, וּשְׁנַיִם בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית –
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: “Then shall you do to him, as he had planned to do to his brother” (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,
מְשַׁלְּשִׁין בֵּינֵיהֶם.
payment of the value of the field to the owner is divided among them.
שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִים, וְאֶחָד מִצְטָרֵף עִמָּהֶם – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שָׁלֹשׁ עֵדֻיוֹת, וְהֵן עֵדוּת אַחַת לַהֲזָמָה.
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.
גְּמָ׳ מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: כְּשֶׁהָלַךְ אַבָּא חֲלַפְתָּא אֵצֶל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אֵצֶל אַבָּא חֲלַפְתָּא לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה, אָמַר לוֹ: הֲרֵי שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, שְׁנִיָּה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, שְׁלִישִׁית בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם – מַהוּ? אָמַר לוֹ: הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה.
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 Ḥalafta, Rabbi Yosei’s father, went to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri to study Torah, and some say: When Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri went to Abba Ḥalafta 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.
אָמַר לוֹ: אַף אֲנִי אוֹמֵר כֵּן, אֶלָּא שֶׁרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא חוֹלֵק בְּדָבָר זֶה; שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״דָּבָר״ – וְלֹא חֲצִי דָבָר.
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: “At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established” (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.
וְרַבָּנַן – הַאי ״דָּבָר״ וְלֹא חֲצִי דָבָר, מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? אִילֵּימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי אֶחָד אוֹמֵר אַחַת בְּגַבָּהּ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אַחַת בִּכְרֵיסָהּ; הַאי חֲצִי דָבָר וַחֲצִי עֵדוּת הִיא!
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.
אֶלָּא לְמַעוֹטֵי שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים אַחַת בְּגַבָּהּ, וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים אַחַת בִּכְרֵסָהּ.
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.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: אֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֲכָלָהּ חִטִּים, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֲכָלָהּ שְׂעוֹרִים – הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב נַחְמָן: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: אֲכָלָהּ רִאשׁוֹנָה שְׁלִישִׁית וַחֲמִישִׁית, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר: אֲכָלָהּ שְׁנִיָּה רְבִיעִית וְשִׁשִּׁית, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּהָוְיָא חֲזָקָה?!
§ 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 Naḥman 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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם, בְּשַׁתָּא דְּקָא מַסְהֵיד מָר – לָא קָא מַסְהֵיד מָר; הָכָא, תַּרְוַיְיהוּ בַּחֲדָא שַׁתָּא קָא מַסְהֲדִי. מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר – בֵּין חִיטֵּי לִשְׂעָרֵי? לָאו אַדַּעְתַּיְיהוּ דְּאִינָשֵׁי.
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’s minds to note this distinction. Two witnesses did, however, testify that he worked and profited from the field for three years.
שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִין, וְאֶחָד מִצְטָרֵף עִמָּהֶן – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שָׁלֹשׁ עֵדֻיוֹת, וְהֵן עֵדוּת אַחַת לַהֲזָמָה.
§ 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.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
New York, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
Los Angeles, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
New York, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
Bava Batra 56
בִּרְשׁוּת אַחַת – חַיָּיב, בִּשְׁתֵּי רְשׁוּיוֹת – פָּטוּר.
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.
וְאָמַר רַבָּה: וְהוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ חִיּוּב חַטָּאת בֵּינֵיהֶם, אֲבָל כַּרְמְלִית – לֹא. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ כַּרְמְלִית, אֲבָל פִּיסְלָא – לֹא. רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ פִּיסְלָא.
And Rabba says in explanation of Rabbi Yosei’s 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.
וְאַזְדָּא רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: רְשׁוּת שַׁבָּת כִּרְשׁוּת גִּיטִּין דָּמֵי.
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.
אֵין שָׁם לֹא מֶצֶר וְלֹא חָצָב, מַאי? פֵּירֵשׁ רַבִּי מָרִינוּס מִשְּׁמוֹ: כׇּל שֶׁנִּקְרֵאת עַל שְׁמוֹ. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דְּקָרוּ לֵיהּ ״בֵּי גַרְגּוּתָא דִּפְלָנְיָא״.
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 Yoḥanan: 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’s well. The entire area referred to as such would be considered one section with regard to acquisition.
יָתֵיב רַב אַחָא בַּר עַוְיָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַסִּי, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַסִּי בַּר חֲנִינָא: חֲצוּבָא מַפְסֵיק בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר.
Rav Aḥa bar Avya sat before Rabbi Asi, and he sat and was saying the following in the name of Rabbi Asi bar Ḥanina: 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.
מַאי חֲצוּבָא? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: שֶׁבּוֹ תִּיחֵם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הָאָרֶץ.
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.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לֹא מָנָה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶלָּא עֲיָירוֹת הָעוֹמְדוֹת עַל הַגְּבוּלִין.
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.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כֹּל שֶׁהֶרְאָהוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה – חַיָּיב בְּמַעֲשֵׂר.
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: “And the Lord showed him all the land, Gilead…as far as Zoar” (Deuteronomy 34:1–3), is within the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael, and therefore produce that grows there is obligated in tithe.
לְאַפּוֹקֵי מַאי? לְאַפּוֹקֵי קֵינִי, קְנִיזִּי וְקַדְמוֹנִי. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: נַפְתּוֹחָא, עַרְבָאָה וְשַׁלְמָאָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַר שֵׂעִיר, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: עַרְדִּיסָקִיס, אַסְיָא וְאַסְפַּמְיָא.
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: “To your offspring have I given this land…to…the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite” (Genesis 15:18–19). These areas are not obligated in tithe. What are these three areas? It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: They are Naftuḥa, Arva’a, and Shalma’a. Rabbi Yehuda says: They are Mount Seir, Ammon, and Moab. Rabbi Shimon says: They are Ardisekis, Asya, and Aspamya.
מַתְנִי׳ הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים, וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִים – מְשַׁלְּמִין לוֹ אֶת הַכֹּל. שְׁנַיִם בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, שְׁנַיִם בַּשְּׁנִיָּה, וּשְׁנַיִם בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית –
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: “Then shall you do to him, as he had planned to do to his brother” (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,
מְשַׁלְּשִׁין בֵּינֵיהֶם.
payment of the value of the field to the owner is divided among them.
שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִים, וְאֶחָד מִצְטָרֵף עִמָּהֶם – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שָׁלֹשׁ עֵדֻיוֹת, וְהֵן עֵדוּת אַחַת לַהֲזָמָה.
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.
גְּמָ׳ מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: כְּשֶׁהָלַךְ אַבָּא חֲלַפְתָּא אֵצֶל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אֵצֶל אַבָּא חֲלַפְתָּא לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה, אָמַר לוֹ: הֲרֵי שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, שְׁנִיָּה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, שְׁלִישִׁית בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם – מַהוּ? אָמַר לוֹ: הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה.
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 Ḥalafta, Rabbi Yosei’s father, went to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri to study Torah, and some say: When Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri went to Abba Ḥalafta 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.
אָמַר לוֹ: אַף אֲנִי אוֹמֵר כֵּן, אֶלָּא שֶׁרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא חוֹלֵק בְּדָבָר זֶה; שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״דָּבָר״ – וְלֹא חֲצִי דָבָר.
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: “At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established” (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.
וְרַבָּנַן – הַאי ״דָּבָר״ וְלֹא חֲצִי דָבָר, מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? אִילֵּימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי אֶחָד אוֹמֵר אַחַת בְּגַבָּהּ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אַחַת בִּכְרֵיסָהּ; הַאי חֲצִי דָבָר וַחֲצִי עֵדוּת הִיא!
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.
אֶלָּא לְמַעוֹטֵי שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים אַחַת בְּגַבָּהּ, וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים אַחַת בִּכְרֵסָהּ.
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.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: אֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֲכָלָהּ חִטִּים, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֲכָלָהּ שְׂעוֹרִים – הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב נַחְמָן: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: אֲכָלָהּ רִאשׁוֹנָה שְׁלִישִׁית וַחֲמִישִׁית, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר: אֲכָלָהּ שְׁנִיָּה רְבִיעִית וְשִׁשִּׁית, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּהָוְיָא חֲזָקָה?!
§ 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 Naḥman 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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם, בְּשַׁתָּא דְּקָא מַסְהֵיד מָר – לָא קָא מַסְהֵיד מָר; הָכָא, תַּרְוַיְיהוּ בַּחֲדָא שַׁתָּא קָא מַסְהֲדִי. מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר – בֵּין חִיטֵּי לִשְׂעָרֵי? לָאו אַדַּעְתַּיְיהוּ דְּאִינָשֵׁי.
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’s minds to note this distinction. Two witnesses did, however, testify that he worked and profited from the field for three years.
שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִין, וְאֶחָד מִצְטָרֵף עִמָּהֶן – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שָׁלֹשׁ עֵדֻיוֹת, וְהֵן עֵדוּת אַחַת לַהֲזָמָה.
§ 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.
