[takes the two half-figs] in one state of unawareness into the same public place, he is penalised, but if into two different public places, he is not penalised.1 This too, said Rabbah, is only the case if there is between the two public places a place the carrying into which [from either of them would] render him liable to a sin offering,2 but not if there is only a karmelith3 in between.4 Abaye said: Even if there is a karmelith between [he is not penalised], but not if there is. only a block [of wood].5 Raba said: Even if there is a block of wood between [he is not penalised]. Raba's view here [that such a block can form a partition] conforms with his other view that a 'place' in respect of Sabbath has the same meaning as a 'place' in respect of divorces.6 If there is no boundary nor cistus hedge [in the plain], what is the ruling?7 — R. Merinus explained in his [R. Eliezer's] name that 'all to which his name is applied [is reckoned as one field].' How are we to understand this? — R. Papa said: If for instance people call it, 'The field of so-and-so's well.'
As R. 'Aha b. Awia was once sitting in front of R. Assi, he laid down the following rule in the name of R. Assi b. Hanina: A cistus hedge forms a partition in the estate of a proselyte. What is a cistus hedge? — Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: The plant with which Joshua marked the boundaries of the land of Canaan for the Israelites.8
Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: All the land which God showed Moses11 is subject to [the obligation], of tithe. Which part of the land does this exclude?12 — It excludes the Kenite, the Kenizite and the Kadmonite. It has been taught: R. Meir says that [these are] the Nabateans, the Arabians and the Salmoeans.13 R. Eliezer says they are Mount Seir, Ammon and Moab. R. Simeon says they are Ardiskis, Asia and Aspamia.14
MISHNAH. IF TWO MEN TESTIFY THAT A CERTAIN MAN HAD THE USUFRUCT OF15 A PIECE OF LAND FOR THREE YEARS AND THEY ARE FOUND TO BE ZOMEMIM,16 THEY MUST PAY TO THE CLAIMANT ALL [THAT HE STOOD TO LOSE THROUGH THEIR FALSE EVIDENCE].17 IF TWO [TESTIFY THAT THE OCCUPIER HAD THE USUFRUCT] FOR ONE YEAR, TWO FOR A SECOND YEAR, AND TWO FOR THE THIRD YEAR, [AND THEY ARE FOUND TO BE ZOMEMIM],18
Baba Bathra 56b
EACH SET PAYS THE CLAIMANT A THIRD. IF THREE BROTHERS TESTIFY [ONE TO EACH YEAR] EACH ALONG WITH THE SAME SECOND WITNESS, THEN THREE TESTIMONIES [OF TWO WITNESSES EACH] ARE OFFERED1 [ONE FOR EACH YEAR], BUT THE THREE ARE RECKONED AS ONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECLARING THE WITNESSES ZOMEMIM.2
GEMARA. Our Mishnah does not agree with R. Akiba, for it has been taught: Rabbi Jose said: When my father Halafta went to R. Johanan ben Nuri to study Torah with him (according to another report, when R. Johanan ben Nuri went to Abba Halafta to study Torah with him), he said to him: Suppose a man had the usufruct of a piece of land for one year to the knowledge of two people, and for a second year to the knowledge of two other people, and for a third year to the knowledge of two others, how do we decide? He replied: This constitutes a title. Said the other: That is my opinion also, but R. Akiba differs in this respect, for he used to say: [Scripture states:] A 'matter' [shall be established by two witnesses],3 and not half a matter.4 And how do the Rabbis apply the principle of a 'matter' and not half a matter?5 Shall I say that it is to invalidate the evidence where one witness says that there was one hair on her back and the other says that there was one hair in front?6 This is not only half a matter but also half a testimony! — 7 No; they would in virtue of it invalidate the evidence where two witnesses testify that there was one hair on her back and two that there was one in front.8
Rab Judah said: If one witness says that the occupier took crops of wheat off the land and the other that he took crops of barley, this constitutes hazakah.9 R. Nahman strongly dissented from this. On this ground, he said, if one witness said that he took crops in the first, third, and fifth years, and the other that he took crops in the second, fourth, and sixth, this would also constitute hazakah?10 — Said Rab Judah to him: Where is the parallel? There [in your case] the year referred to by the one [witness] is not referred to by the other, but here [in my case] both testify regarding the same year. And why do we ignore their discrepancy? Because people easily make a mistake between wheat and barley.11
IF THREE BROTHERS TESTIFY EACH ALONG WITH THE SAME SECOND WITNESS, THEN THREE TESTIMONIES ARE OFFERED, BUT THE THREE ARE RECKONED AS ONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECLARING THE WITNESSES ZOMEMIM.
- To Next Folio -