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 56
Share this shiur:
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:
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.
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.
Blacksburg, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
Bronx, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
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
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
Palo Alto, CA, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
Tel Aviv, Israel
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, 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.
