Bava Batra 113

ההוא שטרא דהוה חתימי עליה בי תרי שכיב חד מינייהו אתא אחוה דהאי דקאי וחד אחרינא לאסהודי אחתימת ידיה דאידך

A certain document [was brought into court] bearing the signatures of two witnesses, one of whom had died. The brother of the one who was still alive came with another witness to testify to the signature of the other [the deceased]. Rabina was disposed to decide that this case was covered by the Mishnah of three brothers each associated with the same witness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here too one brother joins with one man as witness to a bond and the other with another man in testifying to the genuineness of a signatures and so the testimony of the two brothers could be regarded as relating to separate things, and they could count as independent witnesses. ');">¹</span>

סבר רבינא למימר היינו מתניתין ג' אחין ואחד מצטרף עמהן

Said R. Ashi to him: Surely the cases are not on all fours. In that case [if the evidence of the brothers was accepted] three-quarters of the money would not be assigned on the evidence of brothers, but in this case [if we allow this man to testify] three-quarters of the money will be assigned on the evidence of brothers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each of the two original witnesses is regarded as warranting the assignment of half the money to the holder of the bond. Consequently, each of the witnesses to the dead man's signature is regarded as warranting the assignment of a quarter of the money. Hence three-quarters of the money is assigned on the warrant of two brothers who by rights ought not to count as more than a single witness. ');">²</span>

אמר ליה רב אשי מי דמי התם לא נפיק נכי ריבעא דממונא אפומא דאחי הכא נפיק נכי ריבעא דממונא אפומא דאחי:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. CERTAIN USAGES CONSTITUTE <i>HAZAKAH</i>, WHILE CERTAIN OTHERS THOUGH SIMILAR DO NOT CONSTITUTE <i>HAZAKAH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If they are allowed to go on without protest for three years, and the claim is supported by a plea of purchase or gift. ');">³</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אלו דברים שיש להן חזקה ואלו דברים שאין להן חזקה היה מעמיד בהמה בחצר תנור ריחים וכיריים ומגדל תרנגולים ונותן זבלו בחצר אינה חזקה אבל עשה מחיצה לבהמתו גבוה עשרה טפחים וכן לתנור וכן לכיריים וכן לריחים הכניס תרנגולין לתוך הבית ועשה מקום לזבלו עמוק שלשה או גבוה שלשה הרי זו חזקה:

IF A MAN WAS IN THE HABIT OF STATIONING HIS BEAST IN A COURTYARD OR OF FIXING THERE HIS OVEN, HANDMILL, PORTABLE STOVE OR HEN-COOP, OR OF THROWING HIS MANURE THERE, THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE <i>HAZAKAH</i>. BUT IF HE HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO PUT UP A PARTITION FOR HIS BEAST TEN HANDBREADTHS IN HEIGHT, OR FOR HIS OVEN OR HIS STOVE OR HIS HANDMILL, OR IF HE HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO BRING FOWLS INTO THE HOUSE OR TO MAKE A PIT FOR HIS MANURE THREE HANDBREADTHS DEEP OR A HEAP THREE HANDBREADTHS HIGH, THIS CONSTITUTES <i>HAZAKAH</i>.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Why is the rule in the second case different from that in the first?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why should the making of a partition confer a hazakah and not the mere stationing? ');">⁴</span>

אמר עולא כל שאילו בנכסי הגר קנה בנכסי חבירו קנה כל שאילו בנכסי הגר לא קנה בנכסי חבירו לא קנה

— 'Ulla said: Any act which confers legal ownership of the property of a deceased proselyte<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the person who seizes it first. V. p. 181, n. 5. ');">⁵</span>

מתקיף לה רב ששת וכללא הוא והרי ניר דבנכסי הגר קנה בנכסי חבירו לא קנה והרי אכילת פירות דבנכסי חבירו קנה בנכסי הגר לא קנה

confers legal ownership of that of a fellow Jew,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the latter has said, 'Go, occupy and acquire ownership,' or if he occupied it for three years. ');">⁶</span>

אלא אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה

and any act which does not confer legal ownership of the property of a deceased proselyte does not confer legal ownership of property of a fellow Jew.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to 'Ulla, therefore, the Mishnah is speaking of an outsider and defining the conditions under which he obtains hazakah in a courtyard. ');">⁷</span> R. Shesheth raised strong objections against this. Is this, [he asked] a general principle?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though it is correct in respect of this Mishnah. ');">⁸</span> What of ploughed land which confers ownership of the property of a deceased proselyte but not of that of a fellow Jew?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By means of three years' occupation. V. supra 37b. ');">⁹</span> And what of the gathering of crops, which confers ownership of property of a fellow Jew but not of the property of a deceased proselyte?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For acquiring the property of a proselyte the essential thing is to perform some action which improves the property; for acquiring hazakah in property formerly belonging to a fellow Jew, the essential thing is to have the usufruct of the property. ');">¹⁰</span> No, said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha;