Bava Kamma 140

חלפתא אמר לו

Halafta, he said to him: Suppose a man had the use of a piece of land for one year as testified by two witnesses, for a second year as testified by two other witnesses, and for a third year as testified by still two other witnesses, what is the position? — He replied: 'This is a proper usucaption'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In accordance with B.B. III, 1, that three years of undisturbed possession are required to establish a presumptive title on the part of a possessor.] ');">¹</span>

הרי שאכלה שנה ראשונה בפני שנים שניה בפני שנים שלישית בפני שנים מהו

Whereupon the other rejoined: 'I also say the same, but R. Akiba joins issue on the matter for R. Akiba used to say: [Scripture states] A matter [implying] "but not half a matter"'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [And here no two witnesses testify to more than one year of occupation, which is only a third of the matter in hand. And in our Mishnah the second set of witnesses testify to no more than half a matter, i.e. the slaughter, and according to R. Akiba, should not be able to convict the thief.] ');">²</span>

אמר לו הרי זו חזקה אמר לו אף אני אומר כן אלא שרבי עקיבא חולק בדבר שהיה רבי עקיבא אומר (דברים יט, טו) דבר ולא חצי דבר

— Abaye, however, said: You may even say that this is in accordance with R. Akiba. For would R. Akiba not agree in a case where two witnesses state that a certain person had betrothed a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By a valid act of Kiddushin (v. Glos.), thus making her his wife. ');">³</span>

אמר אביי אפילו תימא רבי עקיבא מי לא מודה רבי עקיבא בשנים אומרים קידש ושנים אומרים בעל

and two other witnesses testify that another person had subsequently had intercourse with her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 10. ');">⁴</span>

דאע"ג דעדי ביאה צריכי לעדי קדושין כיון דעדי קדושין לא צריכי לעדי ביאה דבר קרינא ביה

that though the evidence regarding the intercourse presupposes the evidence regarding the betrothal [in order to become relevant], nevertheless, since the evidence of betrothal does not presuppose the evidence of intercourse, each testimony should be considered a matter [complete in itself]? So also here, though the evidence regarding the slaughter presupposes the evidence regarding the theft [if it is to be relevant] nevertheless since the evidence regarding the theft does not presuppose the evidence regarding the slaughter, each testimony should be considered a matter [complete in itself].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case even R. Akiba will allow such evidence to be given independently by separate sets. ');">⁵</span>

ה"נ אע"ג דעדי טביחה צריכי לעדי גניבה כיון דעדי גניבה לא צריכי לעדי טביחה דבר קרינא ביה

But according to the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who even in the case of undisturbed possession admit evidence given independently by three sets of witnesses testifying to each of the three years respectively. ');">⁶</span>

ורבנן האי דבר ולא חצי דבר למעוטי מאי למעוטי אחד אומר אחד בגבה ואחד אומר אחד בכריסה

what will this term 'matter' [implying] 'but not half a matter' exclude? — It will exclude a case where one witness testified that there was one hair on her back<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to the two hairs which are the sign of puberty in a girl. V. Nid. 52a. ');">⁷</span>

האי חצי דבר וחצי עדות הוא

and the other states that there was one hair in front. But [since each hair is testified to by one witness],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose evidence in such a case is of no effect whatsoever; cf. Deut. XIX, 15. ');">⁸</span>

אלא למעוטי שנים אומרים אחד בגבה ושנים אומרים אחד בכריסה הני אמרי קטנה היא והני אמרי קטנה היא:

would this not be both half a matter and half a testimony?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is quite obvious that evidence of this kind is of no avail. ');">⁹</span>

גנב ומכר בשבת [וכו']: והתניא פטור

— [We must say] therefore that it excludes a case where two witnesses testify that there was one hair on her back and two other witnesses state that there was one hair in front, as in this case the one set testify that she was still a minor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the appearance of one hair is no sign of puberty; but where different witnesses testify to different years, each year is considered a 'whole matter'. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רמי בר חמא כי תניא ההיא דפטור באומר לו עקוץ (לך) תאינה מתאינתי ותיקני לי גניבותיך

and the others similarly testify that she was still a minor.

אמרי וכיון דכי תבע ליה קמן בדינא לא אמרינן ליה זיל שלים דמחייב בנפשו הוא הא מכירה נמי לאו מכירה היא

IF HE STEALS AND SELLS ON THE SABBATH DAY&nbsp;… [HE HAS TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD OR FIVE-FOLD PAYMENT]. But has it not been taught [elsewhere] that he would be exempt? — Said Rami b. Hama: If it was taught there that he would be exempt, it was only where the purchaser said to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the thief who sold him the animal. ');">¹¹</span>

אלא אמר רב פפא באומר לו זרוק גניבותיך לחצרי ותיקני לי גניבותיך

'pluck figs off my fig-tree<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is a capital offence if done on the Sabbath; v. Shab. VII, 2. ');">¹²</span>

כמאן כר"ע דאמר קלוטה כמי שהונחה דמיא

and transfer to me [in consideration of them] the objects you have stolen.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It thus follows that at the very moment when the sale was completed the thief was desecrating the Sabbath by an act which renders him liable to a capital charge in which all possible civil liabilities to take effect at that time have to merge. ');">¹³</span>

דאי כרבנן כיון דמטיא לחצר ביתו קנה לענין שבת לא מחייב עד דמטיא לארעא

It may however, be argued that seeing that if the purchaser claimed from him before us in the court<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To give some consideration for the fig. ');">¹⁴</span>

באומר לא תיקני לי גניבותיך עד שתנוח

we would be unable to order him to go and to pay since [at the time of the alleged liability,] he became subject to a capital charge, why should not even the sale itself be declared no sale at all?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since the thief would have by law to pay nothing for the consideration given him on the part of the purchaser, there should in the eye of the law be lacking any consideration at all rendering the purchase null and void. ');">¹⁵</span>

רבא אמר לעולם כרמי בר חמא אתנן אסרה תורה ואפילו בא על אמו ואי תבעה ליה קמן בדינא מי אמרינן ליה קום הב לה אתנן

— R. Papa therefore said: There would be exemption [where the purchaser said to him], 'Throw your stolen objects [from a public thoroughfare] into my private courtyard,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is a capital offence to throw anything on Sabbath from a public thoroughfare to private premises; cf. Shab. XI, 1. ');">¹⁶</span>

אלא אע"ג דכי קא תבעה ליה בדינא לא אמרינן ליה זיל הב לה כיון דכי יהיב לה הוי אתנן הכא נמי אע"ג דלענין תשלומין אי תבע בדינא קמן לא אמרינן ליה זיל שלים

and transfer to me [thereby]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by the animal entering into the premises of the prospective purchaser in accordance with B.M. 11a and supra p. 283. ');">¹⁷</span> the objects you have stolen.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 405, n. 7. ');">¹⁸</span> Whom does this follow? R. Akiba,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 4b; 97a and Git. 79a. ');">¹⁹</span> who said that an object intercepted in the air is on the same footing [regarding the law of Sabbath] as if it had already come to rest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the capital offence was committed at the very moment the transaction of sale became complete by the animal entering the air of the purchaser's court-yard; cf. B.M. 12a and Git. 79a. ');">²⁰</span> For if we were to follow the other Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintain that the capital offence of desecrating the Sabbath by throwing anything from a public thoroughfare into private premises will be committed only at the moment when the object thrown falls upon the ground. ');">²¹</span> while the possession of the stolen objects would be transferred as soon as they reached the air of the court-yard of the purchaser's house,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 12a and Git. 79a. ');">²²</span> in regard to Sabbath the capital liability would not be incurred until they have reached the actual ground!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 4b; 97a and Git. 79a. ');">¹⁹</span> — Raba thereupon said: It may still be in accordance with Rami b. Hama.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the purchaser said to the thief, 'Pluck off a fig of my fig-tree' etc., despite your objection as to the lack of consideration. ');">²³</span> For the hire [of a harlot] was prohibited by the Torah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 19. ');">²⁴</span> [from being used for the Temple] even [when given by a son] for having incestuous intercourse with his mother, irrespective of the fact that were she to have claimed it from him before us in the court, we should not have been able to order him to go and give her the hire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the very act that should cause pecuniary liability is a capital offence in which all possible civil liabilities have to merge. ');">²⁵</span> We see then that although were she to have claimed it from him by law, we should have been unable to order him to go and pay her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the very act that should cause pecuniary liability is a capital offence in which all possible civil liabilities have to merge. ');">²⁵</span> nevertheless when he of his own accord pays her [the hire] it will be subject to the law of the hire [of a harlot].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 19. ');">²⁴</span> So also here regarding payment [for the figs plucked by the thief on the Sabbath], if the purchaser had claimed it by law in our presence, we should have been unable to order the thief to go and pay;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the very act that should cause pecuniary liability is a capital offence in which all possible civil liabilities have to merge. ');">²⁵</span>