Sanhedrin 46
צריכא דאי תנא אבא ואביך בהא קאמרי רבנן דלא מצי הדר ביה משום דאבא ואביך חזו לעלמא אבל חד כבי תרי דלעלמא לא חזי אימא מודו ליה לר"מ
he said in R. Johanan's name: Thecontroversy arises only where [the plaintiff said that he could produce]two pairs of witnesses. Now, R. Meir holds that the litigant is obliged toverify [his statements regarding his second set ofwitnesses];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore, the defendant is not regarded as an interested party when he testifies to the family unfitness of one of the first pair, since the plaintiff is bound to adduce the second set in any case, who are themselves sufficient. Should the plaintiff be unable to adduce a second set, he is the cause of his own loss. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ואי אשמעינן בהא בהא קאמר ר"מ אבל בההיא אימא מודו להו לרבנן צריכא
while the Rabbis saythat he is not so obliged.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently, notwithstanding his first assertion, he can insist on basing his claims on the first pair of witnesses only, and so the defendant becomes an interested party in seeking to disqualify one of these witnesses. — Tosaf. and one interpretation of Rashi. Rashi, however, reverses the reading and gives another explanation. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
אמר ר' אלעזר בבא הוא ואחר לפוסלן
R. Ammi and R. Assi said in R. Dimi's presence: What if there is only onepair [of witnesses]? [You ask, what if] there is only one set? Have you notjust said, 'but if only one pair of witnesses [are offered] all agree thatthey cannot be disqualified'? But the question is, what if the second pairis found to consist of kinsfolk or to be [otherwise]ineligible?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Can we say, since the second pair has thus been rendered ineligible, the defendant is retrospectively discovered to have been an interested party in his testimony disqualifying the first pair, since the second is no longer available, and therefore his evidence in respect to the first is now inadmissible? Or, on the other hand, it may be argued that when the defendant gave his evidence he was a disinterested party, and consequently it still holds good. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
כל כמיניה נוגע בעדותו הוא
— He answered them:The first witnesses have alreadytestified.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the testimony of the defendant in respect to the first, having been accepted, stands good. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ערער דמאי אילימא ערער דגזלנותא כל כמיניה נוגע בעדותו הוא
Shall we say that their [sc. R. Meir and the Rabbis'] dispute is the sameas that of Rabbi and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel? For it has been taught: If onecomes to be judged on the strength of a deed andhazakah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A claim based on undisturbed possession during a legally fixed period — three years. This means, if one's ownership of land is challenged, and he asserts that he can prove it both by a deed of sale, which he has in his possession, and also by hazakah. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
אלא ערער דפגם משפחה ר' מאיר סבר הני אמשפחה קמסהדי ואיהו ממילא קפסיל ורבנן סברי סוף סוף נוגע בעדותו הוא
Rabbi said: The case mustbe determined by a deed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if he failed to produce it, hazakah would not determine ownership. Though hazakah is usually accepted as proof, it is not accepted here, since the defendant asserted that he had the deed of conveyance in his possession. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן מחלוקת בשתי כיתי עדים
RabbanSimeon b. Gamaliel ruled: It is determined by <i>hazakah</i> [alone]. But we raisedthis question thereon: By <i>hazakah</i> [only], and not bydeed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely it cannot be maintained that if a deed of sale is produced, three years of undisturbed possession must also be proved! ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
דר' מאיר סבר צריך לברר ורבנן סברי אינו צריך לברר אבל בכת אחת דברי הכל אין יכול לפוסלן
But rather say thus: Evenby <i>hazakah</i> [alone]. And it is an established fact that their dispute is whetherthe defendant is obliged to verify [hisstatement]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus: Rabbi maintains that the whole statement must be verified, and therefore the deed is necessary; whilst R. S. b. G. holds that it need not be verified, just as though he had never made it, and therefore hazakah alone is sufficient (v. B.B. 169b-170a). Rabbi will accordingly agree with R. Meir, and R. S. b. G. with the Rabbis. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
אמרו לפניו רב אמי ורב אסי אין שם אלא כת אחת מהו
— No, according tothe view of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, none [i.e. neither R. Meir nor theRabbis] differ here;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is obviously impossible to reconcile R. Meir with R. S. b. G. ');"><sup>19</sup></span>
אין שם אלא כת אחת והאמרת אבל בכת אחת דברי הכל אין יכול לפוסלן אלא נמצאת כת שניה קרובין או פסולין מהו
they only differon the basis of Rabbi's opinion. Thus, R. Meir agrees with Rabbi. But theRabbis can tell thee: Rabbi gives this ruling there only in the case of <i>hazakah</i>,which is valid proof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which comes'. ');"><sup>20</sup></span>
אמר להן כבר העידו עדים הראשונים איכא דאמרי אמר רב אשי כבר העידו עדים הראשונים
only in virtueof there having been a deed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Three years undisturbed possession proves ownership only when the defendant pleads that he bought the land, was given a deed, but lost it. Therefore, since the defendant asserted in the first place that he could produce the deed, evidence of undisturbed possession is not enough. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>