Previous daf

1)

(a) We ask what the Din will be if, according to Rebbi Yochanan who said 'ha'Meitzar ve'ha'Chatzav Mafsikin be'Nechsei ha'Ger', there is no Meitzar or Chaztav - what Shiur is required to acquire Nechsei ha'Ger that has no borders, with one strike of the spade.

(b) We could have simply given the Shiur as two rows of furrows, like Rav Papa explained earlier according to Rav - only we knew that Rebbi Yochanan has a different Shiur (see also Ritva [it is unclear though, what our Sugya, which seems to be speaking about a field with borders, has to do with the ruling of Rav Papa]. See also Tosfos).

(c) The Shiur Rebbi Merinus gives in the name of Rebbi Yochanan (that one will acquire with one strike of the spade) is - an area that people would refer to as so-and-so's field (and not fields).

(d) Rav Papa defines this further - as an area that Ger used to water from his water-pit.

(a) We already learned that Yehoshua used the Chatzav to divide Eretz Yisrael - both one tribe from the other, and one individual property-owner from another.

(b) He specifically used the Chatzav for this purpose - because it grows directly downwards and does not nurture from the sides.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav (who also made the previous statement) said that ...

1. ... the cities that Yehoshua listed in his Seifer - were border cities exclusively.
2. ... the Keini, Kenizi and Kadmoni - are not subject to Ma'aser, and he derives this from the Pasuk "Zos ha'Aretz Asher Nishba'ati" (incorporating the borders specified there).

(b) According to Rebbi Meir, these three nations are equivalent to Naftucha, Arva'ah and Shalma'ah; and according to Rebbi Shimon, they are Ardiskis, Asya and Aspamya (usually translated as Spain). Rebbi Yehudah lists them as - Se'ir, Amon and Mo'av.

(c) The exemption of these three countries from Ma'asros might refer to any of them that were captured after the death of Yehoshua. Alternatively, it refers to - the time of Mashi'ach, when they will be given to us anyway, as Hashem promised Avraham.

(d) Rav does not also preclude the Refa'im, who like the Keini, Kenizi and Kadmoni, are mentioned in connection with the promise given to Avraham Avinu - because the Refa'im are equivalent to the Chivi, which are therefore subject to Ma'asros, and whose land Moshe actually captured (See Rashi in Mishpatim 23:28, and Torah Temimah there).

(a) Our Mishnah states that - if two witnesses testify that Reuven established a Chazakah by eating the Peiros of Shimon's field, and then became Zomemin (by two others claiming that they were with them in a different location during that time, and could not have witnessed what they claimed they did) - they must pay Shimon the value of the field (which he takes back from Reuven anyway) between them.

(b) And in a case where three pairs of witnesses testify the same thing, one each year - each pair must pay one third of the cost of the field.

(c) When the Tana says that three brothers testified on the three years of Reuven's Chazakah, each of whom was paired by a second witness ...

1. ... 'Harei Eilu Shalosh Iduyos', he means - that since each brother testified on a different year, they do not disqualify each other's testimony (as if they were testifying in different lawsuits).
2. ... 've'Hein Eidus Achas le'Hazamah', he means - that they only become Zomemin if they all become Zomemin, and that when they do, they pay the K'nas (the fine) between them.

5)

(a) When Rebbi Chalafta asked Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri what the Din will be if three pairs of witnesses testify that Reuven ate the fruits of Shimon's field (thereby establishing a Chazakah) for three consecutive years (one pair each year) he replied - that Reuven's Chazakah was established (like the Tana of our Mishnah).

(b) Rebbi Chalafta (some reverse the names) replied - that although he agreed with this ruling in principle, Rebbi Akiva disqualified their testimony, based on the Pasuk in Shoftim "al-Pi Sh'nei Eidim ... Yakum Davar", from which we Darshen 'Davar ve'Lo Chatzi Davar', meaning that witnesses must give the full testimony, and not just part of it (that requires additional witnesses).

(c) Seeing as the Tana'im are arguing over the case presented by our Mishnah, this means - that the author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Akiva.

(d) Rebbi Chalafta - was Rebbi Yossi's father.

(a) We refute the suggestion that from 'Davar ve'Lo Chatzi Davar', the Rabbanan disqualify witnesses one of whom testifies to one hair on a girl's back, and the other to one on her stomach (see Sugya Nidah 52b), on the grounds - that since only one witness testifies on each hair, this is not only Chatzi Davar, but Chatzi Eidus too, and, having already written (in Shoftim) "Lo Yakum Eid Echad be'Ish", the Torah does need a second D'rashah to preclude Chatzi Eidus.

(b) The Rabbanan learn from 'Davar' - to disqualify a case where one *pair* of witnesses testifies that she has one hair on her back, and the other, that she a hair on her stomach.

(c) What makes this case fall under the category of 'Chatzi Eidus' more than the case in our Mishnah (which Rebbi Akiva disputes) is - the fact that (unlike the case in our Mishnah) each pair, who testified about the same moment, saw only half of what they could have seen at the time.

(d) Nevertheless, we will not combine the testimony of one pair of witnesses who saw a hair on her back the day before (but which fell out), and a second pair who saw one hair on her stomach today - because when a hair falls out before puberty, we consider retroactively to have been part of a wart, and not a pubic hair.

(a) In a case where one witness testified that Reuven ate wheat for three years, and another witness testified that he ate barley, Rav Yehudah rules - that Reuven has established a Chazakah?

(b) Rav Nachman queries this from a case where one witness testified on the first, third and fifth years, and a second witness, on the second, fourth and sixth, which will not constitute a Chazakah - since neither witness is testifying on a Chazakah.

(c) This case differs from that of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korcha, who ruled earlier that even if the two witnesses testified on two different days, their testimonies nevertheless combine (even though they are testifying on two different coins) - inasmuch as there at least, each witness testifies that a transaction relating to a Manah had taken place (whereas here, neither witness testifies on a Chazakah).

(a) Rav Nachman's Kashya on Rav Yehudah is due to his understanding - that Rav Yehudah was speaking when the one witness testified that Reuven ate wheat in the first, third and fifth years, and the second witness, in the second, fourth and sixth years (like the case from which he asked) ...

(b) ... and this misunderstanding in turn, lies in the fact - that was indeed what the farmers used to do to avoid having to leave the land fallow every third year, as is otherwise customary.

(c) Rav Yehudah replied however, that when he spoke about one witness testifying that the Machzik ate wheat, and the second witness, barley - he was referring to a case where they were testifying about the same three years, and the reason that they were believed is because we assume that one of them was not conversant with the distinction between wheat and barley (a not uncommon occurrence, it seems).