Bava Batra

GEMARA. Samuel's father  and Levi learnt [from the Mishnah] that a partner has no hazakah, still less a craftsman.  Samuel, however, learnt that a craftsman has no hazakah, but a partner has.  Samuel in this is consistent. For Samuel has said that partners have hazakah as against each other and can give evidence in one another's favour  and can stand to one another in the relation of paid keepers [of their common property].  R. Abba pointed out the following contradiction to R. Judah in the [burial] cave of R. Zakkai's field: Did Samuel really say that a partner has hazakah? Has not Samuel said that a partner is regarded as having freedom of entry  [into the whole of the joint property], and is not this equivalent to saying that a partner has no hazakah [against the other partner]?  — [He replied:] There is no contradiction. In the one case [Samuel is speaking of a partner] who takes possession of the whole [of the joint field], in the other of one who takes possession of only half of it.  [To the question which is which,]  some answer one way and some the other.  Rabina said: In both cases [Samuel is speaking] of a partner who takes possession of the whole [of the joint field], but still there is no contradiction, because in the one case he speaks of a field which has to be divided [if either partner demands]  and in the other of a field which has not to be divided [if either partner objects]. [To revert to] a previous text: 'Samuel said that a partner is regarded as having freedom to work the whole of the joint property.' What does this tell us? That a partner has no hazakah? Why does he not say distinctly that a partner has no hazakah? — R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: [He chooses the other mode of expression] to show that the partner is entitled to a full half of the mature produce  in a field that is not meant for plantation in the same way as he would be in a field meant for plantation. Partners may give evidence in one another's favour.