Bava Batra

EACH SET PAYS THE CLAIMANT A THIRD. IF THREE BROTHERS TESTIFY [ONE TO EACH YEAR] EACH ALONG WITH THE SAME SECOND WITNESS, THEN THREE TESTIMONIES [OF TWO WITNESSES EACH] ARE OFFERED  [ONE FOR EACH YEAR], BUT THE THREE ARE RECKONED AS ONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECLARING THE WITNESSES ZOMEMIM. GEMARA. Our Mishnah does not agree with R. Akiba, for it has been taught: Rabbi Jose said: When my father Halafta went to R. Johanan ben Nuri to study Torah with him (according to another report, when R. Johanan ben Nuri went to Abba Halafta to study Torah with him), he said to him: Suppose a man had the usufruct of a piece of land for one year to the knowledge of two people, and for a second year to the knowledge of two other people, and for a third year to the knowledge of two others, how do we decide? He replied: This constitutes a title. Said the other: That is my opinion also, but R. Akiba differs in this respect, for he used to say: [Scripture states:] A 'matter' [shall be established by two witnesses],  and not half a matter.  And how do the Rabbis apply the principle of a 'matter' and not half a matter?  Shall I say that it is to invalidate the evidence where one witness says that there was one hair on her back and the other says that there was one hair in front?  This is not only half a matter but also half a testimony! — 7 No; they would in virtue of it invalidate the evidence where two witnesses testify that there was one hair on her back and two that there was one in front. Rab Judah said: If one witness says that the occupier took crops of wheat off the land and the other that he took crops of barley, this constitutes hazakah.  R. Nahman strongly dissented from this. On this ground, he said, if one witness said that he took crops in the first, third, and fifth years, and the other that he took crops in the second, fourth, and sixth, this would also constitute hazakah?  — Said Rab Judah to him: Where is the parallel? There [in your case] the year referred to by the one [witness] is not referred to by the other, but here [in my case] both testify regarding the same year. And why do we ignore their discrepancy? Because people easily make a mistake between wheat and barley. IF THREE BROTHERS TESTIFY EACH ALONG WITH THE SAME SECOND WITNESS, THEN THREE TESTIMONIES ARE OFFERED, BUT THE THREE ARE RECKONED AS ONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECLARING THE WITNESSES ZOMEMIM.