Soncino English Talmud
Bava Batra
Daf 57a
A certain document [was brought into court] bearing the signatures of two witnesses, one of whom had died. The brother of the one who was still alive came with another witness to testify to the signature of the other [the deceased]. Rabina was disposed to decide that this case was covered by the Mishnah of three brothers each associated with the same witness. Said R. Ashi to him: Surely the cases are not on all fours. In that case [if the evidence of the brothers was accepted] three-quarters of the money would not be assigned on the evidence of brothers, but in this case [if we allow this man to testify] three-quarters of the money will be assigned on the evidence of brothers. MISHNAH. CERTAIN USAGES CONSTITUTE HAZAKAH, WHILE CERTAIN OTHERS THOUGH SIMILAR DO NOT CONSTITUTE HAZAKAH. IF A MAN WAS IN THE HABIT OF STATIONING HIS BEAST IN A COURTYARD OR OF FIXING THERE HIS OVEN, HANDMILL, PORTABLE STOVE OR HEN-COOP, OR OF THROWING HIS MANURE THERE, THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE HAZAKAH. BUT IF HE HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO PUT UP A PARTITION FOR HIS BEAST TEN HANDBREADTHS IN HEIGHT, OR FOR HIS OVEN OR HIS STOVE OR HIS HANDMILL, OR IF HE HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO BRING FOWLS INTO THE HOUSE OR TO MAKE A PIT FOR HIS MANURE THREE HANDBREADTHS DEEP OR A HEAP THREE HANDBREADTHS HIGH, THIS CONSTITUTES HAZAKAH. GEMARA. Why is the rule in the second case different from that in the first? — 'Ulla said: Any act which confers legal ownership of the property of a deceased proselyte confers legal ownership of that of a fellow Jew, and any act which does not confer legal ownership of the property of a deceased proselyte does not confer legal ownership of property of a fellow Jew. R. Shesheth raised strong objections against this. Is this, [he asked] a general principle? What of ploughed land which confers ownership of the property of a deceased proselyte but not of that of a fellow Jew? And what of the gathering of crops, which confers ownership of property of a fellow Jew but not of the property of a deceased proselyte? No, said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha;