Bava Kamma

Halafta, he said to him: Suppose a man had the use of a piece of land for one year as testified by two witnesses, for a second year as testified by two other witnesses, and for a third year as testified by still two other witnesses, what is the position? — He replied: 'This is a proper usucaption'.  Whereupon the other rejoined: 'I also say the same, but R. Akiba joins issue on the matter for R. Akiba used to say: [Scripture states] A matter [implying] "but not half a matter"'!  — Abaye, however, said: You may even say that this is in accordance with R. Akiba. For would R. Akiba not agree in a case where two witnesses state that a certain person had betrothed a woman  and two other witnesses testify that another person had subsequently had intercourse with her,  that though the evidence regarding the intercourse presupposes the evidence regarding the betrothal [in order to become relevant], nevertheless, since the evidence of betrothal does not presuppose the evidence of intercourse, each testimony should be considered a matter [complete in itself]? So also here, though the evidence regarding the slaughter presupposes the evidence regarding the theft [if it is to be relevant] nevertheless since the evidence regarding the theft does not presuppose the evidence regarding the slaughter, each testimony should be considered a matter [complete in itself].  But according to the Rabbis  what will this term 'matter' [implying] 'but not half a matter' exclude? — It will exclude a case where one witness testified that there was one hair on her back  and the other states that there was one hair in front. But [since each hair is testified to by one witness],  would this not be both half a matter and half a testimony?  — [We must say] therefore that it excludes a case where two witnesses testify that there was one hair on her back and two other witnesses state that there was one hair in front, as in this case the one set testify that she was still a minor  and the others similarly testify that she was still a minor. IF HE STEALS AND SELLS ON THE SABBATH DAY … [HE HAS TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD OR FIVE-FOLD PAYMENT]. But has it not been taught [elsewhere] that he would be exempt? — Said Rami b. Hama: If it was taught there that he would be exempt, it was only where the purchaser said to him:  'pluck figs off my fig-tree  and transfer to me [in consideration of them] the objects you have stolen.'  It may however, be argued that seeing that if the purchaser claimed from him before us in the court  we would be unable to order him to go and to pay since [at the time of the alleged liability,] he became subject to a capital charge, why should not even the sale itself be declared no sale at all?  — R. Papa therefore said: There would be exemption [where the purchaser said to him], 'Throw your stolen objects [from a public thoroughfare] into my private courtyard,  and transfer to me [thereby]  the objects you have stolen.'  Whom does this follow? R. Akiba,  who said that an object intercepted in the air is on the same footing [regarding the law of Sabbath] as if it had already come to rest.  For if we were to follow the other Rabbis,  while the possession of the stolen objects would be transferred as soon as they reached the air of the court-yard of the purchaser's house,  in regard to Sabbath the capital liability would not be incurred until they have reached the actual ground!  — Raba thereupon said: It may still be in accordance with Rami b. Hama.  For the hire [of a harlot] was prohibited by the Torah  [from being used for the Temple] even [when given by a son] for having incestuous intercourse with his mother, irrespective of the fact that were she to have claimed it from him before us in the court, we should not have been able to order him to go and give her the hire.  We see then that although were she to have claimed it from him by law, we should have been unable to order him to go and pay her,  nevertheless when he of his own accord pays her [the hire] it will be subject to the law of the hire [of a harlot].  So also here regarding payment [for the figs plucked by the thief on the Sabbath], if the purchaser had claimed it by law in our presence, we should have been unable to order the thief to go and pay;