Q&A: Divided Testimony
Divided Testimony
Question
Hello and greetings, Rabbi. a0
First, I would like to thank you for the responses you provide in all areas and on all platforms. a0
The Talmud in Bava Kamma 70a (also brought in Bava Batra) cites the view of the Sages that testimony regarding presumption of ownership through possession of houses, divided into three parts, where for each part two witnesses testify, is accepted. a0
But based on the verse they exclude ("a matter" and not half a matter) a case where two testify about one hair on her back and two testify about one hair on her belly, since this is not considered one testimony sufficient to establish that she is an adult maiden. a0
I saw various explanations among the medieval authorities (Rishonim) and couldn't understand what the difference is between these two cases. I would be glad if the Rabbi could explain the difference. a0
Answer
It seems to me that the accepted explanation is that testimony about one year of presumptive possession is testimony about a complete matter, except that for the legal ruling three years are required. But testimony about one hair is not testimony about a complete matter, but about half a matter.
But you are right that this distinction is not all that convincing.
It may be that regarding presumptive possession, it is difficult to require one single testimony for all three years, and so there they waived it.
Discussion on Answer
That is not necessarily connected. After the scriptural decree that invalidates half a matter, they were lenient with (or exempted) presumptive possession of houses.
I think the distinction in the original answer is actually convincing. A complete matter is something that at any given time is complete (like the presence of the possessor in the house). But something incomplete is something that at any given time is not complete (like one hair).
A possible distinction.
Except that in the Talmud it sounds like the default according to the Rabbis is that testimonies can be combined, and only a scriptural decree excludes the case of two who saw one hair, etc.
Whereas according to the Rabbi's explanation it sounds like the default is that they cannot be combined, except that they were lenient in the case of presumptive possession of houses.