1)COMBINING THE TESTIMONY OF BROTHERS
(a)(Mishnah): If David testified about all three years, and three brothers testified, each about one of the three years, these are three testimonies. Regarding Hazamah, it is one testimony.
(b)Reuven and Moshe had signed a document, and Reuven died. (To validate the document, Moshe verified his signature, and) Moshe's brother (Aharon) and a stranger came to testify about Reuven's signature.
(c)Ravina: This is like the Mishnah. One witness can combine with brothers regarding years of Chazakah. Also here, the stranger joins Moshe and Aharon regarding the signatures.
(d)Rav Ashi: No. In the Mishnah, only half the testimony is from the brothers;
1.Here, Moshe and Aharon supply three quarters of the testimony (so it is not allowed).
2)WHAT MAKES A CHAZAKAH?
(a)(Mishnah): Not all uses of a Chatzer make a Chazakah.
1.The following do not make a Chazakah: leaving one's animal there, setting up an oven or millstone, or raising chickens;
2.If one sets up a 10 Tefachim wall to enclose his animal, or for his oven or millstone, or brings chickens in a house, or made a ditch three Tefachim deep or a pile three Tefachim tall for his waste, this is a Chazakah.
(b)Question: What is the difference between the Reisha (things that do not make Chazakah) and the Seifa (surely, an owner would object to all the uses listed. If no one protested, this proves ownership)!
(c)Answer #1 (Ula): Any Chazakah that acquires Hefker property (those in the Seifa) is a Chazakah to prove ownership (in what used to belong to someone else). A Chazakah that does not acquire Hefker (those of the Reisha) is not a Chazakah to prove ownership.
(d)Objection (Rav Sheshes): This is not always true!
1.Plowing acquires Hefker property, but it is not a Chazakah to prove ownership. Eating Peros does not acquire Hefker property, but it is a Chazakah to prove ownership.
(e)Answer #2 (Rav Nachman): The Mishnah discusses a jointly owned Chatzer;
1.Partners do not object to these temporary uses. They do object to a wall.
(f)Objection: Partners do object to these temporary uses!
1.(Mishnah): If partners (in a Chatzer) vowed not to benefit from each other, they may not enter the Chatzer.
(g)Answer #3 (Rav Nachman): The Mishnah discusses the area in back of houses. There, people do not object to these temporary uses, but they object to a wall.
(h)(Rav Papa): Indeed, our Mishnah discusses a jointly owned Chatzer. Some people object to temporary uses, others do not;
1.(Since we do not know whether or not these partners object,) regarding money we are 'lenient' (we say that they do not object, so the Machazik has no proof of ownership to take the property). Regarding Isurim (vows) we are stringent.
(i)(Ravina): (Our Mishnah discusses a jointly owned Chatzer,) people do not object to temporary uses (therefore, it is not a Chazakah); the Mishnah about vows is R. Eliezer.
1.(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): Even Vitur (things that people freely give or allow) is forbidden to someone who is forbidden to benefit due to a vow..
(j)(R. Yochanan): Partners can object against each other regarding any use of the Chatzer, except for laundry. This is an enactment lest women need to launder in the river (which leads to immodesty).
3)WAYS OF CHACHAMIM
(a)(R. Chiya bar Aba): "V'Otzem Einav me'R'os b'Ra" refers to one who does not look at women washing laundry.
(b)Question: What is the case?
1.If he could have chosen a path on which women do not wash laundry, he is evil!
2.If there was no other path, this is Ones (Rashbam - why is he expected to close his eyes? Ramah - he must look so he will not fall)!
(c)Answer: Really, there was no other path. Still, he should force himself (Rashbam - to look the other way; Ramah - to avoid looking, even though he might fall.)
(d)Question (R. Yochanan): What kind of tunic befits a Chacham?
(e)Answer (R. Bana'ah): It does not allow his feet to be seen.
(f)Question (R. Yochanan): What kind of outer cloak befits a Chacham?
(g)Answer (R. Bana'ah): It does not allow a Tefach of his tunic to be seen.
(h)Question (R. Yochanan): What kind of table befits a Chacham?
(i)Answer (R. Bana'ah): Two thirds is covered with a cloth, and one third is uncovered, for plates and vegetables. The ring (from which the table is hung) should be on the outside.
(j)Question (Beraisa): The ring is on the inside.
(k)Answer #1: If children eat with him, the ring should be on the outside (so they will not play with it and shake the table);
1.If children do not eat with him, the ring should be on the inside (lest the waiter trip on it).
(l)Answer #2: In both cases, children do not eat with him;
1.If a waiter serves them, the ring should be on the inside (lest the waiter trip on it);
2.If no waiter serves them, it should be on the outside (lest the people eating get hurt from it);
(m)Answer #3: In both cases, a waiter serves them;
1.During the day, the waiter can see, and he will not trip on it, so the ring should be on the outside (lest the people eating get hurt);
2.At night, we are more concerned lest the waiter trip on it, so the ring should be on the outside.
(n)The table of an ignoramus is like a bonfire (surrounded by pots): the cloth and bread are inside, and the plates are outside.