(Mishnah): If two witnesses testify that he ate (the produce of the field) for three years and they are found to be false witnesses, they must pay the full value of the field to the owner.

If there were two for the first year (of chazakah), another two for the second year and another two for the third year, the three groups divide up the payment.

If each year had testimony from a different brother but the other witness of each year was the same person, they are considered to be both three testimonies and one testimony.

(Gemara): If the owner asked him, "What are you doing in my field'', and he replied, "As I have been here for the years of chazakah''. If he brought those witnesses but the owner then brought witnesses to prove them false, he must return the field but the produce of the last three years may be eaten by the resident (as the witnesses are only disqualified from this point and onwards, but not retroactively.

R. Zeira: A false witness is not invalid in Beis Din (meaning that he is only disqualified from the guilty verdict and onwards).

(Note: The Vilna print did not include the remainder of the Sugya until the Mishnah. It appears in Bava Kama Perek 7 Halachah 3 - Daf 31b in the Vilna print and 27b in the Oz v'Hadar print. The Oz v'Hadar print presents it here also.) Rather, he is disqualified by himself [from when he testified about what he was not present to see].

The case is, there was one warning (they testified at once about both the theft and the Shechitah or sale).

Support #1 (Beraisa - R. Yosi): What is the case? It is when there were two testimonies and two warnings, but if it was one testimony and one warning, any testimony that is partially Batel is totally Batel;

Question: What is the case in which [testimony] that is partially Batel is totally Batel?

Answer: If they testified on the 10th of Nisan that he stole an ox on Nisan 1, and he slaughtered or sold it on Nisan 10, and they were Huzam on Nisan 15, all testimonies that they testified from Nisan 10 until Nisan 15, retroactively they are Pasul.

Rebuttal (R. Ba bar Mamal): The case is, they testify about [theft and sale] at once, so you cannot learn from here anything. (If he was not there to see one, he was not there to see the other, so he was Huzam about both of them. We explained this like HA'GAON RAV C. KANIEVSKY, SHLITA.)

Support #2 (Tosefta): If the first were also the last (the same two witnesses testified about all three years of Chazakah), if they were Huzam about the first [year], there is no [testimony] at all. [If they were Huzam] about the second, there is one testimony (testimony about the first year remains. If they were Huzam) about the third, there are two testimonies (those of the first two years).

Question: What is the case? If you will say that the testimony is at once, and you do not learn from here at all [this cannot be, for they testify about different years]!

Answer: This must discuss separate testimonies [and we properly learn that an Ed Zomem is disqualified retroactively. We explained this like NESIVOS YERUSHALAYIM.]