Bava Batra 56B

משלשין ביניהם.

payment of the value of the field to the owner is divided among them.

שלשה אחים, ואחד מצטרף עמהם ⁠– הרי אלו שלש עדיות, והן עדות אחת להזמה.

If the testimony was given by 3 brothers, each of whom testify about one year, and another unrelated individual joined with each of the brothers as the second witness, these are 3 distinct testimonies and they are accepted by the court. If they were to be considered one testimony, it would not be accepted, as brothers may not testify together. But they are one testimony for the purpose of rendering them as conspiring witnesses, and the payment is divided among them.

גמ׳ מתניתין דלא כרבי עקיבא ⁠– דתניא, אמר רבי יוסי: כשהלך אבא חלפתא אצל רבי יוחנן בן נורי ללמוד תורה, ואמרי לה: רבי יוחנן בן נורי אצל אבא חלפתא ללמוד תורה, אמר לו: הרי שאכלה שנה ראשונה בפני שנים, שניה בפני שנים, שלישית בפני שנים ⁠– מהו? אמר לו: הרי זו חזקה.

Talmud: The Talmud notes: The Mishnah is not in accordance with the opinion of R' Akiva, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, 2:10) that R' Yosei said: When Abba Ḥalafta, R' Yosei’s father, went to R' Yoḥanan ben Nuri to study Torah, and some say: When R' Yoḥanan ben Nuri went to Abba Ḥalafta to study Torah, he said to him: What is the halakha if there is one who worked and profited from a field in the presence of two witnesses during the 1st year, then in the presence of two other witnesses during the 2nd year, and finally in the presence of two other witnesses during the 3rd year? He said to him: This is sufficient for establishing the presumption of ownership.

אמר לו: אף אני אומר כן, אלא שרבי עקיבא חולק בדבר זה; שהיה רבי עקיבא אומר: ״דבר״⁠ – ולא חצי דבר.

The latter said to him: I say this as well, but R' Akiva disagrees with regard to this matter, as R' Akiva would say that since the verse states: “At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of 3 witnesses, should a matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15), one can derive that testimony is accepted only with regard to a complete matter, and not with regard to half of a matter. In this Mishnah, although presumptive ownership requires testimony that the property had been worked and profited from for 3 years, testimony is accepted from each pair of witnesses with regard to one year. Consequently, the ruling of the Mishnah does not accord with the opinion of R' Akiva.