The Gemara asks: Why is this so? Aren’t partners biased in their testimony, as they jointly own the property in question?

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the partner who is testifying wrote to the other partner: I do not have any legal dealings or involvement with regard to this field, thereby relinquishing his ownership of the field. The Gemara asks: And if he wrote this to him, what of it? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that one who says to another: I do not have any legal dealings or involvement concerning this field, or: I have no dealings with it, or: My hands are removed from it, has said nothing? That is to say, these statements have no legal standing.

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the one testifying performed an act of acquisition with the other partner. Since relinquishing his share in this fashion is effective, his testimony is no longer biased. The Gemara asks: And if he performed an act of acquisition with the one testifying, what of it? His testimony is still biased, as he is establishing the field before his creditor. Once he transferred his share to his partner, his creditor will now be able to collect from the property that he formerly co-owned, as a creditor can collect from property that a debtor once owned despite the fact that he has relinquished his ownership of it. Since his testimony enables him to repay his debt, it is biased.

As Ravin bar Shmuel says in the name of Shmuel: One who sells a field to another even without a guarantee that if the field will be repossessed the seller will compensate the buyer for his loss cannot testify with regard to ownership of that field on behalf of the buyer because he is establishing the field before his creditor.

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the one testifying assumes financial responsibility for the field. Therefore, his testimony is not biased. The Gemara clarifies: Responsibility with regard to whom? If we say that he assumes general responsibility, such that if anyone collects the field from his former partner for whatever reason, he is liable to compensate the partner, then all the more so it is preferable for him that the field remain in his former partner’s possession, as if the claimant will be successful in obtaining the field, the witness will have to compensate the partner. Rather, it is referring to a case where he assumes responsibility only for a loss that comes to his former partner in the property resulting from the field being seized by one of his creditors to collect payment for his debts. He is, therefore, not an interested party, as in any event he owes the same debt, either to his creditor or to his partner.

The Gemara asks: And if he removes himself from the property by having the former partner acquire his share in it, is it actually effective to remove him, so that there is no longer a concern for biased testimony? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to a case of residents of a city whose Torah scroll was stolen, the case is not adjudicated by the judges of that city, and proof may not be brought from the testimony of the people of that city, as their testimony is biased? And if it is so that relinquishing one’s share renders one as not biased, then let two of them remove themselves from their share in the Torah scroll, and then the court can judge the case based on their testimony.

The Gemara answers: A Torah scroll is different, as it stands for the people to listen to the Torah reading from it. Since they are obligated to listen to the Torah reading, they stand to benefit from this Torah scroll even if they relinquish their ownership share in it, and their testimony is biased.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: With regard to one who says: Give one hundred dinars to the residents of my city, the distribution of the funds is not adjudicated by the judges of that city, and proof may not be brought from the testimony of the people of that city, as their testimony is biased. Why not? Let two people remove themselves from their share in the funds and then the court can judge the case based on their testimony.

The Gemara answers: Here too, this halakha is stated with regard to a case where the gift was for the purpose of procuring a Torah scroll, and the same aforementioned reasoning applies.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: With regard to one who says: Give one hundred dinars to the poor people of my city, the distribution of the funds is not adjudicated by the judges of that city, and proof may not be brought from testimony of the people of that city, as their testimony is biased. And how can you understand the fact that the poor take the money and the judges are thereby disqualified as interested parties? Rather, say: The distribution of the funds is not adjudicated by the poor judges of that city, and proof may not be brought from the testimony of the poor people of that city. And why not? Let two people remove themselves from their share in the funds and then the court can judge the case based on their testimony.

The Gemara answers: Here, too this halakha is stated with regard to a case where the gift was for the purpose of procuring a Torah scroll, and the same aforementioned reasoning applies. The Gemara asks: And if it is referring to money for purchasing a Torah scroll rather than money earmarked for charity, why does the baraita call the recipients: Poor people? Because everyone is poor with regard to a Torah scroll, as it is very expensive.

And if you wish, say instead: Actually, it is referring to people who are literally poor, as it teaches. And the ruling of the baraita is stated with regard to poor people, whose support is incumbent upon all of the residents. Therefore, a gift to these poor people reduces their obligation, and all of their testimony is biased. The Gemara clarifies: And what are the circumstances in which this baraita states its ruling? If it is a place where the sum of charity that each resident is obligated to give is fixed for them, let two of them give what is fixed for them to give to the poor, and then the court can judge the case based on their testimony.

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the sum is not fixed for them. Therefore, this is not an option. And if you wish, say instead: Actually, it is referring to a place where the sum is fixed for them. And nevertheless, it is amenable to the residents of the city that the poor receive a gift, because once there is a gain for the poor people from this donation, there is a gain, and it lightens the burden on all of the people of the city.

§ The Gemara returns to discuss Shmuel’s statement concerning partners: And they become paid bailees of their joint property with regard to each other.