Study Bava Batra folio 57A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud relates: There was a certain document that had the signatures of two individuals on it. One of the signatory witnesses died, and when the court sought to ratify the document, which requires either that the witnesses personally attest to the validity of their signatures or that two other
Ravina thought to say that this case is the same as the halakha in the Mishnah, which states that if 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 considered to be 3 disti
Rav Ashi said to him: Are these cases comparable? There, the property less 1/4th, i.e., 3/4ths of the property in question, is not removed from the possession of the prior owner based upon the mouth, i.e., the testimony, of brothers. Each brother provides only half of the testimony for each year
Mishnah: These are uses of property that have the means to establish the presumption of ownership, and these are uses of property that do not have the means to establish the presumption of ownership: If one would stand an animal in a courtyard; or if one would place an oven, a millstone, or a stov
Talmud: The Talmud asks: What is different in the first clause, where having an animal stand in a courtyard is insufficient to establish the presumption of ownership, and what is different in the latter clause, where constructing a partition is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership