## Bava Metzia Daf 2b

###### Bava Metzia 2b:1
[Bava Metzia 2b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/2b:1)

דְּאִי תְּנָא מְצִיאָה הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מְצִיאָה הוּא דִּרְמוֹ רַבָּנַן שְׁבוּעָה עֲלֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם דְּמוֹרֵי וְאָמַר, חַבְרַאי לָאו מִידֵּי חָסַר בָּהּ, אֵיזִל אֶתְפִּיס וְאִתְפְּלֵיג בַּהֲדֵיהּ! אֲבָל מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר, דְּלֵיכָּא לְמֵימַר הָכִי – אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As had** the *tanna* **taught** the case of **a found item** alone, **I would say** that **it is** only in the case of **a found item that the Sages imposed an oath upon him, as** in that case **one can rationalize** his actions **and say: The other** party, the one who in fact found the item, **is not losing anything** by not keeping all of **it,** as it was not his to begin with. **I will go seize** it from him **and divide** it **with him. But** in the case of **buying and selling, where that cannot be said, say** that the Sages did **not** impose an oath upon him.


###### Bava Metzia 2b:2
[Bava Metzia 2b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/2b:2)

וְאִי תְּנָא מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר, הוּא דִּרְמוֹ רַבָּנַן שְׁבוּעָה עֲלֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם דְּמוֹרֵי וְאָמַר: חַבְרַאי דְּמֵי קָא יָהֵיב וַאֲנָא דְּמֵי קָא יָהֵיבְנָא, הַשְׁתָּא דִּצְרִיכָא לְדִידִי אֶשְׁקְלֵיהּ אֲנָא, וְחַבְרַאי לֵיזִיל לִטְרַח לִיזְבַּן, אֲבָל מְצִיאָה, דְּלֵיכָּא לְמֵימַר הָכִי – אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had** the *tanna* **taught** the case of **buying and selling** alone, one might say that **it is** specifically in this case **that the Sages imposed an oath upon him, because he could rationalize** his actions, **saying** to himself: **The other** party **gave money** to the seller **and I gave money** to the seller; **now that I need** it **for myself, I will take it and let the other one go to the trouble to buy** another item like the first item. **But** in the case of **a found item, where that cannot be said, say** that the Sages did **not** suspect that he seized an item that did not belong to him, and therefore there is no need to impose an oath upon him. Therefore, both cases are **necessary.**


###### Bava Metzia 2b:3
[Bava Metzia 2b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/2b:3)

מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר, וְלִחְזֵי זוּזֵי מִמַּאן נָקֵט? לָא צְרִיכָא דְּנָקֵט מִתַּרְוַיְיהוּ, מֵחַד מִדַּעְתֵּיהּ וּמֵחַד בְּעַל כָּרְחֵיהּ, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא מִי הוּא מִדַּעְתֵּיהּ, וּמִי הוּא בְּעַל כָּרְחֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: How can the mishna be referring to a case of **buying and selling? But let us see from whom** the seller **took the money.** Obviously, the one who gave him the money is the one who bought it. The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** in a case **where he took** money **from both of them.** He accepted the money **willingly from** the **one** to whom he wanted to sell the item, **and** he received the money **against his will from** the **one** to whom he did not want to sell the item, **and I do not know who is** the one from whom he took it **willingly, and who is** the one from whom he received it **against his will.** Consequently, the matter is clarified by means of an oath.


###### Bava Metzia 2b:4
[Bava Metzia 2b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/2b:4)

לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּבֶן נַנָּס, דְּאִי בֶּן נַנָּס, הָאָמַר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara suggests: **Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **ben Nannas, as, if** it were in accordance with the opinion of **ben Nannas, doesn’t he say** that an oath is not administered to two parties in court when one of them is certainly lying?


###### Bava Metzia 2b:5
[Bava Metzia 2b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/2b:5)

כֵּיצַד אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ בָּאִין לִידֵי שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
As it is stated in a mishna (*Shevuot* 45a): With regard to a case where a man said to his laborer: Go to the storekeeper and he will give you food in lieu of your salary, and sometime later the laborer claimed that the storekeeper did not give him anything while the storekeeper claimed that he did, the Rabbis say: The storekeeper and the laborer must each take an oath to support their claims, and the employer must pay them both. Ben Nannas says in response: **How** can you allow **these** people, i.e., the laborer, **and those** people, i.e., the storekeeper, to **come to** take **an oath in vain?** Since one of them is definitely lying, the Sages would not impose the taking of an oath that by definition must be false. Similarly, in the case of the mishna here, since the found item is divided between the parties in any case, according to the opinion of ben Nannas they should receive their portions without taking an oath.


###### Bava Metzia 2b:6
[Bava Metzia 2b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/2b:6)

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא בֶּן נַנָּס, הָתָם וַדַּאי אִיכָּא שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. הָכָא אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר דְּלֵיכָּא שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא, אֵימוֹר דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי אַגְבְּהוּהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: It is **even** possible for **you to say** that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **ben Nannas. There,** in the case of the laborer and the storekeeper, **an oath is certainly** taken in **vain,** as it is clear that one of them is lying. **Here, there is** room **to say that there is no oath** taken in **vain. Say that they** are **both** taking an oath truthfully, as they **lifted** the item **together,** and therefore each of them owns half of it. In this case, ben Nannas would agree that they both take an oath.


###### Bava Metzia 2b:7
[Bava Metzia 2b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/2b:7)

לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּסוֹמְכוֹס, דְּאִי כְּסוֹמְכוֹס, הָאָמַר: מָמוֹן הַמּוּטָּל בְּסָפֵק – חוֹלְקִין בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests further: **Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Sumakhos, as, if** it were **in accordance with** the opinion of **Sumakhos, doesn’t he say** the following principle: In a case of **property of uncertain ownership,** the parties **divide** it **without** taking **an oath.**


###### Bava Metzia 2b:8
[Bava Metzia 2b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/2b:8)

וְאֶלָּא מַאי, רַבָּנַן? הָא אָמְרִי הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **Rather, what** opinion does the mishna follow? Does the mishna follow the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who disagree with Sumakhos? **Don’t they say** that in a case of property of uncertain ownership **the burden of proof rests upon the claimant?** In the case of the mishna neither side offers proof.


###### Bava Metzia 2b:9
[Bava Metzia 2b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/2b:9)

הַאי מַאי, אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבָּנַן: הָתָם דְּלָא תָּפְסִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ אֲמַרוּ רַבָּנַן הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה, הָכָא דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ תָּפְסִי [פָּלְגִי] לַהּ בִּשְׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **What is this** comparison? **Granted, if you say** that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** there is room to distinguish between two cases: **There,** in the case of property of uncertain ownership, **where both** parties **are not grasping** the property, **the Rabbis say** that **the burden of proof rests upon the claimant** since the one with possession of the property ostensibly has the right to that property. **Here,** in the case of the mishna, **where both are grasping** the property and neither has exclusive possession of the item, **they divide it with** the proviso that they take **an oath.**


###### Bava Metzia 2b:10
[Bava Metzia 2b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/2b:10)

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ סוֹמְכוֹס, הַשְׁתָּא וּמָה הָתָם דְּלָא תָּפְסִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ – חוֹלְקִין בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה, הָכָא דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ תָּפְסִי לַהּ – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to state its proof that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos: **But if you say** that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Sumakhos,** how do you resolve the following contradiction: **Now, if there,** in a case **where they are not both grasping** the property, **they** nevertheless **divide** it **without** taking **an oath, here, where they are both grasping** the property, is it **not all the more so** that they should divide it without taking an oath?


###### Bava Metzia 2b:11
[Bava Metzia 2b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/2b:11)

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא סוֹמְכוֹס: כִּי אָמַר סוֹמְכוֹס שֶׁמָּא וְשֶׁמָּא, אֲבָל בָּרִי וּבָרִי – לָא אָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **You** may **even say** that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Sumakhos. When Sumakhos states** that in a case of property of uncertain ownership, the parties divide it without taking an oath, that is in the case of **an uncertain** claim **and an uncertain** claim, i.e., when the circumstances are such that neither party can state definitively that he is entitled to the property. **But** in a case of **a certain** claim **and a certain** claim, where each party states definitively that he is entitled to the property, Sumakhos **does not say** that they divide the property without taking an oath.


###### Bava Metzia 2b:12
[Bava Metzia 2b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/2b:12)

וּלְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר: אָמַר סוֹמְכוֹס אֲפִילּוּ בָּרִי וּבָרִי, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to** the opinion of **Rabba bar Rav Huna, who said** that **Sumakhos says** that **even** in a case of **a certain** claim **and a certain** claim the parties divide the property without an oath, **what is there to say** to establish the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos?


###### Bava Metzia 2b:13
[Bava Metzia 2b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/2b:13)

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא סוֹמְכוֹס, כִּי אָמַר סוֹמְכוֹס – הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא דְּרָרָא דְמָמוֹנָא, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא דְּרָרָא דְמָמוֹנָא – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **You may even say** that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Sumakhos. When Sumakhos says** that property of uncertain ownership is divided, he is referring to a case **where** the litigants **have a financial association** with the item independent of their claims to it. **But where** the litigants **do not have a financial association** with the item beyond their claims, they do not divide it without taking an oath.


###### Bava Metzia 2b:14
[Bava Metzia 2b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/2b:14)

וְלָאו קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא? וּמָה הָתָם דְּאִיכָּא דְּרָרָא דְמָמוֹנָא לְמָר, וְאִיכָּא דְּרָרָא דְמָמוֹנָא לְמָר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But is it not an *a fortiori*** inference? **If there,** in a case **where** this **Master has a financial association** with the item, **and** that **Master has a financial association** with the item,