## Bava Metzia Daf 37b

###### Bava Metzia 37b:1
[Bava Metzia 37b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/37b:1)

צוֹוֵחַ. מַאן דְּאָמַר הַלָּה צוֹוֵחַ, אֲבָל שְׁתִיקָה – כְּהוֹדָאָה. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר הַלָּה שׁוֹתֵק, שְׁתִיקָה דְּהָכָא לָאו כְּהוֹדָאָה הוּא, מָצֵי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַאי דִּשְׁתִיקִי לְכֹל חַד וְחַד, דְּאָמֵינָא דִּלְמָא הַאי הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**screams** and says to each of the claimants: I do not recognize you and I find no basis for your claim. The Gemara comments: **The one who says** that **the other screams** holds that he need not return the money to each of them if he is screaming that he does not accept their claims. **But** a reaction of **silence is tantamount to admission** that the demands of the claimants are legitimate. **And the one who says** that **the other is silent** holds **that the silence here is not tantamount to admission,** as the robber **could say to him:** The fact **that I was silent to each and every one** of the claimants **is because I said: Perhaps this is he,** the robbery victim, but I do not admit that I owe money to more than one person.


###### Bava Metzia 37b:2
[Bava Metzia 37b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/37b:2)

אָמַר מָר: מַנִּיחַ גְּזֵילָה בֵּינֵיהֶם וּמִסְתַּלֵּק. וְשָׁקְלִי לַהּ כּוּלְּהוּ וְאָזְלִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא אָמַר רַב: כֹּל סְפֵק הִינּוּחַ לְכַתְּחִילָּה לֹא יִטּוֹל, וְאִם נָטַל – לֹא יַחֲזִיר. אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: וְיַנִּיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Master said:** The robber **places** the **stolen item between them and withdraws** from them. The Gemara challenges: **And all of them take it and go,** possibly resulting in the robbery victim losing his property. **But doesn’t Rabbi Abba bar Zavda say** that **Rav says** concerning found items: In **any** case of **uncertainty** whether the **placement** of a found item was deliberate, the finder **may not take** the item ***ab initio*, and if he took** it, **he should not return it** to one who claims ownership without conclusive proof? Here too, the robber should keep the money until one of the claimants provides conclusive proof that the money is his. **Rav Safra says:** The *baraita* means: **And** the robber **should place** it in his possession or before the court.


###### Bava Metzia 37b:3
[Bava Metzia 37b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/37b:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרָבָא: מִי אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לֹא זוֹ הַדֶּרֶךְ מוֹצִיאָתוֹ מִידֵי עֲבֵירָה עַד שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם גְּזֵילָה לְכֹל חַד וְחַד? אַלְמָא מִסְּפֵיקָא מַפְּקִינַן מָמוֹנָא, וְלָא אָמְרִינַן ״אוֹקֵים מָמוֹנָא בְּחֶזְקַת מָרֵיהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to Rava:** In disputing Rabbi Tarfon’s opinion with regard to one who robbed money from one of five people, **did Rabbi Akiva say: This is not** the **way to spare him from transgression;** he is not considered to have returned the stolen item **until he pays** the value of the **stolen item to each and every one** of the five? **Apparently,** in his opinion, **in** cases of **uncertainty, we expropriate property** and return it to those claiming it, **and we do not say: Establish the money in the possession of its owner.**


###### Bava Metzia 37b:4
[Bava Metzia 37b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/37b:4)

וּרְמִינְהִי: נָפַל הַבַּיִת עָלָיו וְעַל אִמּוֹ, יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבֵּן אוֹמְרִים: הָאֵם מֵתָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. וְיוֹרְשֵׁי הָאֵם אוֹמְרִים: הַבֵּן מֵת רִאשׁוֹן. אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ מוֹדִים שֶׁיַּחְלוֹקוּ. וְאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מוֹדֶה אֲנִי בָּזוֹ שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים בְּחֶזְקָתָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises a contradiction** from a mishna (*Bava Batra* 158b): **A house collapsed on** a person **and on his mother,** and it is unclear which of them died first. **The son’s heirs say: The mother died first** and her property was inherited by her son, who then died, and therefore the heirs of the son inherit the property of both. **And the mother’s heirs say: The son died first,** and therefore the mother’s heirs should inherit all of her property. In this case, both **these** *tanna’im*, Beit Shammai, **and those** *tanna’im*, Beit Hillel, **agree that they should divide** the disputed property, although they disagree in similar cases. **And Rabbi Akiva said: I concede in this** case **that the property** retains **its** previous ownership **status.** Apparently, Rabbi Akiva himself holds that property is not removed from one’s possession in cases of uncertainty.


###### Bava Metzia 37b:5
[Bava Metzia 37b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/37b:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָתָם – שֶׁמָּא וְשֶׁמָּא, גָּזַל אֶחָד מֵחֲמִשָּׁה – בָּרִי וְשֶׁמָּא. וְהָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּהָכָא אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם: גָּזַלְתִּי לְאֶחָד מִכֶּם מָנֶה, דְּשֶׁמָּא וְשֶׁמָּא הוּא, וְקָתָנֵי: נוֹתֵן לָזֶה מָנֶה וְלָזֶה מָנֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to** Abaye: **There,** in the case where the house collapsed, it is where there is **an uncertain** claim **and an uncertain** claim, as neither party knows what transpired. By contrast, in a case where **one robbed** money **from one of five** people, it is a case where there is **a certain** claim **and an uncertain** claim, as the robber does not know from whom he robbed the money, but the victims’ claims are based on certainty. The Gemara challenges: **But in the mishna here,** where **one said to two** people: **I robbed one of you of one hundred dinars,** but I do not know from which of you I took the money, it is a case where there is **an uncertain** claim **and an uncertain** claim, **and it is taught: He gives one hundred dinars to this** person **and one hundred dinars to that** person.


###### Bava Metzia 37b:6
[Bava Metzia 37b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/37b:6)

וּמִמַּאי דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא? דְּקָתָנֵי עֲלַהּ דְּהַהִיא: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן בְּאוֹמֵר לִשְׁנַיִם ״גָּזַלְתִּי לְאֶחָד מִכֶּם מָנֶה וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶה מִכֶּם כּוּ׳״, לְמַאן מוֹדֶה? לָאו לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בַּר פְּלוּגְתֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And from where** is it known **that the mishna here is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva?** The Gemara answers: This is known, **as it is taught** in a *baraita* **concerning** the *halakha* taught in **that** mishna: **Rabbi Tarfon concedes** that in a case **where one says to two** people: **I robbed one of** the two of **you of one hundred dinars and I do not know** from **which of you** I robbed the money, the robber gives one hundred dinars to each of them. **To whom does Rabbi Tarfon concede? Is it not to Rabbi Akiva,** who is **his** usual **disputant?**


###### Bava Metzia 37b:7
[Bava Metzia 37b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/37b:7)

וּמִמַּאי דְּשֶׁמָּא וְשֶׁמָּא הוּא? חֲדָא דְּלָא קָתָנֵי תּוֹבְעִין אוֹתוֹ. וְעוֹד, הָא תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: זֶה אוֹמֵר ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And from where** is it known that in the mishna it is a case where there is **an uncertain** claim **and an uncertain** claim? Perhaps the victims are certain that they were robbed. The Gemara answers: This is unlikely for several reasons. **One, it is not taught** in the mishna that **they demand** payment **from him. And furthermore, didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach** in a *baraita* that the mishna is referring to a case where **this** party **says: I do not know, and that** party **says: I do not know,** indicating that these are uncertain claims?


###### Bava Metzia 37b:8
[Bava Metzia 37b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/37b:8)

הָא אוֹקֵימְנָא לַהּ בְּבָא לָצֵאת יְדֵי שָׁמַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara resolves the contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Akiva: **Didn’t we establish** the mishna as referring to a case in which the robber **is coming to fulfill his obligation to Heaven?** Therefore, the robber gives one hundred dinars to each, although he has no legal obligation to do so, as they made uncertain claims.


###### Bava Metzia 37b:9
[Bava Metzia 37b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/37b:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וּמִי אָמַר רָבָא כֹּל בִּשְׁתֵּי כְּרִיכוֹת הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵידַק? וְהָאָמַר רָבָא, וְאִי תֵּימָא רַב פָּפָּא: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בִּשְׁנַיִם שֶׁהִפְקִידוּ אֵצֶל רוֹעֶה, שֶׁמַּנִּיחַ רוֹעֶה בֵּינֵיהֶן וּמִסְתַּלֵּק! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם כְּשֶׁהִפְקִידוּ בְּעֶדְרוֹ שֶׁל רוֹעֶה שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And did Rava say** that in **every** case where the deposits are given **in two** separate **bundles** that the bailee **should have been discerning** with regard to the identity of the ones giving him the deposits? **But didn’t Rava say, and some say** that it was **Rav Pappa** who said: **Everyone concedes in** the case of **two** people **who deposited** animals **with a shepherd, that** if each claims that his deposit included a greater number of animals than that of the other, **the shepherd places** the animals **among them and leaves?** Rav Ashi **said to** Ravina: **There,** it is referring to a case **where** the shepherds **deposited** animals **in the shepherd’s flock without his knowledge.** Clearly there is no expectation that the shepherd will discern how many animals belong to each party.


###### Bava Metzia 37b:10
[Bava Metzia 37b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/37b:10)

וְכֵן שְׁנֵי כֵלִים אֶחָד יָפֶה מָנֶה וְאֶחָד יָפֶה אֶלֶף זוּז כּוּ׳. וּצְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **And likewise,** in the case of two people who deposited **two vessels, one worth one hundred dinars and one worth one thousand dinars,** and each of the claimants claims that the expensive vessel is his, the bailee gives the small vessel to one of them, and from the proceeds of the sale of the large vessel he gives the value of the small vessel to the other, and the rest of the money is placed in a safe place until Elijah comes. The Gemara comments: **And** it is **necessary** for the *tanna* to cite both the case of money and the case of vessels.


###### Bava Metzia 37b:11
[Bava Metzia 37b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/37b:11)

דְּאִי אַשְׁמְועִינַן הָךְ קַמַּיְיתָא: בְּהַהִיא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵיכָּא פְּסֵידָא. אֲבָל בְּהָא, דְּאִיכָּא פְּסֵידָא דְגָדוֹל אֵימָא מוֹדוּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְאִי אִתְּמַר בְּהָא, בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֲבָל בְּהָךְ אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן. צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The reason is **that if** the *tanna* had **taught us this first** case with regard to money alone, one would conclude that it is **in this** case that **the Rabbis say** that each party receives one hundred dinars, and one hundred dinars is kept in a safe place, **because** in this case **there is no loss. But in that** case of the vessels, **where there is a loss of the large** vessel, as it must be broken or sold in order to pay the value of the small vessel to the other party, **say** that **they concede to Rabbi Yosei** that both vessels are kept in a safe place. **And had** the dispute **been stated** only **in that** case of vessels, one would conclude that it is **in that** case that **Rabbi Yosei said** that both vessels are kept in a safe place. **But in this** case of money, **say** that **he concedes to the Rabbis.** Therefore, it is **necessary** to cite both cases.