## Bava Metzia Daf 3a

###### Bava Metzia 3a:1
[Bava Metzia 3a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/3a:1)

וְאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר כּוּלָּהּ לְמָר, וְאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר כּוּלָּהּ לְמָר, אָמַר סוֹמְכוֹס: מָמוֹן הַמּוּטָּל בְּסָפֵק חוֹלְקִין בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה, הָכָא, דְּלֵיכָּא דְּרָרָא דְמָמוֹנָא, דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ הִיא, לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and there is** room **to say** that **it** belongs **entirely to one** of them, **and there is** also room **to say** that **it** belongs **entirely to** the other **one,** and nevertheless **Sumakhos says** that since it is **property of uncertain ownership they divide** it **without** taking **an oath,** then **here, where** the litigants have **no financial association** with the item, **as there is** room **to say that it** belongs to **both of them, all the more so** is it **not** clear that they should divide it without taking an oath?


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

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא סוֹמְכוֹס, שְׁבוּעָה זוֹ מִדְּרַבָּנַן הִיא כִּדְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁבוּעָה זוֹ תַּקָּנַת חֲכָמִים הִיא, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד הוֹלֵךְ וְתוֹקֵף בְּטַלִּיתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ וְאוֹמֵר: שֶׁלִּי הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **You may even say** that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Sumakhos: This oath is** instituted **by rabbinic** law **in accordance with** the statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan. As Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This oath,** administered in the case of two people holding a garment, **is an ordinance** instituted **by the Sages so that everyone will not go and seize the garment of another and say: It is mine.**


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

לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאִי כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי – הָא אָמַר: אִם כֵּן מָה הִפְסִיד רַמַּאי? אֶלָּא הַכֹּל יְהֵא מוּנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara suggests: **Let us say that the mishna** is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei. As, if** you say that the ruling is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, doesn’t he say** that a case cannot be decided in a manner in which there is no deterrent for one taking a false claim to court (37a)? He says this with regard to a case where two people deposited money with the same person. One deposited one hundred dinars and one deposited two hundred, and the bailee forgot which of them deposited the larger sum. Subsequently, each claimed ownership of the larger sum and was prepared to take an oath to that effect. The Rabbis say that each should receive the smaller sum and the remainder should be held until Elijah the prophet prophetically resolves the uncertainty. Rabbi Yosei says: **If so, what did** the **swindler lose? Rather, the entire** deposit **will be placed** in a safe place **until Elijah comes.**


###### Bava Metzia 3a:4
[Bava Metzia 3a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/3a:4)

אֶלָּא מַאי רַבָּנַן – כֵּיוָן דְּאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן: ״הַשְּׁאָר יְהֵא מוּנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ״, הָא נָמֵי כִּשְׁאָר דָּמֵי, דִּסְפֵיקָא הִיא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters: **Rather, what** is suggested? Is it suggested that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who disagree with Rabbi Yosei? **Since the Rabbis say** there: **The remainder is placed** in a safe place **until Elijah comes, this** case of the mishna concerning the garment **is also comparable to the remainder** in the case of the deposit, **as it is uncertain** to whom the entire garment belongs. It should therefore be placed in a safe place until the matter is resolved.


###### Bava Metzia 3a:5
[Bava Metzia 3a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/3a:5)

הַאי מַאי? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבָּנַן, הָתָם דְּוַדַּאי הַאי מָנֶה דְּחַד מִינַּיְיהוּ הוּא אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן: יְהֵא מוּנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ. הָכָא דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ הוּא, אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן: פָּלְגִי 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,** in the case of the depositors, **where these one hundred dinars certainly belong to** only **one of them** and **the Rabbis say** that **it is placed** in a safe place **until Elijah comes, here,** in the case of this mishna, **where there is** room **to say that it belongs to both of them, the Rabbis say** that **they divide** it **with** the proviso that they take **an oath.**


###### Bava Metzia 3a:6
[Bava Metzia 3a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/3a:6)

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, הַשְׁתָּא וּמָה הָתָם דִּבְוַדַּאי אִיכָּא מָנֶה לְמָר וְאִיכָּא מָנֶה לְמָר, אֲמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי יְהֵא מוּנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ, הָכָא דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר דְּחַד מִינַּיְיהוּ הוּא – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But if you say** that the mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei,** there is a difficulty. **Now** consider, **if there,** in a case **where it is certain that there are one hundred dinars** that belong **to one** of the litigants **and there are one hundred dinars** that belong **to** the other **one,** nevertheless, **Rabbi Yosei says** that the entire sum **is placed** in a safe place **until Elijah comes, here, where there is** room **to say that it** all **belongs to** only **one of them, all the more so** is it **not** clear that it should be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes, as one of the claims may be entirely fraudulent?


###### Bava Metzia 3a:7
[Bava Metzia 3a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/3a:7)

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, הָתָם – וַדַּאי אִיכָּא רַמַּאי, הָכָא מִי יֵימַר דְּאִיכָּא רַמַּאי? אֵימָא תַּרְוַיְיהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי אַגְבְּהוּהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **You may even say** that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei: There,** in the case of the deposit, **there is certainly a swindler** between the two depositors. By contrast, **here,** in the case of the mishna, **who is to say that there is a swindler? Say** that **both of them lifted** the garment **at the same time,** and therefore there is no reason to penalize them by placing the garment in a safe place.


###### Bava Metzia 3a:8
[Bava Metzia 3a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/3a:8)

אִי נָמֵי: הָתָם קָנֵיס לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְרַמַּאי כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלוֹדֵי, הָכָא מַאי פְּסֵידָא אִית לֵיהּ דְּלוֹדֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** there is room to distinguish between the cases: **There, Rabbi Yosei penalizes** the **swindler** by confiscating his deposit **so that he will admit** that he lied in order to receive his original deposit of one hundred dinars from the bailee. **Here,** in the case of the garment, **what loss** would a swindler **incur that** would prompt him to **admit** that he is lying? If the item is placed in a safe place, he loses nothing.


###### Bava Metzia 3a:9
[Bava Metzia 3a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/3a:9)

תִּינַח מְצִיאָה, מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא כִּדְשַׁנִּין מֵעִיקָּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this alternative explanation: This distinction **works out well** in the case of **a found item** where he did not pay anything for it. Consequently, he has no incentive to admit that he lied. But in a case of **buying and selling, what is there to say?** Both parties paid for the item and prefer to receive the item. **Rather,** the distinction **is clearly as we explained initially.** The difference between the cases is that in the mishna, there is no certainty that one of them is lying.


###### Bava Metzia 3a:10
[Bava Metzia 3a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/3a:10)

בֵּין לְרַבָּנַן וּבֵין לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, הָתָם גַּבֵּי חֶנְוָנִי עַל פִּנְקָסוֹ דְּקָתָנֵי: זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל, וְזֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Both according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis and according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, there, with regard to** the case of **a storekeeper** relying **on his ledger,** it is unclear why the money is not held until the matter is clarified. This is referring to a case where an employer tells a storekeeper to give food to his laborer in lieu of his salary, and later the storekeeper claims that he gave it to him but the laborer claims that he did not receive it. Both parties therefore claim payment from the employer. **As** the mishna (*Shevuot* 45a) **teaches** that **this** one, the storekeeper, **takes an oath** that he gave the food to the laborer **and receives** payment from the employer, **and that** one, the laborer, **takes an oath** that he was not given the food **and takes** his salary from the employer.


###### Bava Metzia 3a:11
[Bava Metzia 3a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/3a:11)

מַאי שְׁנָא דְּלָא אָמְרִינַן נַפְּקֵיהּ לְמָמוֹנָא מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת, וִיהֵא מוּנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ, דְּהָא בְּוַדַּאי אִיכָּא רַמַּאי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is different** in that case, **that we do not say: Appropriate the money from the employer, and it is placed** in a safe place **until Elijah comes?** Apparently, we should say this **because there is certainly a swindler** among the litigants, since it is impossible that both the storekeeper and the laborer are telling the truth.


###### Bava Metzia 3a:12
[Bava Metzia 3a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/3a:12)

אָמְרִי הָתָם, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ חֶנְוָנִי לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת: אֲנָא שְׁלִיחוּתָא דִידָךְ קָא עָבְדִינָא, מַאי אִית לִי גַּבֵּי שָׂכִיר, אַף עַל גַּב דְּקָא מִשְׁתְּבַע לִי, לָא מְהֵימַן לִי בִּשְׁבוּעָה, אַתְּ הֶאֱמַנְתֵּיהּ, דְּלָא אֲמַרְתְּ לִי בְּסָהֲדֵי הַב לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say** in response: **There, this is the reason** that the money is not set aside: **Because the storekeeper can say to the employer: I carried out your agency** to give the food to the laborer, and I have dealings only with you. **What** business **do I have with the hired laborer? Even if he takes an oath to me** that he did not receive the food, he is **not trustworthy to me by** virtue of his **oath. You** are the one who **trusted him, as you did not say to me: Give him** the food **in** the presence of **witnesses.** Therefore, you are obligated to pay me. If you have a grievance, settle it with your employee.


###### Bava Metzia 3a:13
[Bava Metzia 3a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/3a:13)

וְשָׂכִיר נָמֵי אָמַר לֵיהּ לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת: אֲנָא עֲבַדִי עֲבִידְתָּא גַּבָּךְ, מַאי אִית לִי גַּבֵּי חֶנְוָנִי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּמִשְׁתְּבַע לִי לָא מְהֵימָן לִי. הִלְכָּךְ, תַּרְוַיְיהוּ מִשְׁתַּבְעִי וְשָׁקְלִי מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the **hired laborer can also say to the employer: I worked for you. What** relationship **do I have with the storekeeper? Even if he takes an oath to me** that he gave me the change, he is **not trustworthy to me** by virtue of his oath. **Therefore, both** parties **take an oath and take** payment **from the employer.**


###### Bava Metzia 3a:14
[Bava Metzia 3a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/3a:14)

תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם, וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז – נוֹתֵן לוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז, וְיִשָּׁבַע עַל הַשְּׁאָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Ḥiyya taught** a *baraita*: If one says to another: **I** have **one hundred dinars [*maneh*] in your possession** that you borrowed from me and did not repay, **and the other** party **says: Nothing of yours** is **in my possession, and the witnesses testify that he has fifty dinars** that he owes the claimant, **he gives him fifty dinars and takes an oath about the remainder,** i.e., that he did not borrow the fifty remaining dinars from him.


###### Bava Metzia 3a:15
[Bava Metzia 3a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/3a:15)

שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא הוֹדָאַת פִּיו גְּדוֹלָה מֵהַעֲדָאַת עֵדִים, מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This ruling is derived **via an *a fortiori*** inference from the *halakha* that one who admits to part of a claim that is brought against him is obligated to take an oath that he owes no more than the amount that he admits to have borrowed. The inference is: **As the admission of one’s** own **mouth should not** carry **greater** weight **than the testimony of witnesses.** Since in this case witnesses testify that he owes an amount equal to part of the claim, he is all the more so obligated to take an oath with regard to the rest of the sum.


###### Bava Metzia 3a:16
[Bava Metzia 3a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/3a:16)

וְתַנָּא תּוּנָא: שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּטַלִּית זֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ וְכוּ׳. וְהָא הָכָא כֵּיוָן דְּתָפֵיס, אֲנַן סָהֲדִי דְּמַאי דְּתָפֵיס הַאי דִּידֵיהּ הוּא, וּמַאי דְּתָפֵיס הַאי דִּידֵיהּ הוּא, וְקָתָנֵי: יִשָּׁבַע!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** the ***tanna*** of the mishna also **taught** a similar *halakha*: In a case of **two** people who came to court **holding a garment,** where **this** one **says: I found it,** and the other one says: I found it, each litigant takes an oath and they divide the garment. **And here,** in the case of a found item, **since** each litigant **is holding** part of the garment, **it is clear to us that what** is in **this one’s grasp is his, and what** is in **that one’s grasp is his.** This is tantamount to witnesses testifying that part of the claim of each litigant is legitimate. **And** the mishna **teaches** that each of them **takes an oath.**


###### Bava Metzia 3a:17
[Bava Metzia 3a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/3a:17)

מַאי ״שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא הוֹדָאַת פִּיו גְּדוֹלָה מֵהַעֲדָאַת עֵדִים מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר״? שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאמַר הוֹדָאַת פִּיו הוּא דְּרַמְיָא רַחֲמָנָא שְׁבוּעָה עֲלֵיהּ כִּדְרַבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: For **what** reason is it necessary to have the ***a fortiori*** inference: **As the admission of one’s** own **mouth should not** carry **greater** weight **than the testimony of witnesses?** Isn’t the comparison to the case of an admission to part of a claim self-evident? The Gemara answers: It is necessary so **that you will not say** that **it is** only in a case of **the admission of one’s** own **mouth that the Merciful One imposes an oath upon him, in accordance with** the explanation **of Rabba.**


###### Bava Metzia 3a:18
[Bava Metzia 3a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/3a:18)

דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה מוֹדֶה מִקְצָת הַטַּעֲנָה יִשָּׁבַע? חֲזָקָה אֵין אָדָם מֵעִיז פָּנָיו בִּפְנֵי בַּעַל חוֹבוֹ, וְהַאי בְּכוּלֵּיהּ בָּעֵי דְּנִכְפְּרֵיהּ, וְהָא דְּלָא כַּפְרֵיהּ – מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין אָדָם מֵעִיז פָּנָיו

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rabba says: For what** reason **did the Torah say** that one who **admits to part of the claim must take an oath?** It is because there is **a presumption** that **a person does not exhibit insolence** by lying **in the presence of his creditor,** who had done him a favor by lending money to him. **And this** person who denies part of the claim actually **wants to deny all of** the debt, so as to be exempt, **and this** fact **that he does not deny** all of **it** is **because a person does not exhibit insolence.**