## Bava Metzia Daf 5a

###### Bava Metzia 5a:1
[Bava Metzia 5a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/5a:1)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר הֵילָךְ פָּטוּר, אַמַּאי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי קַרְקַע מִשְּׁבוּעָה? הָא כׇּל קַרְקַע הֵילָךְ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But according to** Rav Sheshet, with regard to **the one who says that** in a case where the debtor says: **Here you are,** he is **exempt** from taking an oath, **why was** it **necessary** for the **verse to exclude** a claim of **land** ownership **from** the defendant’s obligation to take **an oath** when he admits part of the claim? The exclusion of land is derived from the verse: “For any matter of trespass, for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garment, for any lost item about which one shall say: This is it, the claims of both of them shall come before the judges” (Exodus 22:8). **But all** cases involving one who admits to part of the claim involving **land** are cases where the defendant effectively says: **Here you are,** as land always remains in its location. Therefore, the derivation from the verse appears to be unnecessary.


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

אָמַר לָךְ: אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא הֵיכָא דְּחָפַר בָּהּ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that Rav Sheshet could have **said to you: The verse was necessary** in a case **where** the defendant **dug pits, ditches, and caves in** the land that he is returning to the plaintiff. Since the land has been damaged and is no longer in its prior state, the defendant is not effectively saying: Here you are.


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

אִי נָמֵי, הֵיכָא דִּטְעָנוֹ כֵּלִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת, וְהוֹדָה בַּכֵּלִים וְכָפַר בַּקַּרְקָעוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** there is the case **where** one **claimed** that another owed him **vessels and land, and** the defendant **admitted to** the claim involving **the vessels and denied** the claim involving **the land.** The verse teaches that although the defendant denied part of the claim and did not effectively say: Here you are, he is not obligated to take an oath with regard to the land.


###### Bava Metzia 5a:4
[Bava Metzia 5a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/5a:4)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: אַרְבָּעָה שׁוֹמְרִין צְרִיכִין כְּפִירָה בְּמִקְצָת וְהוֹדָאָה בְּמִקְצָת. שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל, נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר, וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a proof for Rabbi Ḥiyya’s opinion, **as Rami bar Ḥama teaches** a *baraita*: All **four** types of **bailees** mentioned in the Torah **require denial of part** of the claim **and admission of part** of the claim in order to incur liability to take an oath when someone claims to have given them an item as a deposit. This applies to **an unpaid bailee,** who receives no payment in exchange for safeguarding the item, **and a borrower,** who does not pay the owner in exchange for the right to use the item, as well as **a paid bailee,** who receives payment in exchange for safeguarding the item, **and a renter,** who rents an item in order to use it and pays the owner in exchange for that right.


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

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? לָאו דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֵילָךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **What are the circumstances** in which the bailees both deny part of the claim and admit to part of the claim? **Is it not** referring to a case where the bailee **said to** the one who deposited the item: With regard to the items that I admit to having received from you: **Here you are,** and as to the rest, I never received them and I am therefore not obligated to return them? This supports Rabbi Ḥiyya’s opinion that one who says: Here you are, is obligated to take an oath.


###### Bava Metzia 5a:6
[Bava Metzia 5a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/5a:6)

לָא, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: שָׁלֹשׁ פָּרוֹת מָסַרְתִּי לָךְ וּמֵתוּ כּוּלְּהוּ בִּפְשִׁיעָה. וְאָמַר לֵיהּ אִיהוּ: חֲדָא – לָא הָיוּ דְבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם, וַחֲדָא – מֵתָה בְּאוֹנֶס, וַחֲדָא – מֵתָה בִּפְשִׁיעָה דִּבְעֵינָא שַׁלּוֹמֵי לָךְ. דְּלָאו ״הֵילָךְ״ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No,** Rami bar Ḥama is referring to a different case, for example, a case **where** the depositor **said to** the unpaid bailee: **I gave you three cows and they all died due to** your **negligence.** You are therefore liable to pay for them. **And** the bailee **said to him:** With regard to **one** cow, this **matter never happened.** In other words, I received only two cows, not three. **And one** of the cows **died due to** an unavoidable **accident,** and I am exempt from paying for it. **And** the other **one died due to** my **negligence,** for **which I need to pay you.** In that case, although he admits to part of the claim, **it is not** a case of: **Here you are,** as he is not returning the cow itself.


###### Bava Metzia 5a:7
[Bava Metzia 5a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/5a:7)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי אֲבוּהּ דְּרַבִּי אַפְטוֹרִיקִי לִדְרַבִּי חִיָּיא קַמַּיְיתָא: מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם, וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז, יָכוֹל יִשָּׁבַע עַל הַשְּׁאָר –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Come** and **hear** a challenge **to the first** *halakha* **of Rabbi Ḥiyya, as the father of Rabbi Aptoriki taught** in a *baraita*: If one says to another: **I** have **one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other says: Nothing** of **yours** is **in my possession, and the witnesses testify that he has fifty dinars in his possession** that he owes the plaintiff, one **might** have thought that **he should take an oath about the remainder.**


###### Bava Metzia 5a:8
[Bava Metzia 5a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/5a:8)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַל כׇּל אֲבֵידָה אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי הוּא זֶה״. עַל הוֹדָאַת פִּיו אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ, וְאִי אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ עַל הַעֲדָאַת עֵדִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
To counter this, **the verse states** with regard to bailees: “For any matter of trespass, for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garment, **for any lost item about which one shall say: This is it,** the claims of both of them shall come before the judges” (Exodus 22:8). This indicates that **you obligate** the defendant to take an oath based **on the admission** to part of a claim by **his mouth, but you do not obligate him** to take an oath based **on the testimony of witnesses.**


###### Bava Metzia 5a:9
[Bava Metzia 5a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/5a:9)

מַתְנִיתָא קָא רָמֵית עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא?! רַבִּי חִיָּיא תַּנָּא הוּא וּפָלֵיג.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this challenge: **Are you raising an objection to** the opinion of **Rabbi Ḥiyya** from **a *baraita*? Rabbi Ḥiyya** himself **is a *tanna*, and** as such, he has the authority to **dispute** the determination in a *baraita*.


###### Bava Metzia 5a:10
[Bava Metzia 5a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/5a:10)

וְהָא קְרָא קָאָמַר! הָהוּא לְמוֹדֶה מִקְצָת הַטַּעֲנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But doesn’t** that *tanna* **cite a verse?** The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Ḥiyya, **that** verse teaches that **one who admits to part of the claim** is obligated to take an oath.


###### Bava Metzia 5a:11
[Bava Metzia 5a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/5a:11)

וַאֲבוּהּ דְּרַבִּי אַפְטוֹרִיקִי אָמַר לָךְ, כְּתִיב ״הוּא״ וּכְתִיב ״זֶה״, חַד לְמוֹדֶה מִקְצָת הַטַּעֲנָה, וְחַד לְהַעֲדָאַת עֵדִים דְּפָטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Aptoriki’s father** could have **said to you** that both *halakhot* are derived from the expression “This is it.” Since **“this” is written and “it” is** also **written,** it is interpreted that **one** word is stated **to** teach that **one who admits to part of the claim** is obligated to take an oath, **and one** word is stated **to** teach **that** in a case that involves the **testimony of witnesses,** one is **exempt** from taking an oath.


###### Bava Metzia 5a:12
[Bava Metzia 5a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/5a:12)

וְאִידָּךְ: חַד לְמוֹדֶה מִקְצָת הַטַּעֲנָה, וְחַד לְמוֹדֶה מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how does **the other** Sage, Rabbi Ḥiyya, interpret the double qualification in the verse? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, **one** word is stated **to** teach that **one who admits to part of the claim** is obligated to take an oath, **and one** word is stated **to** teach that one is obligated to take an oath only if he **admits** that he owes an item that is **of** the same **type** as the subject of **the claim.** If the plaintiff claims one type of item and the defendant admits to owing a different type of item, he is not obligated to take an oath.


###### Bava Metzia 5a:13
[Bava Metzia 5a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/5a:13)

וְאִידַּךְ מוֹדֶה מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה לֵית לֵיהּ, וְסָבַר לֵיהּ כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, דִּתְנַן: טְעָנוֹ חִטִּין, וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בִּשְׂעוֹרִין, פָּטוּר. וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מְחַיֵּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the other** Sage, Rabbi Aptoriki’s father, **does not accept** the principle that one is required to take an oath only if he **admits** that he owes an item that is **of** the same **type as** the subject of **the claim, but he holds like Rabban Gamliel** in this matter. **As we learned** in a mishna (*Shevuot* 38b): If one **claimed** that another owes **him wheat, and** the defendant **admitted to** owing **him barley,** which is less expensive than wheat, he is **exempt** from taking an oath despite his admission to part of the claim, as his admission does not correspond to the claim. **And Rabban Gamliel deems** him **liable** to take an oath.


###### Bava Metzia 5a:14
[Bava Metzia 5a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/5a:14)

הָהוּא רָעֲיָא דְּהָווּ מָסְרִי לֵיהּ כׇּל יוֹמָא חֵיוָתָא בְּסָהֲדֵי. יוֹמָא חַד מְסַרוּ לֵיהּ בְּלָא סָהֲדֵי. לְסוֹף אָמַר לְהוּ: לֹא הָיוּ דְבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. אֲתוֹ סָהֲדֵי אַסְהִידוּ בֵּיהּ דַּאֲכַל תַּרְתֵּי מִינַּיְיהוּ. אֲמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אִם אִיתָא לִדְרַבִּי חִיָּיא קַמַּיְיתָא, מִשְׁתְּבַע אַשְּׁאָרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates: There was **a certain shepherd to whom** people **would give** their **animals** for safekeeping **every day in** the presence **of witnesses. One day, they gave him** their animals **without witnesses. At the end** of the day **he said to** the owners of the animals: This **matter never occurred;** I never received the animals. **Witnesses came** and **testified against him that he ate two of them. Rabbi Zeira said: If Rabbi Ḥiyya’s first** *halakha* **is so,** the shepherd must **take an oath with regard to the remainder,** or else he must pay the value of the animals to their owners.


###### Bava Metzia 5a:15
[Bava Metzia 5a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/5a:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִם אִיתָא מִשְׁתְּבַע?! וְהָא גַּזְלָן הוּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ קָאָמֵינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: If** Rabbi Ḥiyya’s first *halakha* **is so,** the shepherd **takes an oath? Isn’t he a robber?** The witnesses established through their testimony that he took and ate some of the animals, and consequently his oath lacks credibility. Rabbi Zeira **said to him:** I did not mean that the shepherd takes an oath; **I was saying** that the party **opposing him** takes an oath and collects payment.


###### Bava Metzia 5a:16
[Bava Metzia 5a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/5a:16)

הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי דְּלֵיתָא לִדְרַבִּי חִיָּיא, נְחַיְּיבֵיהּ מִדְּרַב נַחְמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Now, too,** if it is so **that** the *halakha* **is not in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Ḥiyya,** and testimony supporting part of the claim does not obligate the defendant to take an oath with regard to the rest, the court **should** still **obligate** the shepherd to take an oath **due to** the ordinance **of Rav Naḥman,** and since his oath is not deemed credible the plaintiff should take an oath and collect payment.


###### Bava Metzia 5a:17
[Bava Metzia 5a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/5a:17)

דִּתְנַן: מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי – פָּטוּר. וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ שְׁבוּעַת הֶיסֵּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna (*Shevuot* 38b): If one says to another: **I** have **one hundred dinars in your possession,** and that person replies: **Nothing of yours is in my possession,** he is **exempt** from taking an oath. **And Rav Naḥman says:** Nevertheless, the judges **administer an oath of inducement to him.** Rav Naḥman instituted an ordinance that even if the defendant completely denies the claim, he is obligated to take an oath that the claim is false. Consequently, the shepherd is obligated to take that oath.


###### Bava Metzia 5a:18
[Bava Metzia 5a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/5a:18)

דְּרַב נַחְמָן תַּקַּנְתָּא הִיא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: This *halakha* **of Rav Naḥman is** a rabbinic **ordinance** and not an oath required by Torah law,