## Bava Metzia Daf 6a

###### Bava Metzia 6a:1
[Bava Metzia 6a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/6a:1)

וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ שְׁבוּעַת הֶיסֵּת, נֵימָא מִיגּוֹ דַּחֲשִׁיד אַמָּמוֹנָא חֲשִׁיד אַשְּׁבוּעָתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if one who is suspected of theft cannot be administered an oath, **that** which **Rav Naḥman says,** that when a person denies a debt entirely the judges **administer an oath of inducement to him,** is difficult. **Let us say** that **since he is suspect with regard to financial** dishonesty, **he is suspect with regard to** taking **an oath.**


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

וְתוּ הָא דְתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: שְׁנֵיהֶם נִשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת, נֵימָא מִיגּוֹ דַּחֲשִׁיד אַמָּמוֹנָא חֲשִׁיד אַשְּׁבוּעָתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore, that which Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches** in a *baraita* with regard to the case of the storekeeper and the laborer (see 3a), that **both** parties **take an oath and take** payment **from the employer,** is also difficult. **Let us say** there, too, that **since he is suspect with regard to financial** dishonesty, **he is suspect with regard to** taking **an oath.**


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

וְתוּ הָא דְּאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁבוּעוֹת מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ: שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁעְתִּי בָּהּ, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא שָׁלַחְתִּי בָּהּ יָד, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בִּרְשׁוּתִי. נֵימָא: מִיגּוֹ דַּחֲשִׁיד אַמָּמוֹנָא חֲשִׁיד אַשְּׁבוּעָתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** with regard to **that which Rav Sheshet says:** The judges **administer three oaths to** an unpaid bailee who claims that the deposit with which he was entrusted was stolen: I hereby take **an oath that I was not negligent in** safeguarding **it;** I hereby take **an oath that I did not misappropriate** the deposit; and I hereby take **an oath that it is no** longer **in my possession,** there is the same difficulty. Since the court raises these suspicions against the bailee, **let us say** that **since he is suspected of financial** dishonesty, **he is suspected with regard to** taking **an oath.** How can the court administer these oaths?


###### Bava Metzia 6a:4
[Bava Metzia 6a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/6a:4)

אֶלָּא לָא אָמְרִינַן מִיגּוֹ דַּחֲשִׁיד אַמָּמוֹנָא חֲשִׁיד אַשְּׁבוּעָתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the conclusion from all of the above is that **we do not say** that **since one is suspected of financial** dishonesty, **he is suspected with regard to** taking **an oath.**


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

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא מִלְוֶה יְשָׁנָה יֵשׁ לוֹ עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** There is no proof from the three *halakhot* cited above that an oath is administered to one who is suspect with regard to financial dishonesty, as it can be explained that the reason the oath is administered in these cases is that **we suspect** that **perhaps** the defendant **has an old loan** that he lent **to** the plaintiff, and he has been unable to get his money back. He is therefore withholding or claiming ownership of the item or money of the plaintiff as repayment of the loan and not as an act of outright robbery. Therefore, an oath is administered to him.


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

אִי הָכִי נִשְׁקוֹל בְּלָא שְׁבוּעָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** why does he take an oath in these cases? **Let him take** the item or money **without** taking **an oath,** as perhaps he is withholding it as repayment for an old loan, in which case the oath will not determine the truth in the dispute at hand.


###### Bava Metzia 6a:7
[Bava Metzia 6a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/6a:7)

אֶלָּא חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא סְפֵק מִלְוֶה יְשָׁנָה יֵשׁ לוֹ עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Abaye’s suggestion should be understood as follows: **We suspect** that **perhaps** he is **uncertain** as to whether **he has an old loan** that he lent **to** the plaintiff. The defendant is unsure whether the plaintiff owes him money and is withholding the item just in case.


###### Bava Metzia 6a:8
[Bava Metzia 6a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/6a:8)

וְלָאו אָמְרִינַן תָּפֵיס מָמוֹנָא מִסְּפֵיקָא? מִשְׁתְּבַע נָמֵי מִסָּפֵק!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** why **don’t we say** in this case that if the defendant is capable of **seizing** another person’s **property due to an uncertain** debt, **he may also take an oath** falsely **due to** that same **uncertainty?** How is the oath administered to him?


###### Bava Metzia 6a:9
[Bava Metzia 6a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/6a:9)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: פָּרְשִׁי אִינָשֵׁי מִסְּפֵק שְׁבוּעָה וְלָא פָּרְשִׁי מִסְּפֵק מָמוֹנָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? מָמוֹן אִיתֵיהּ בַּחֲזָרָה, שְׁבוּעָה לֵיתֵיהּ בַּחֲזָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: People refrain from** taking **an oath** about which they are **uncertain but do not refrain from** seizing **property** about which they are **uncertain. What is the reason** for this? People reason that **property can be returned,** but **an oath cannot be retracted.** If it is proven that his seizure of the property was unjustified, the defendant can return it. By contrast, once he takes a false oath, there is no remedy for the situation. Therefore, one is more cautious when taking an oath than when seizing property.


###### Bava Metzia 6a:10
[Bava Metzia 6a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/6a:10)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: תְּקָפָהּ אֶחָד בְּפָנֵינוּ, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma:** If two people together had a garment in their grasp and **one** of them **seized it** in its entirety from the grasp of the other **in our presence,** i.e., before the court, **what is** the *halakha*?


###### Bava Metzia 6a:11
[Bava Metzia 6a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/6a:11)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּשָׁתֵיק, אוֹדוֹיֵי אוֹדִי לֵיהּ. וְאִי דְּקָא צָוַוח, מַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֶעְבַּד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances? If** the one from whom it was seized **remained silent,** his silence indicates that **he admits to** the one who seized it from him that he is the owner. **And if he shouted** in protest at the seizure, **what** more **should he have done?** The fact that the other person is stronger than him is irrelevant as far as determining legal ownership of the garment is concerned.


###### Bava Metzia 6a:12
[Bava Metzia 6a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/6a:12)

לָא צְרִיכָא דִּשְׁתֵיק מֵעִיקָּרָא וַהֲדַר צָוַוח, מַאי? מִדְּאִשְׁתִּיק – אוֹדוֹיֵי אוֹדִי לֵיהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּקָא צָוַוח הַשְׁתָּא אִיגַּלַּאי מִילְּתָא דְּהַאי דִּשְׁתֵיק מֵעִיקָּרָא, סָבַר: הָא קָא חָזוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **No,** it is **necessary** to raise this dilemma in a case **where he was silent initially,** when the other litigant seized the garment, **and** he **later shouted. What** is the *halakha*? Is there an assumption that **since he was** initially **silent, he admitted to** the one who seized it from him that in seizing it the litigant became the owner, and it was only later that he regretted doing so and shouted? **Or perhaps, since he is shouting now** about the injustice that was done to him, **the matter is revealed that** the fact **that he was silent initially** was because **he thought: The Rabbis** of the court **saw him** grab it from me, so there is no need to cry out.


###### Bava Metzia 6a:13
[Bava Metzia 6a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/6a:13)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, תָּא שְׁמַע: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם אֲדוּקִין בָּהּ, אֲבָל הָיְתָה טַלִּית יוֹצֵאת מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן, הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי נֵימָא כִּדְקָתָנֵי, פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא שֶׁתְּקָפָהּ אֶחָד בְּפָנֵינוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman says: Come** and **hear** a solution to the dilemma from what was taught in a *baraita*: **In what** case **is this statement said** that both of them take an oath and each receives half of the garment? It is said in a case **where both of them are** still **holding** the garment. **But** if the **garment was in the possession of** only **one of them, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant,** i.e., the one not holding the garment. In the absence of proof, the item remains in the possession of the one holding the garment. The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of this case? **If we say** that it is to be understood **as it is taught,** it is **obvious** that one who claims an item that is in another’s possession must bring proof to support his claim. **Rather,** it must be referring to a case **where one of them seized it in our presence,** which is the case to which Rabbi Zeira referred.


###### Bava Metzia 6a:14
[Bava Metzia 6a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/6a:14)

לָא, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן דְּאָתוּ לְקַמַּן כְּדִתְפִיסוּ לַהּ תַּרְוַיְיהוּ, וְאָמְרִינַן לְהוּ: זִילוּ פְּלוּגוּ, וּנְפַקוּ, וַהֲדַר אֲתוֹ כִּי תָּפֵיס לַהּ חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ, הַאי אֲמַר: אוֹדוֹיֵי אוֹדִי לִי. וְהַאי אֲמַר: בִּדְמֵי אֹגַרְתִּי נִיהֲלֵיהּ, דְּאָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: עַד הַשְׁתָּא חָשְׁדַתְּ לֵיהּ בְּגַזְלָן, וְהַשְׁתָּא מוֹגְרַת לֵיהּ בְּלָא סָהֲדִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **No,** it is possible that **here we are dealing with** a case **where they came before us,** the court, **while both were holding** the garment, **and we said to them: Go divide** the garment, **and they left** the court **and afterward came** back **while one of them was holding it. This** one, who was holding the garment, **said:** The other one **admitted to me** that I was justified in my claim. **And that** one, who was not holding the garment, **said: I rented** half of the garment **to him for money** and did not relinquish my right to it. In this case the latter person’s claim is not accepted, **as we say to him: Until now you suspected him of** being **a robber,** claiming that he took from you an item that you found, **and now you rented** it **to him without witnesses?** Therefore, the burden of proof rests upon the one who is not holding the garment.


###### Bava Metzia 6a:15
[Bava Metzia 6a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/6a:15)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, כִּדְקָתָנֵי: דְּאָתוּ לְקַמַּן כִּי תָּפֵיס לַהּ חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ, וְאִידַּךְ מְסָרֵךְ בָּהּ סָרוֹכֵי, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְסוֹמְכוֹס דְּאָמַר מָמוֹן הַמּוּטָּל בְּסָפֵק חוֹלְקִין בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה, מוֹדֶה סוֹמְכוֹס דְּסִרְכָא לָאו כְּלוּם הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that it is possible to understand the case in the *baraita* **as it is taught,** i.e., **they came before us while** only **one of them was holding** the garment itself, **but the other was hanging on** to the edge of the garment. **And** the *baraita* teaches that **even according to Sumakhos, who says** that in a case of **property of uncertain ownership** the parties **divide** it **without an oath,** in this case **Sumakhos concedes that hanging** on to the edge **is** worth **nothing.** It does not render the ownership of the garment uncertain, and therefore the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, i.e., one who is hanging on to the edge.


###### Bava Metzia 6a:16
[Bava Metzia 6a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/6a:16)

אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר תְּקָפָהּ אֶחָד בְּפָנֵינוּ מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדוֹ, הִקְדִּישָׁה – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר תְּקָפָהּ אֶחָד בְּפָנֵינוּ אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדוֹ, הִקְדִּישָׁהּ בְּלֹא תְּקָפָהּ – מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Zeira’s dilemma was not resolved, but the Gemara states a related *halakha*: **If you say** that if **one seizes** the garment **in our presence** the court **removes it from his possession,** then if either of the parties **consecrated** the entire garment to the Temple treasury, the **consecration** is **not** valid, as it is not his. But **if you say** that if **one seizes** the garment **in our presence** the court **does not remove it from his possession,** then if one of them **consecrated** the entire garment to the Temple treasury **without seizing it, what is** the *halakha*?


###### Bava Metzia 6a:17
[Bava Metzia 6a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/6a:17)

כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מָר: אֲמִירָתוֹ לַגָּבוֹהַּ כִּמְסִירָתוֹ לַהֶדְיוֹט דָּמֵי. כְּמַאן דְּתַקְפַהּ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The two sides of this dilemma are as follows: **Since the Master said** a principle with regard to the *halakhot* of transactions that **a declaration to the Most High is equivalent to a transfer to an ordinary** person, i.e., verbal consecration of an item is equivalent to a formal act of acquisition in a non-sacred transaction, is the one who consecrated the garment therefore **considered like one who seized it,** and consequently the consecration takes effect?


###### Bava Metzia 6a:18
[Bava Metzia 6a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/6a:18)

אוֹ דִלְמָא: הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא הָא לָא תַּקְפַהּ, וּכְתִיב: ״וְאִישׁ כִּי יַקְדִּישׁ אֶת בֵּיתוֹ קֹדֶשׁ וְגוֹ׳״, מָה בֵּיתוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ – אַף כֹּל בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, לְאַפּוֹקֵי הַאי דְּלֹא בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps** the consecration does not take effect, as **now, in any event, he did not** actually **seize** the garment and **it** is not his? **And it is written: “And when a man shall sanctify his house to be sacred** unto God” (Leviticus 27:14), from which the Sages derive: **Just as his house is in his possession, so too, anything** that one wishes to consecrate must be **in his possession, to the exclusion of this** garment, **which is not in his possession,** as he did not actually seize it, and therefore the consecration does not take effect.


###### Bava Metzia 6a:19
[Bava Metzia 6a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/6a:19)

תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּהָהִיא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts to answer the question: **Come** and **hear** proof from an incident that transpired, **as** there was **a certain**