## Bava Metzia Daf 7a

###### Bava Metzia 7a:1
[Bava Metzia 7a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/7a:1)

אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר, עֲשִׂירִי וַדַּאי אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא וְלֹא עֲשִׂירִי סָפֵק. הָכָא נָמֵי: עֲשִׂירִי וַדַּאי אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא וְלֹא עֲשִׂירִי סָפֵק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, what have you to say** to explain why one is not required to tithe his flock in a case where a counted animal jumped back into the pen? **The Merciful One states:** “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, anyone that passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32), from which it is derived that **a certain tenth** animal must be tithed, **but not an uncertain tenth,** i.e., an animal that is not certainly the tenth. **Here too,** the entire flock is exempt from tithe because **the Merciful One states** that **a certain tenth** animal must be designated as tithe **and not an uncertain tenth,** i.e., an animal that is not certainly subject to tithe. Therefore, there is proof from the *baraita* that if a priest seizes an animal whose status as firstborn is uncertain, the court removes it from his possession.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: מַאי סְפֵיקוֹת? אִילֵּימָא סְפֵק בְּכוֹרוֹת, ״יִהְיֶה קֹדֶשׁ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא שֶׁכְּבָר קָדוֹשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: What are** these animals of **uncertain** status that that are subject to tithe according to the mishna? **If we say** that the reference is to animals whose status as **firstborns** is **uncertain, the Merciful One states:** “The tenth **shall be sacred** to the Lord,” indicating that the tithe animal becomes sacred only when it is designated as tithe, from which it is inferred: **But not** an animal **that is already sacred** for a different reason. Therefore, since an animal whose status as firstborn is uncertain is already considered sacred due to the uncertainty, the sanctity of animal tithe would not apply to it.


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

אֶלָּא סְפֵק פִּדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר, וְכִדְרַב נַחְמָן. דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עֲשָׂרָה סְפֵק פִּטְרֵי חֲמוֹר בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ – מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן עֲשָׂרָה שֵׂיִין, וּמְעַשְּׂרָן, וְהֵן שֶׁלּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the mishna must be referring to a case of **an uncertain redemption of a firstborn donkey,** i.e., a lamb used as redemption for a donkey whose status as firstborn is uncertain. **And** this is **in accordance with** the statement **of Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman says** that **Rabba bar Avuh says: An Israelite who has ten donkeys** whose status as **firstborn** is **uncertain in his home separates ten lambs** to redeem them, **and tithes** the lambs, separating one as a tithe, **and they** all **belong to him,** as a priest cannot prove that he is entitled to any of the ten.


###### Bava Metzia 7a:4
[Bava Metzia 7a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/7a:4)

מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ דְּמַסּוּתָא? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין: הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא בֵּי רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַב חִסְדָּא בֵּי רַב הוּנָא, וּפַשְׁטַהּ מֵהָא דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כׇּל מָמוֹן שֶׁאֵין יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ בְּדַיָּינִין, הִקְדִּישׁוֹ – אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** halakhic conclusion **was** reached **about** this matter **of the bathhouse? Come** and **hear** a conclusion, **as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin said: There was** a similar **incident** that was brought before **the school of Rav Ḥisda, and Rav Ḥisda** brought the case before **the school of Rav Huna, and** Rav Huna **resolved** the issue **based on that which Rav Naḥman says:** With regard to **any property that** one **cannot recover** from the possession of another party **by legal process,** if **he consecrated it** while it was in the possession of the other party the **consecration is not** valid.


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

הָא יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ בְּדַיָּינִין, הִקְדִּישׁוֹ – קָדוֹשׁ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אַפְּקֵיהּ. וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גָּזַל וְלֹא נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים – שְׁנֵיהֶם אֵינָם יְכוֹלִין לְהַקְדִּישׁוֹ. זֶה – לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְזֶה – לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions Rav Naḥman’s statement: By inference, is it so that if **one can recover** the property from the other party **by legal process,** and **he consecrated it,** the **consecration** is valid, **although he has not** yet **recovered it? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say:** In a case where one **robbed** another of an item **and the owner did not despair** of retrieving it, **neither** the owner nor the robber **can consecrate it; this** one, the robber, **because it is not his, and that** one, the owner, **because it is not in his possession?** The indication is that one cannot consecrate even his own item if it is not in his possession.


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

מִי סָבְרַתְּ בְּמַסּוּתָא מִטַּלְטְלִין עָסְקִינַן? בְּמַסּוּתָא מְקַרְקְעֵי עָסְקִינַן, דְּכִי יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאָה בְּדַיָּינִין, בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ קָיְימָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Did you think** that in the case of the bathhouse **we are dealing with a movable bath?** No, **we are dealing with a bath** that is excavated in the **ground,** in which case **once** its owner **can recover it by legal process** there is no need to take possession of it, as it already **exists in his possession.**


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

תָּנֵי רַב תַּחְלִיפָא בַּר מַעְרְבָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: שְׁנַיִם אֲדוּקִים בְּטַלִּית – זֶה נוֹטֵל עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁיָּדוֹ מַגַּעַת, וְזֶה נוֹטֵל עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁיָּדוֹ מַגַּעַת, וְהַשְּׁאָר חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה. מַחְוֵי לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: וּבִשְׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Taḥalifa from the West,** i.e., Eretz Yisrael, **taught** this *baraita* **before Rabbi Abbahu:** If **two** people are **grasping a garment, this** one **takes up to where his hand reaches, and that** one **takes up to where his hand reaches, and they divide the remainder,** the part of the garment that is in the grasp of neither, **equally. Rabbi Abbahu indicated** by means of a hand gesture that Rav Taḥalifa should add: **And** this is **with** the proviso that they take **an oath.**


###### Bava Metzia 7a:8
[Bava Metzia 7a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/7a:8)

אֶלָּא מַתְנִיתִין, דְּקָתָנֵי דְּפָלְגִי בַּהֲדָדֵי, וְלָא קָתָנֵי זֶה נוֹטֵל עַד מְקוֹם שֶׁיָּדוֹ מַגַּעַת, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דִּתְפִיסִי בְּכַרְכְּשָׁתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** then **how can you find** a case where the *halakha* in **the mishna** applies? **As** the mishna **teaches that they divide** the garment **between them, and does not teach that this** one **takes up to where his hand reaches** and that one does likewise. **Rav Pappa said:** The mishna is discussing a case **where** neither of them is grasping the garment itself, but rather **they are holding onto the fringes [*bekarkashta*]** of the garment. Therefore, each is required to take an oath and they divide the garment between them.


###### Bava Metzia 7a:9
[Bava Metzia 7a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/7a:9)

אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הַאי סוּדָרָא, כֵּיוָן דְּתָפֵיס בֵּיהּ שָׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ, קָרֵינַן בֵּיהּ ״וְנָתַן לְרֵעֵהוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mesharshiyya said: Learn** a *halakha* with regard to the symbolic transfer of **a cloth** as a formal act of acquisition **from** Rav Pappa’s statement: The entire cloth need not change hands. Rather, **once** the recipient of the cloth **has grasped three by three** fingerbreadths **of** the cloth, which is the minimum size of a cloth that can be considered a utensil, the transaction takes effect, as **we consider** such an action to be an implementation of the verse upon which acquisition by means of a cloth is based: “Now this was the custom in former times in Israel…to confirm all things: A man drew off his shoe, **and gave it to his neighbor;** and this was the attestation in Israel” (Ruth 4:7).


###### Bava Metzia 7a:10
[Bava Metzia 7a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/7a:10)

דִּכְמַאן דִּפְסִיק דְּמֵי, וְקָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **because** such an amount of the cloth is significant enough to be considered **as though it were severed** from the rest of the cloth, **and** therefore when the recipient grasps it, it **effects the acquisition,** even though the rest of the cloth is still in the hand of the other party.


###### Bava Metzia 7a:11
[Bava Metzia 7a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/7a:11)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִדְּרַב חִסְדָּא, דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: גֵּט בְּיָדָהּ וּמְשִׁיחָה בְּיָדוֹ, אִם יָכוֹל לְנַתְּקוֹ וְלַהֲבִיאוֹ אֶצְלוֹ – אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת, וְאִם לָאו – מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** in **what** way **is** this case **different from** the ruling **of Rav Ḥisda? As Rav Ḥisda said:** In a case where a husband placed **a bill of divorce in** his wife’s **hand, and a string** attached to the bill of divorce remained **in his hand, if** the husband **can** still **pull** the bill of divorce out of her hand **and bring it to him, she is not divorced; and if** he is **not** able to do so, e.g., if the string is too flimsy, then **she is divorced.** This indicates that as long as part of the bill of divorce remains in his hand, it is not considered as though he gave it to her.


###### Bava Metzia 7a:12
[Bava Metzia 7a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/7a:12)

הָתָם כְּרִיתוּת בָּעֵינַן, וְלֵיכָּא. הָכָא נְתִינָה בָּעֵינַן, וְהָא אִיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There,** in the case of a bill of divorce, **we require** that it accomplish a complete **severance** between the husband and wife, **and** as long as the husband continues to have some hold on the bill of divorce **there is no** complete severance. By contrast, **here,** in the case of a transaction by means of a cloth, **we require** an act of **giving, and there is** a valid act of giving even if only part of the cloth was given.


###### Bava Metzia 7a:13
[Bava Metzia 7a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/7a:13)

אָמַר רָבָא: אִם הָיְתָה טַלִּית מוּזְהֶבֶת – חוֹלְקִין. פְּשִׁיטָא? לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּקָאֵי דַּהֲבָא בֵּי מִצְעֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** Even **if** the **garment was** fashioned **with gold** thread, **they divide** it. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this **obvious?** Why would a gold garment have a different *halakha*? The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** to state this *halakha* in a case **where the gold is in the middle** of the garment, neither in one’s hand nor in the other’s.


###### Bava Metzia 7a:14
[Bava Metzia 7a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/7a:14)

הָא נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא דְּמִיקְרַב לְגַבֵּי דְּחַד. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: פְּלוֹג הָכִי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי חָזֵית דְּפָלְגַתְּ הָכִי? פְּלוֹג הָכִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **This too** is **obvious;** the *halakha* is that they divide the remainder. The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** to state this *halakha* in a case **where** the gold is **closer to one** of them, though it is not in his grasp. **Lest you say that** the one to whom the gold is closer can **say to** the other: **Divide** it in **this** manner, along the middle line of the garment between us, leaving most of the gold in my possession, Rava therefore **teaches us that** they divide the gold equally. The reason is that the other litigant can **say to him** in response: **What did you see that** led **you** to **divide** it in **that** manner, e.g., lengthwise? **Divide** it in **this** manner, e.g., widthwise, so that the gold will be divided equally between us.


###### Bava Metzia 7a:15
[Bava Metzia 7a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/7a:15)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁנַיִם אֲדוּקִין בִּשְׁטָר, מַלְוֶה אוֹמֵר: שֶׁלִּי הוּא, וְנָפַל מִמֶּנִּי וּמְצָאתִיו, וְלֹוֶה אָמַר: שֶׁלְּךָ הוּא, וּפְרַעְתִּיו לָךְ – יִתְקַיֵּים הַשְּׁטָר בְּחוֹתְמָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 1:8): In a case where **two** people, a creditor and a debtor, **are grasping** a promissory **note,** and the **creditor says:** The promissory note **is mine,** as the debt has not yet been repaid, **and I** merely **dropped it and I** subsequently **found it, and** the **debtor says:** The promissory note **was** once **yours,** i.e., you lent me the money, **but I** already **repaid you,** and you therefore gave me the note, in that case **the** promissory **note must be ratified through its signatories** for the creditor to collect the debt. In other words, the court must first ascertain the validity of the promissory note by verifying that the signatures of the witnesses are authentic. This is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi.


###### Bava Metzia 7a:16
[Bava Metzia 7a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/7a:16)

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: יַחְלוֹקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:** The creditor and the debtor **divide** the debt attested to in the promissory note, i.e., the debtor is liable to pay half the amount, due to uncertainty as to who is telling the truth.


###### Bava Metzia 7a:17
[Bava Metzia 7a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/7a:17)

נָפַל לְיַד דַּיָּין – לֹא יוֹצִיאוֹ עוֹלָמִית. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הוּא בְּחֶזְקָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If a promissory note **fell into the possession of a judge** and the two parties do not agree as to which of them it belongs, either to the creditor, and the debt has yet to have been repaid, or to the debtor, and the debt was repaid, **it may never be removed** from the judge’s possession to collect the debt until proof is provided. **Rabbi Yosei says:** The promissory note **retains its presumptive status** of validity and the litigants proceed in accordance with its contents.


###### Bava Metzia 7a:18
[Bava Metzia 7a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/7a:18)

אָמַר מָר: יִתְקַיֵּים הַשְּׁטָר בְּחוֹתְמָיו. וְגָבֵי לֵיהּ מַלְוֶה כּוּלֵּיהּ. וְלֵית לֵיהּ מַתְנִיתִין? שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין כּוּ׳!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses the *baraita*. **The Master said** that **the** promissory **note must be ratified through its signatories. And** does this indicate that once it is ratified, the **creditor collects the entire** debt? **But doesn’t** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **hold** in accordance with the *halakha* taught in **the mishna** with regard to **two people holding** a garment, that they divide the garment? Here too, each party should be entitled half the promissory note, and the debtor should therefore be obligated to pay only half the debt.


###### Bava Metzia 7a:19
[Bava Metzia 7a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/7a:19)

אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: בִּמְקוּיָּם – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל יַחְלוֹקוּ, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מְקוּיָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says** that **Rav Naḥman says: In** a case where the promissory note was **ratified** by the court, **everyone agrees** that the litigants **divide** it, and the debtor repays only half of the debt. **They disagree** with regard to a case **where** it was **not ratified.**


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

רַבִּי סָבַר: מוֹדֶה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ – צָרִיךְ לְקַיְּימוֹ. וְאִי מְקַיֵּים לֵיהּ פָּלֵיג, וְאִי לָא מְקַיֵּים לֵיהּ לָא פָּלֵיג.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **holds** that even when a debtor **admits that he wrote** a promissory **note,** the creditor **must ratify it** in court in order for the creditor to collect the debt. **And** therefore, **if he ratifies** the promissory note in court **he divides** it with the debtor, **and if he does not ratify it he does not divide** it with the debtor. If he is unable to ratify the signatures of the witnesses, he receives nothing even if the debtor admits that he borrowed the money.


###### Bava Metzia 7a:21
[Bava Metzia 7a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/7a:21)

מַאי טַעְמָא? חַסְפָּא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, מַאן קָא מְשַׁוֵּי לֵיהּ לְהַאי שְׁטָרָא – לֹוֶה, הָא קָאָמַר דִּפְרִיעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason** for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion? He holds that an unratified promissory note **is merely a shard. Who renders this** document a valid promissory **note?** The **debtor** does. The validity of the note is solely dependent on the corroboration of the debtor, and **doesn’t** the debtor **say that** the debt mentioned in the promissory note was **repaid?** Therefore, the note is worthless unless it is ratified by the witnesses in court.


###### Bava Metzia 7a:22
[Bava Metzia 7a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/7a:22)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: מוֹדֶה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ אֵין צָרִיךְ לְקַיְּימוֹ, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מְקַיֵּים לֵיהּ – יַחְלוֹקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel holds** that if a debtor **admits that he wrote** a promissory **note,** the creditor **is not required to ratify it** in court in order for the creditor to collect the debt. **And** therefore, **even if** the creditor **does not ratify it,** the promissory note is valid, and **they divide** it.


###### Bava Metzia 7a:23
[Bava Metzia 7a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/7a:23)

נָפַל לְיַד דַּיָּין לֹא יוֹצִיאוֹ עוֹלָמִית,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is taught in the *baraita* that if a promissory note **fell into the possession of a judge it may never be removed** from his possession until proof is provided.