ההוא ארבא דהוו מינצו וכולי—There was that boat, over which they were arguing, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא discusses a situation where two people were fighting over the ownership of a boat; each one claiming that it belongs to him. תוספות tells us the ruling and why it is different from other (similar) cases.

הדין כל דאלים גבר¹ – The ruling in this case of ארבא is, whoever is stronger overpowers his opponent**** and takes ownership. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר מאי שנא משנים אוחזין בטלית – And if you will say; why is the ruling by ארבא (of כדא"ג) different from the case of two people holding a garment and each one claiming that it belongs to him, regarding which the משנה – דאמר בריש בבא מציעא (דף ב,א ושם דיבור המתחיל ויחלוקו) דיחלוקו² – In the beginning of מסכת ב"מ rules that the two divide the טלית. תוספות answers: ומפרש רבינו תם דאוחזין שאני דכיון ששניהם מוחזקים אין לנו להניח שיגזול האחד לחבירו- And the ר"ת explains that it is different when they are holding the item in dispute as it is by a טלית, as opposed to an ארבא, for since both are in possession we do not allow that one should rob his friend by ruling כדא"ג – דחשיב כאילו אנו יודעין שיש לשניהן חלק בה³ שכל דבר יש להעמיד בחזקת מי שהוא בידו – For since they are both holding the טלית, it is considered as if we (the בי"ד) know that they both have a share in the טלית, for every item should be placed in the presumptive ownership of whoever is in possession of this item⁴ – תוספות proves this assertion that כל דבר יש להעמיד בחזקת מי שהוא בידו: כדאמרינן גבי נסכא דרבי אבא דאף על גב דאמר דידי חטפי חשבינן ליה גזלן – As the גמרא stated regarding the נסכא דר"א, ⁵ that even though the חוטף claimed, ‘I seized what is mine’, nevertheless we consider him a robber – וחייב לשלם כאילו הוא ברור שהיתה הנסכא של אותו שהיה מוחזק בה⁶ – And the**** חוטף is obligated to pay as if we were certain that the נסכא belonged to the one who was initially in possession of it. תוספות anticipates a difficulty: והא דמדמי ליה התם⁷ טלית לשאר⁸ [יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו]⁹ – And that which the גמרא there compares the case of שנים אוחזין בטלית to the case of ‘the remainder [shall be put aside until אליהו will come]’ – אף על גב דבשאר דהתם אין שום אחד מוחזק¹⁰ – Even though that by the case of שאר there, neither one of them is a מוחזק (the monies are in the possession of the custodian). How can we compare the two cases?! תוספות replies: צריך לומר דשאר נמי חשיב להו כאילו שניהם מוחזקים בו כיון דמכח שניהם נפקד¹¹ – It is necessary to say that the case of שאר is also considered as if they are both מוחזקים (in the מנה שלישי), since it was deposited on behalf of both of them. תוספות offers an alternate view: ולרבינו יצחק בן אשר נראה דלאו דוקא אוחזין מדמדמי לה לשאר – And the view of the ריב"א is that the rule of יחלוקו is not necessary only when they are both holding the item, since the גמרא compares טלית (where they are holding the טלית) to שאר (where they are not holding the מנה שלישי) ¹² – תוספות will now explain how the ריב"א will differentiate between טלית and ארבא: ואדשמעתין איכא לשנויי כדמשני התם¹³ – An regarding our סוגיא of ארבא (where we say כדא"ג and not יחלוקו as by טלית) we can answer as the גמרא answers there to distinguish between טלית and שאר, where the גמרא states – אפילו תימא רבי יוסי התם ודאי איכא רמאי הכא אימור תרוייהו בהדי הדדי אגבהוה – You can even say that the משנה of טלית (where the ruling is יחלוקו) is in agreement with ר"י (who maintains that the entire three מנה are יהא מונח) the difference between טלית and שאר is, that there concerning שאר there is certainly a swindler (therefore we cannot award him anything [not even the מנה he deserves]), however here by טלית there is no ודאי רמאי, for we can say that both picked up the טלית together (and each one thinks he picked it up first), therefore since there is no ודאי רמאי, we rule יחלוקו. This answer that was given there to distinguish between טלית and שאר, we can use – הכי נמי בארבא כיון דאיכא רמאי לא יחלוקו אלא הוי דינא כל דאלים גבר¹⁴ – Here too by ארבא, since there is a רמאי (for the boat cannot belong exclusively to each of them) they do not divide, but rather the ruling is כדא"ג. In summation: The ר"ת maintains that we rule יחלוקו whenever both litigants are in possession; otherwise we rule כדא"ג. The case of שאר is considered as if both are in possession. The ריב"א maintains that we rule יחלוקו whenever there is no רמאי (regardless if they are מוחזקים, as by שאר), however, where there is a רמאי we rule כדא"ג. תוספות anticipates a difficulty: והא דלא אמרינן בשנים שהפקידו כל דאלים גבר – And the reason we do not rule כדא"ג in the case where two people deposited three מנים by a custodian –**** תוספות replies: משום דלא מפקינן כדאמרינן הכא אי תפסינן לא מפקינן¹⁵ – Because we do not remove something from its current status without sufficient reason, as the גמרא states here that once בי"ד seizes on the request of one of the litigants, בי"ד does not release it and rule כדא"ג. The same applies to מנה שלישי. תוספות anticipates a difficulty: אבל מאן דאמר מפקינן לא אתי שפיר – However according to רב פפא who maintains מפקינן (from בי"ד and כדא"ג) it is not properly understood, why by מנה ג' do we not take it away from the custodian and rule כדא"ג, just like we remove it from the temporary custody of בי"ד and say כדא"ג.¹⁶ תוספות has an additional difficulty on the פי' ריב"א: ומאי פריך נמי בסמוך¹⁷ מב' שטרות¹⁸ וממחליף פרה בחמור¹⁹ והא התם ליכא רמאי – And also what is the גמרא asking shortly from the case of two שטרות and from exchanging a cow with a donkey (why do we not say there also כדא"ג); but there (in both those cases) there is no רמאי?!²⁰ תוספות challenges the distinction of the ריב"א between טלית and ארבא: ואין נראה²¹ דהא האי טעמא לא מסיק אלא לאוקומי מתניתין כרבי יוסי²² – And [the ר"י] disagrees with the ריב"א, for this distinction between ליכא רמאי (where we say יחלוקו) and איכא רמאי (where we say יהא מונח [or כדא"ג]), was presented only for the purpose of establishing the משנה of שנים אוחזין (even) according to ר"י – אבל לרבנן²³ קאמר התם האי מנה ודאי דחד מינייהו הוא – However in order to reconcile the משנה of יחלוקו with the רבנן (who maintain יהא מונח (only) regarding the מנה שלישי) the גמרא answers, there by שאר this third מנה definitely belongs to only one of them; it cannot belong to both, therefore we cannot rule יחלוקו and we rule יהא מונח – אבל טלית דאיכא למימר דתרוייהו הוא יחלוקו²⁴ – However, by a טלית where it is possible to assume that it belongs to both of them; we can rule יחלוקו – תוספות concludes his challenge: ולההיא טעמא²⁵ הכא נמי הוה לן למימר יחלוקו דאפשר להיות דהוה ארבא דתרוייהו²⁶ – And according to that reasoning (whether החלוקה יכולה להיות אמת or not), here too by ארבא we should have ruled יחלוקו for it is possible that the ארבא belongs to both. However according to the ר"ת that יחלוקו depends on אוחזין, it is understood why we do not rule יחלוקו by ארבא. תוספות offers a modification of the ריב"א: ועוד פירש רבינו יצחק בן אשר דהיכא דאוחזין אפילו איכא רמאי יחלוקו²⁷ – And the ריב"א also stated that wherever there is a case of אוחזין even if there is a רמאי, nevertheless the rule is יחלוקו – כדתניא התם בפרק קמא (דף ז,א) גבי שנים אוחזין בשטר – As we learnt in a ברייתא there in the first פרק of ב"מ, regarding two who are holding a שטר. ²⁸ תוספות asks on this ריב"א: וקשיא לרבינו יצחק דאם כן היכי פריך לפירושו²⁹ (שם דף ג,א) והא נמי כשאר דמיא – And the ר"י has a difficulty on the פי' ריב"א, for if indeed we say יחלוקו (by a רמאי if it is אוחזין), how does the גמרא ask, according to the explanation of the ריב"א, ‘but this טלית which is in dispute is similar to שאר’ so why by טלית we rule יחלוקו and by שאר we rule יהא מונח; this is the sגמרא' question. תוספות asks what is the question according to the ריב"א – דאיכא למימר אוחזין שאני דהא מהניא אפילו היכא דאיכא רמאי³⁰ – For we can answer that אוחזין (by טלית) is different (from שאר [which is not אוחזין], for אוחזין is effective to say יחלוקו even when there is a רמאי but by שאר there is no אוחזין – תוספות presents an additional difficulty with the פי' ריב"א: ועוד מאי פריך התם (דף ז,א) ולית ליה לרבי מתניתין דשנים אוחזין בטלית³¹ – And in addition, why does the גמרא ask there, ‘and does not רבי agree with our משנה of שנים אוחזין?!’ – תוספות concludes his question on the ריב"א; what is the sגמרא' question comparing טלית to שטר – הא על כרחך יש חילוק בין דין שטר לדין טלית – But perforce you must say there is a difference between the case of a שטר and the case of a טלית – דבטלית אפילו אין אוחזין יחלוקו ובשטר כי אין אוחזין הוי דין כל דאלים גבר:³² For by a טלית (since there is no רמאי [for each one assumes he picked it up first], therefore) even if they are not holding the טלית the rule is יחלוקו; however by a שטר if they are not holding it the rule would be כדא"ג (since there is a ודאי רמאי). Therefore you cannot ask why there is no יחלוקו by שטר, since there is a ודאי רמאי by a שטר.

SUMMARY The view of the ר"ת is that the criteria for יחלוקו are אוחזין and החלוקה יכולה להיות אמת. The view of the ריב"א is that the criteria for יחלוקו is ליכא רמאי or אוחזין (even if איכא רמאי).

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות here (concerning כדא"ג by ארבא) asks מ"ש מטלית (where we say יחלוקו). תוספות in ב"מ (concerning יחלוקו by טלית) asks מ"ש מארבא (where we say כדא"ג);³³ what is תוספות question in either (or both) cases? Does תוספות want (in ב"מ) that we should say כדא"ג by טלית, or does תוספות want (here) that we should say יחלוקו by ארבא?³⁴
2. תוספות writes that the גמרא initially compared שאר to טלית since by שאר it is also חשיב להו כאילו שניהם מוחזקים בו כיון דמכח שניהם נפקד.³⁵ However regarding טלית we see that תוספות writes³⁶ דחשיב כאילו אנו יודעין שיש לשניהן חלק בה. We cannot say this by שאר, on the contrary, we know that the מנה שלישי belongs only to one; how did the גמרא seek to compare שאר to טלית?!³⁷

footnotes: ¹ בי"ד does not issue a ruling determining to whom the boat belongs, but rather allows them to fight it out amongst themselves (assuming that the real owner [who has more to lose] will prevail over the swindler). ² Why is the ruling by ארבא that כדא"ג and by טלית the ruling is יחלוקו; they should both be either כדא"ג or יחלוקו. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ³ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁴ We are therefore presuming that each of them has an ownership in the טלית; if we were to rule כדא"ג and one person would retain sole ownership of the טלית, it could be considered as if he stole from his friend, his [friend’s] portion in the טלית. ⁵ See previous עמוד לד,א. ⁶ There is no evidence whether the נסכא belongs to the חוטף or the נחטף. If the נחטף would not be considered the מוחזק now (even after the חוטף is currently in possession), then the burden of proof should be on the נחטף that the נסכא belongs to him. We award the נסכא to the נחטף because we presume he is the owner since it was in his possession and the חוטף ‘stole’ it from him. Similarly by טלית we presume that the holders are the owners. ⁷ ב"מ ג,א. ⁸ The case of שאר (the remainder) is where two people deposited (together) by a third person; one deposited a מנה, while the other deposited two מנה. Subsequently each of the depositors demanded two מנים from the custodian. The רבנן rule that each one receives a מנה (which is due to him) and the ‘remaining’ third מנה should be מונח עד שיבא אליהו (no one receives it). ר' יוסי argues and maintains that the entire sum is מונח עד שיבא אליהו. ⁹ The גמרא there asks why by טלית is the ruling יחלוקו and by שאר (or מנה שלישי) the ruling is יהא מונח. ¹⁰ According to תוספות that טלית is different since they are both אוחזין therefore we rule יחלוקו; how can the גמרא compare (and contradict) טלית with שאר, since by טלית they are אוחזין therefore we say יחלוקו and by שאר, since they are not אוחזין, we cannot rule יחלוקו so we rule יהא מונח. [We cannot rule כדא"ג by שאר, since it is in the possession of the custodian, as opposed to ארבא, which is not in anyone’s possession (see footnote # 15).] ¹¹ See תוס' ב"מ ב,א ד"ה ויחלוקו (and TIE footnote # 13) who writes; חשיב ההוא שהנפקד תופס בחזקת שניהם כאילו הם עצמם מוחזקים בו. The fact that the נפקד is holding it on both their behalf’s it is considered as if they are holding the monies. The case of מנה שלישי is (as mentioned in footnote # 8) when they both deposited their monies in the presence of each other, so as far as the custodian is concerned it is considered as if they both gave him three מנה together. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ¹² The ריב"א is not satisfied with the answer of the ר"ת that by שאר it is considered as if they are both holding the מנה שלישי, since in fact they are not holding it at all. ¹³ ב"מ ג,א. ¹⁴ By שאר and ארבא there is a ודאי רמאי, one of the litigants knows that he is lying, therefore there is no יחלוקו (we do not wish to award money to a ודאי רמאי), as opposed to טלית (where it is possible that neither of the litigants realize they are lying), where we do say יחלוקו. ¹⁵ The difference between ארבא (where the ruling is כדא"ג) and שאר (where the ruling is יהא מונח) is that by שאר since the custodian is holding the money for the righteous party we cannot take away the money from his possession and make it possible for the wrong party to own it. So we let the money remain it its current status (by the custodian). However by ארבא where no one is in possession, we cannot say יהא מונח and remove the possibility from the rightful owner to take possession through כדא"ג. ¹⁶ See בל"י אות רלא how this rule applies to the custodian of the מנה שלישי. ¹⁷ This can be found on this and the next עמוד. ¹⁸ The case of ב' שטרות is when שמעון ולוי each presents a שטר with the same date that ראובן gifted him the identical property. There is a dispute whether the ruling is יחלוקו (according to רב) or שודא דדיינא (the view of שמואל), but not כדא"ג. ¹⁹ The case of מחליף פרה בחמור is where the initial בעל הפרה ובעל החמור want to swap animals. The rule is that when the בעל הפרה makes a קנין in the חמור both animals change owners. In this case the פרה was מעוברת but not on site when the בעל הפרה made a קנין in the חמור. When the בעל החמור came to retrieve the פרה she had already given birth. The issue is whether she gave birth before the קנין, so the ולד belongs to the בעל הפרה, or it gave birth after the קנין so it belongs to the בעל החמור. The ruling is יחלוקו but not כדא"ג. ²⁰ The ריב"א maintains that when there is no רמאי we rule יחלוקו. How can the גמרא ask that we should rule כדא"ג by these cases where ליכא רמאי?! Others maintain (in defense of the ריב"א) that by ב' שטרות and מחליף פרה בחמור it is also a case of איכא רמאי, if we assume the rulings there apply (even) in a case of ברי וברי; that each litigant is sure that it belongs to him (either that he received the שטר מתנה first [in the case of ב' שטרות], or [in the case of המחליף פרה בחמור] that he knows when the ולד was born and it belongs to him). See בל"י אות רלב. ²¹ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read; נראה לר"י דהא. ²² ר' יוסי maintains by מנה שלישי that all the three מנים are יהא מונח. This precludes the explanation of החלוקה יכולה להיות אמת (see footnote # 24), for then they should surely receive their one מנה each. ²³ The רבנן maintain that each receives their מנה, and it is only the מנה שלישי that is יהא מונח; for that the explanation of ודאי רמאי is unnecessary. [However, the ריב"א can maintain that after the גמרא gave the answer of ודאי רמאי (to reconcile the משנה with ר' יוסי), that answer applies to the רבנן as well, and we dispense with the original answer which distinguishes between החלוקה יכולה להיות אמת or not.] ²⁴ The גמרא differentiates according to the רבנן between a case where החלוקה יכולה להיות אמת then we say יחלוקו (like by טלית) and where אין החלוקה יכולה להיות אמת (like by מנה שלישי) we do not say יחלוקו (rather we rule יהא מונח). [It would seem bizarre if בי"ד would rule יחלוקו in a case where אין החלוקה יכולה להיות אמת (see following footnote # 25).] The גמרא does not mention (according to the רבנן) anything about איכא רמאי or ליכא רמאי. ²⁵ It seems that תוספות maintains that reasoning of whether החלוקה יכולה להיות אמת or not is a more convincing reason whether to say or not to say יחלוקו, than the reasoning whether איכא רמאי or not should decide the יחלוקו status. See previous footnote # 24. ²⁶ We need to distinguish between the reason of ודאי רמאי (which is used to explain ר' יוסי) and אין החלוקה יכולה להיות אמת (which is used to explain the רבנן). There can be a case of ודאי רמאי but החלוקה יכולה להיות אמת (by ארבא where one is lying when he claims it is all his, but it is possible that it belongs to both [and they are both lying]). [There can be a case of אין החלוקה יכולה להיות אמת and ליכא רמאי (like ב' שטרות or המחליף פרה בחמור [by שמא ושמא])] ²⁷ Previously the ריב"א maintained that when there is no רמאי we say יחלוקו even if they are not אוחזין (therefore the גמרא initially compared שאר to טלית). Now the ריב"א adds that if it is אוחזין then even if איכא רמאי we rule יחלוקו. ²⁸ The case there is where the מלוה and the לוה are both holding the שטר, and the מלוה claims, ‘you did not pay me and I lost (and found) this שטר’, while the לוה claims, ‘I did pay you and I lost (and found) this שטר’; the ruling is יחלוקו (if the שטר is מקויים). This is a case of ודאי רמאי and nevertheless we rule יחלוקו since שניהם אוחזין. ²⁹ This לפירושו (seemingly) means according to what the ריב"א previously said (see footnote # 12) that by מנה שלישי the two depositors are not considered אוחזין. ³⁰ However according to the ר"ת this is no difficulty, for מנה שלישי is also considered אוחזין (see footnote # 11). ³¹ רבי ruled there (see footnote # 28) that יתקיים השטר בחותמיו. Initially the גמרא assumed that if the מלוה is מקיים the שטר, he collects the entire loan. Therefore the גמרא asks that it should be יחלוקו as in the משנה of שנים אוחזין. ³² The ריב"א initially maintained that the criterion for יחלוקו is ליכא רמאי regardless if אוחזין or not. The difficulty with this interpretation is why the גמרא compared שטר (which is ודאי רמאי) to שנים אוחזין (which is ליכא רמאי). To avoid this difficulty, the ריב"א modified his stance that by אוחזין we say יחלוקו even with איכא רמאי. However תוספות challenges this assumption, for since according to the ריב"א there is certainly a difference between טלית (where ליכא רמאי) and שטר (where איכא רמאי) in a case where it is not אוחזין (that by טלית we will say יחלוקו and by שטר we will say כדא"ג), so once we already have this difference what forces the גמרא to assume that רבי maintains (as the ריב"א is proposing) that every אוחזין requires יחלוקו even by איכא רמאי. ³³ See footnote # 2. ³⁴ See נח"מ. ³⁵ See footnote # 11. ³⁶ See footnote # 3. ³⁷ See בל"י אות רל.

רב הונא אמר תפסינן—רב הונא ruled; we seize it

OVERVIEW In the case where two people were arguing over the ownership of a boat, and one of them asked בי"ד, to seize the ship until he will bring witnesses that it is his; there is a dispute whether we seize the boat (רב הונא) or not (רב יהודה). There is a subsequent dispute if (for whatever reason¹) בי"ד seized the boat (and no one brought proof), does בי"ד release the boat and rule כדא"ג (the view of רב פפא) or not (רב יהודה). Our תוספות discusses whether these two disputes are dependent on each other.

פירש הקונטרס² משום דמפקינן³ – The רשב"ם explained the reason רב הונא maintains תפסינן because he also maintains that בי"ד releases the ארבא after it seized it, if no proof was shown – ורב יהודה דאמר לא תפסינן משום דאי תפסינן לא מפקינן⁴ – And ר"י who maintains that we do not seize the ארבא, that is because ר"י maintains that once בי"ד seizes the ארבא (at the request of either one or both of the litigants), בי"ד does not release it.⁵ תוספות disagrees with this interpretation: ואין נראה לרבינו יצחק לתלות זה בזה – And the ר"י does not agree to have the argument regarding תפסינן depend on the dispute concerning מפקינן – מדלא פליגי הנהו אמוראי גופייהו במפקינן הנך דפליגי בתפסינן⁶ – Since these אמוראים who argue regarding מפקינן (namely ר"י ור"פ) are not the same אמוראים who argue regarding תפסינן (namely ר"י ור"ה). תוספות offers his interpretation: לכך נראה דרב הונא דאמר דתפסינן אפילו למאן דאמר לא מפקינן – Therefore it is the view [of the ר"י] that ר"ה maintains תפסינן even according to the one who maintains לא מפקינן (namely ר' יהודה), nevertheless we say תפסינן – דמהימנינא ליה שיביא עדים⁷ – Because we believe (the person who asks us to seize it for him until he brings proof) that he will bring witnesses that it belongs to him – ורב יהודה דאמר לא תפסינן אפילו למאן דאמר מפקינן – And ר"י who maintains לא תפסינן that is valid even according to the one who maintains מפקינן (namely ר"פ), for the ruling of מפקינן – היינו היכא דתפסינן כבר אבל לכתחילה לא תפסינן – Is valid only where we were already תפסינן, however initially לא תפסינן – דחיישינן דלמא לא מייתי עדים ולא נדע לברר של מי הוא ולמי להחזיר⁸ – Because we are concerned that perhaps he will not bring עדים and we will not know how to determine to whom the ארבא belongs and to whom it should be returned – ולכך אין לנו ליכנס בדבר: Therefore בי"ד should not be involved in this matter.

SUMMARY The רשב"ם maintains that the disputes of תפסינן and מפקינן are dependent on each other, while תוספות maintains they are independent of each other.

THINKING IT OVER What would be the ruling if both parties asked בי"ד to be תופס?⁹ Or if both parties asked בי"ד to be מפיק?

footnotes: ¹ See רשב"ם ד"ה א"ל. ² See TIE (previously) ב"ב כט,א תוס' ד"ה אמר footnote # 1 as to the interpretation of 'פי' הקונטרס'. ³ See רשב"ם ד"ה רב הונא. ⁴ The גמרא states clearly that ר"י maintains (that if תפסינן, then) לא מפקינן. ⁵ We can assume that כדא"ג is some resolution to the matter; however it is not as good as the resolution of עדים, therefore if the rule would be מפקינן, then בי"ד would be תפסינן pending the resolution of עדים, if no עדים appeared we can fall back to the lesser resolution of כדא"ג (by מפקינן). [This would be the reasoning of ר"ה.] However if we maintain לא מפקינן (for whatever reason) then we cannot say תפסינן, for then if there will be no עדים, there will be no resolution at all since לא מפקינן (and the ארבא would remain by בי"ד). ⁶ If the explanation is according to the רשב"ם, it should have been ר"ה who maintains מפקינן and that would explain (according to the רשב"ם) why he maintains תפסינן. ⁷ We are assuming now that לא מפקינן. The one who is asking בי"ד to be תופס because he claims he has עדים, realizes that if he does not bring the עדים, he will lose any chance to acquire the ארבא (since לא מפקינן). If he has no עדים, it would be better for him that בי"ד rule now כדא"ג, so he has at least some chance of acquiring the ארבא. Therefore (since he is asking for תפיסה), we assume that he is confident that he will bring עדים (and he realizes that if the ruling will be כדא"ג he may lose). ⁸ Once something is in the possession of בי"ד it may be appropriate (according to ר"פ) for בי"ד to release it and rule כדא"ג (for then there is some possibility that it will go to the rightful owner, as opposed to לא מפקינן), however to have בי"ד seize an item for which it would then be responsible to return it to its rightful owner, and perhaps not be able to do so, would be violating the integrity of the בי"ד. It is better not to be involved at all. [Perhaps this view would be better understood if we assume that כדא"ג is not an actual ruling of בי"ד, but rather an ‘un-involvement’ of בי"ד.] ⁹ See חי' הריטב"א (בלוי) footnote # 198*.

ומאי שנא משני שטרות כולי—And why is this different from two notes, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא asks why do we not say כל דאלים גבר regarding ב' שטרות היוצאים ביום אחד. There is a dispute between רב ושמואל regarding the ruling by ב' שטרות; where רב maintains יחלוקו and שמואל maintains שודא דדיינא. Our תוספות clarifies the meaning of ב' שטרות and the ruling of שמואל.

בשטרות מכר או מתנה איירי – We are discussing notes of sales or of gifts (but not notes of loans or debts) – ולכך לשמואל דאמר שודא לא דמיא להא דתנן בפרק מי שהיה נשוי (כתובות דף צג,ב)¹ – And therefore שמואל who rules here 'שודא', this case is not comparable to that which we learnt in a משנה in פרק מי שהיה נשוי – היו כולן יוצאות ביום אחד² ואין שם אלא מנה אחד כולן חולקות בשוה – ‘All the כתובות were issued on the same date and there was only one מנה in the estate, all the wives divide the estate equally’ (and we do not rule שודא) – דהתם בשעבוד איירי³ – For there in that משנה we are discussing a lien on his assets, therefore we rule יחלוקו – דאין שעבוד חל אלא מאותה שעה שמוכיח מתוך שטר שמתחיל השעבוד – Since a lien is not effective only from the time that it is evident from the note that the lien is in effect – דהיינו ממחרת יום שנכתבו – Which is on the morrow of the day it was written – דביום שנכתבו אין מוכיח מתוך השטר מתי התחיל אם בבקר אם בערב⁴ – For on the day it was written it is not evident from the note when the שעבוד began; if it is in the morning or if it is in the evening; this is regarding a שעבוד, where we cannot rule שודא (since the שעבוד is effective simultaneously on the next day for all the parties) but must rule יחלוקו –

However, regarding a gift or sale, whoever receives the note earlier on that very same date, acquires the item and in a case where we do not know who received it first, we rule שודא.

SUMMARY שמואל who rules שודא by שטר מכר ומתנה agrees that we say יחלוקו by a שטר שעבוד.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות reconciles שמואל with the משנה, by distinguishing between שטר מתנה ומכר and שעבוד.⁵ Seemingly we do not need this distinction, since שמואל obviously maintains⁶ עדי מסירה כרתי and the משנה in כתובות can follow the view of ר"מ that עדי חתימה כרתי!⁷
2. Why does תוספות maintain that by שעבוד it is effective only from the next day;⁸ since it is the עדי חתימה who are מוציא the קול, why should not the שעבוד begin immediately after the עדים signed the שטר?⁹

footnotes: ¹ The משנה there is regarding a man, who had a number of wives and he died, and their כתובות were all dated on the same date, and there was only one מנה in the estate, which was insufficient to satisfy all their claims. ² In the משנה there the גירסא is בשעה אחת (because it is discussing a place where כותבין שעות). ³ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁴ See בל"י אות רלז that this distinction between שטר מכר ומתנה (where the rule is that it belongs to whomever receives the שטר first) and שעבוד (where it becomes effective on the next day) is only when the שעבוד is on the נכסים משועבדים (the buyers or the heirs [as in the case in כתובות where he died and the wives are collecting from the heirs]), however when the שעבוד is against the defendant’s property (the לוה for instance) then there too whoever received the שטר first collects first [and if we are not certain, who lent first, שמואל would rule שודא as well]. The reason is that just as by שטר מתנה as soon as one party receives the שטר, the property belongs to him (regardless that later in the day another שטר was transferred to another party [since שמואל maintains עדי מסירה כרתי (see תוס' לה,א ד"ה ושמואל)]), similarly as soon as the loan (for instance) was made, this מלוה has the first claim against [the assets of] the לוה personally (regardless if he borrowed from someone else later that day). However as far as the שעבוד on the נכסים משועבדים, which takes effect (only) through the שטר, this שעבוד on the לקוחות or יתומים who were not personally liable, takes effect only from the זמן שמוכח מהשטר, which is the next day. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁵ See footnote # 3. ⁶ See תוס' לה,א ד"ה ושמואל. ⁷ See בל"י אות רלז. ⁸ See footnote # 4. ⁹ See נח"מ.