Commentary for Bava Metzia 8:15

הכא עיקר התם אגב גררא נסבה

Mar Zutra, the son of R. Nahman, then asked: [We learnt:] If one claims vessels and land, and the claim in regard to the vessels is admitted, but the claim in regard to the land is disputed, or the claim in regard to the land is admitted, but the claim in regard to the vessels is disputed, the debtor is free [from taking an oath in regard to the disputed claim]. If he admits part of the claim in regard to the land, he is free [from taking an oath]; if he admits part of the claim in regard to the vessels he is obliged [to take an oath].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In regard to both vessels and land. V. Shebu. 38a. ');">¹³</span> Now the reason why [he is free when the claim concerns both land and vessels] is [presumably] that an oath does not apply to land, but where the claim concerns two sets of vessels, in the same way as the claim regarding the land and the vessels,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that the vessels which the debtor admitted to be rightly claimed are placed before the creditor with the offer 'Here they are'. ');">¹⁴</span> he is obliged to [take an oath]: how is this to be understood? Is it not that the debtor said to the creditor, 'Here they are'? So it follows that 'Here they are' necessitates an oath!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This would contradict the view of R. Shesheth, who says that 'Here they are' does not necessitate an oath. ');">¹⁵</span> — No; I can quite well maintain that [when] two sets of vessels [are claimed] he is also free [from taking an oath], but the reason why 'vessels and land' are mentioned is to let us know that when [the debtor] admits part of the claim in regard to the vessels he is obliged [to take an oath] even as regards the land. What new information does he proffer us? The law of extension of obligation? We have learnt this already:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 26a. ');">¹⁶</span> Chattels which do not offer security<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Movable belongings, which cannot be mortgaged. ');">¹⁷</span> are attached to chattels which offer security,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Immovable property, which can be mortgaged. ');">¹⁸</span> in regard to the imposition of an oath [upon the debtor]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When claims arise simultaneously in regard to both kinds of chattels, and an oath is due regarding the movable ones, it is extended also to the immovable ones. V. Kid. 26a. ');">¹⁹</span> — [The Mishnah quoted] here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Shebu. 38b. ');">²⁰</span> is the principal place [for this law]; there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Kid. 26a. ');">²¹</span> it is only mentioned incidentally.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the law is stated there regarding the acquisition of movable chattels in conjunction with immovable ones by means of money, document, or actual possession, reference is also made to the extension of the oath from movable chattels to immovable ones. ');">²²</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 8:15. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.