Commentary for Bava Metzia 4:10

אלא אי אמרת סומכוס השתא ומה התם דלא תפסי תרוייהו חולקין בלא שבועה הכא דתרוייהו תפסי לה לא כ"ש

it is rightly divided, after both have taken the oath. But in regard to Symmachus the argument is the other way. For if he decided in the case referred to [where no party is in possession of the disputed property] that the amount should be divided among the litigants without an oath, how much more readily would he give this decision in a case like ours, where both disputants are equally in possession of the article in question; [and thus the query remains, 'Shall it be said that our Mishnah is not in agreement with Symmachus?'] It can still be maintained that the Mishnah is in agreement with Symmachus. For Symmachus expressed his view [that the property in dispute should be divided without an oath] only in a case where both litigants are uncertain as to the true facts [and it would therefore be wrong to make either of them swear] but where both parties assert their claims with certainty [as in our Mishnah] he would take a different view.

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 4:10. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.