Bava Metzia 200

כסות מה שטענו לא הודה לו ומה שהודה לו לא טענו כדאמר רב פפא בדיילפי הכא נמי בדיילפי

[You say] 'Raiment', but [surely] what he claims he does not admit, and what he admits he does not claim! — Even as R. papa said [below], when it is on the roll; so here too, when it is on the roll.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., not the actual garment is in dispute, but the amount of cloth; one says it was for an adult slave; the other, that it was for a child slave. ');">¹</span>

קשיא ליה לרבי הושעיא מידי כסות קתני עבד קתני

Now, this presented a difficulty to R. Hoshaia:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Read with MSS.: Rab Hoshaia; Cur. edd.: R(abbi) Hoshaia.] ');">²</span>

אלא א"ר הושעיא כגון שטענו עבד בכסותו ושדה בעומריה ואכתי כסות מה שטענו לא הודה לו ומה שהודה לו לא טענו א"ר פפא בדיילפי

does then the Mishnah state 'raiment'? It states 'a slave'! — But, said R. Hoshaia, it means, e.g., that he claimed a slave together with his raiment, or a field with its sheaves. But still the difficulty remains: With respect to raiment, what he claims he does not admit; and what he admits he does not claim! — Said R. papa: It refers to cloth on the roll.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though no oath is administered on real estate and slaves, yet where an oath is due on account of movable property, one is administered for the former too (v. p. 11, n. 3). ');">³</span>

קשיא ליה לרב ששת זוקקין אתא לאשמועינן תנינא זוקקין הנכסים שאין להן אחריות את הנכסים שיש להן אחריות לישבע עליהן

This presented a difficulty to R. Shesheth: Does he [the Tanna] wish to teach us that [movable property] binds [immovable]? But we have already learnt it: Unsecured chattels bind secured property in respect of an oath!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Unsecured' and 'secured' refer to movable and immovable property respectively. V. preceding note. ');">⁴</span>

אלא אמר רב ששת הא מני ר"מ היא דאמר עבדא כמטלטלין דמי

— But, said R. Shesheth, [the Tanna of the Mishnah] is R. Meir, who maintained that a slave ranks as movable chattels. But the difficulty still remains: what he claims he does not admit; what he admits he does not claim. — He [the Tanna] is of R. Gamaliel's opinion. For we learnt: If he [the plaintiff] claims wheat, whilst the other [the defendant] admits [owing] barley, he is free [from an oath]. R. Gamaliel held him liable. Yet even so, it is still a case of 'Here it is!' — Said Raba: In the case of the slave [which he admitted], he [the seller] had cut off his hand; and in the case of the field, he had dug in its pits, ditches, and cavities.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Subsequent to the transaction, so that he does not offer immediately all he has admitted, as he would have to make the damage good. ');">⁵</span>

ואכתי מה שטענו לא הודה לו ומה שהודה לו לא טענו סבר לה כר"ג דתנן טענו חטים והודה שעורים פטור ר"ג מחייב

But are we not informed that R. Meir holds the reverse? For we learnt: If a man took by violence a cow, and it aged, or slaves, and they aged, he must pay their value at the time of the robbery.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.K. 95a. Because when he committed the theft, they passed into his possession, and there and then the liability for repayment fell upon him. ');">⁶</span>

אכתי הילך הוא אמר רבא עבדא דקטע לידיה ושדה שחפר בה בורות שיחין ומערות

R. Meir said: In the case of slaves he can say to him [the owner], 'Behold, here is yours before you!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because slaves, like real estate, cannot be stolen, i.e., they never quit the original ownership through theft, and are considered to be, and grow old, in the legal possession of their rightful owner. This contradicts what has been stated, namely, that R. Meir treats slaves as movables. ');">⁷</span>

והא ר"מ איפכא שמעינן ליה דתנן גזל בהמה והזקינה עבדים והזקינו משלם כשעת הגזילה ר"מ אומר בעבדים אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך

— That is no difficulty. It is as Rabbah b. Abbuha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Read with MSS.: Rab; v. B.K. 96b.] ');">⁸</span>

הא לא קשיא כדמחליף רבה בר אבוה ותני רבי מאיר אומר משלם כשעת הגזילה וחכ"א אומר לו בעבדים הרי שלך לפניך

reversed [the Mishnah] and read: R. Meir said: He must pay their value at the time of the robbery; but the Sages ruled: In the case of slaves he can say to him [the owner], 'Behold, here is yours before you.' But [there is this difficulty]: How do we know that R. Meir holds that real estate is equated to slaves: just as an oath is taken for slaves, so also is an oath taken for real estate? Perhaps [in his opinion] there is an oath only in respect of slaves, but not for immovable property?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whilst our Mishnah states that an oath is administered when it is disputed which field was sold, so that our Mishnah cannot after all represent the view of R. Meir. ');">⁹</span>

אלא ממאי דסבר ר"מ מקשינן קרקע לעבד מה עבד נשבעין אף קרקע נשבעין דלמא אעבד הוא דנשבעין אבל אקרקע לא

— You cannot think so. For it has been taught: If a cow is exchanged for an ass, and it calved; likewise, if one sells his maidservant, and she bore a child, one says, 'It happened in my possession,' and the other is silent, the former acquires it. If each says, 'I do not know,' they divide; if each pleads, 'It happened in my ownership,' the vendor must swear that she bore whilst in his possession, because all who take an oath in accordance with Scriptural law, swear to be freed from liability:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the plaintiff is not permitted to swear to sustain his claim, but only the defendant, in order to refute it. ');">¹⁰</span>

לא ס"ד דתניא המחליף פרה בחמור וילדה וכן המוכר שפחתו וילדה

this is R. Meir's view. But the Sages rule: No oath is taken in respect of slaves or lands.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.K. 96b. ');">¹¹</span>

זה אומר ברשותי וזה שותק זכה

Surely then it follows that in R. Meir's opinion an oath is taken [even on lands]. But how is this to be inferred? perhaps they argue by analogy:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'perhaps they say to him, " just="" as".'="" ');"="">¹²</span>

זה אומר איני יודע וזה אומר איני יודע יחלוקו

Just as you admit to us in the matter of lands [that there is no oath], so should you admit in respect to slaves? The proof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That R. Meir agrees that there is no oath for lands. ');">¹³</span>

זה אומר ברשותי וזה אומר ברשותי ישבע המוכר שברשותו ילדה לפי שכל הנשבעין שבתורה נשבעין ולא משלמין דברי ר"מ וחכ"א אין נשבעין לא על העבדים ולא על הקרקעות

is this: We learnt, R. Meir said: Some things are similar to real estate, yet do not rank as such; but the Sages dispute it. E.g., [If A claims from B,] 'I delivered you ten laden vines,' and B replies, 'There were only five,' — R. Meir makes him liable; but the Sages say: That which is attached to the soil is as the soil.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. 44b. ');">¹⁴</span>

לאו מכלל דר"מ סבר נשבעין

Whereon R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: They differ with respect to grapes which are ready for vintaging: one Master [sc. R. Meir] regards them as already vintaged;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence he says, they are similar to land, in that they are attached thereto, yet do not rank as such, being regarded as already vintaged hence detached, and subject to the laws of oaths. — This shews that for land itself there is no oath, in R. Meir's opinion. ');">¹⁵</span>

ממאי דלמא כשם קאמרו ליה כי היכי דאודית לן בקרקעות אודי לן נמי בעבדים

whilst the other maintains that they are not as already vintaged! But after all, it must be explained as R. Hoshaia:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [V. supra p. 571, n. 6. The reading,'Rab Hoshaia' is confirmed here by MSS.M.] ');">¹⁶</span>

תדע דתנן ר"מ אומר יש דברים. שהן כקרקע ואינן כקרקע ואין חכמים מודים לו כיצד י' גפנים טעונות מסרתי לך והלה אומר אינן אלא חמש ר"מ מחייב וחכ"א כל המחובר לקרקע הרי הוא כקרקע

and as to your difficulty, '[does the Tanna wish to teach that movable property] binds [immovable]?' It is necessary. For I might think that a slave's garment is as the slave himself; likewise the sheaves of a field are as the field itself:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence there should be no oath. ');">¹⁷</span>

וא"ר יוסי בר חנינא ענבים העומדות ליבצר איכא בינייהו דמר סבר כבצורות דמיין ומר סבר לאו כבצורות דמיין

therefore we are taught [otherwise].

אלא לעולם כדרבי הושעיא ודקשיא לך זוקקין איצטריך סד"א כסות עבד כעבד דמי עומרי שדה כשדה דמי קמ"ל:

'If each says, "I do not know," they must divide.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The quotation is from the Baraitha, not the Mishnah, as is seen from the second clause quoted, which is absent in the Mishnah. ');">¹⁸</span>

זה אומר איני יודע וזה אומר איני יודע יחלוקו: הא מני סומכוס היא דאמר ממון המוטל בספק חולקין

With whom does this agree? With Symmachus, who ruled: When the ownership of property is in doubt, it is divided. Then consider the latter clause: 'If each pleads, "It happened in my ownership," the vendor must swear that she bore whilst in his possession.' Now according to Rabbah son of R. Huna, who maintained: Indeed, Symmachus gave his ruling even where both make positive statements; why should he swear? Surely they ought to divide! — Symmachus admits [that one must swear] when an oath is required by Biblical law; [the circumstances being] that he [the owner] had cut off her [sc. the slave's] hand, and in accordance with Raba's explanation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 572. ');">¹⁹</span>

אימא סיפא זה אומר ברשותי וזה אומר ברשותי ישבע המוכר שברשותו ילדה ולרבה בר רב הונא דאמר אין אמר סומכוס אפילו ברי וברי אמאי ישבע מוכר יחלוקו מיבעיא

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF ONE SELLS HIS OLIVE TREES FOR THEIR WOOD,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the purchaser should cut them down for wood. ');">²⁰</span>

מודה סומכוס היכא דאיכא שבועה דאורייתא ודקטעה לידה כדרבא:

AND THEY YIELD LESS THAN A QUARTER <i>LOG</i> [OF] OIL] PER <i>SE'AH</i> [OF OLIVES],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they were left in the soil for some time, and produced very inferior olives, in a se'ah of which there was less than a quarter log of oil. ');">²¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המוכר זיתיו לעצים ועשו פחות מרביעית לסאה הרי אלו של בעל הזיתים

IT IS THE PURCHASER'S.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they belong to the owner of the olive trees.' ');">²²</span>

עשו רביעית לסאה זה אומר זיתי גדלו וזה אומר ארצי גדלה יחלוקו

BUT IF THEY PRODUCED [OLIVES YIELDING] A QUARTER <i>LOG</i> [OF OIL] PER <i>SE'AH</i>, ONE [THE PURCHASER] CLAIMING, 'MY OLIVE TREES PRODUCED THEM;' AND THE OTHER [THE VENDOR] MAINTAINING, 'IT WAS MY LAND WHICH CAUSED THE YIELD,' THEY MUST DIVIDE. IF THE RIVER SWEPT AWAY A MAN'S OLIVE TREES AND DEPOSITED THEM IN HIS NEIGHBOUR'S FIELD [AND THERE THEY PRODUCED OLIVES] [AND] ONE MAINTAINS, 'MY OLIVE TREES PRODUCED THEM,' WHEREAS THE OTHER CLAIMS, 'MY LAND CAUSED THE YIELD,' THEY DIVIDE.

שטף נהר זיתיו ונתנם לתוך שדה חבירו זה אומר זיתי גדלו וזה אומר ארצי גדלה יחלוקו:

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. How is it meant? If he stipulated, 'Cut [them] down immediately,' then even [if the oil yield is] less than a quarter <i>log</i> [per <i>se'ah</i>], it should belong to the landowner; whilst if he stipulated, 'Cut [them] down whenever you desire,' even when it is a quarter <i>log</i>, it ought to be the purchaser's? — It is necessary to state this only when he made no stipulation: [in which case] when there is less than a quarter <i>log</i>, one is not particular;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' About the benefit derived by the purchaser from his soil. ');">²³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ה"ד אי דאמר ליה קוץ לאלתר אפילו פחות מרביעית נמי לבעל הקרקע אי דאמר ליה כל אימת דבעית קוץ אפילו רביעית נמי לבעל זיתים

when [however] there is a quarter <i>log</i>, people are particular. R. Simeon b. Pazzi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec.: b. Lakish. ');">²⁴</span>

לא צריכא דאמר ליה סתמא פחות מרביעית לא קפדי אינשי רביעית קפדי אינשי

said: The quarter <i>log</i> that was stated

א"ר שמעון בן פזי ורביעית שאמרו