Bava Metzia 11

ואלא הא דאמר רב נחמן משביעין אותו שבועת היסת נימא מיגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא

But then, in the case in which R. Nahman said, We make him take 'an oath of inducement',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he denies the whole claim; v. supra 5a. ');">¹</span>

ותו הא דתני רבי חייא שניהם נשבעין ונוטלין מבעה"ב נימא מיגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא

— why do we not say that since he is suspected of fraud in money matters he must also be suspected of swearing falsely? Moreover, there is the case where R. Hiyya taught: Both of them swear, and receive payment from the employer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the shopkeeper and his creditbook. V. supra 2a, Shebu. 47b. ');">²</span>

ותו הא דאמר רב ששת שלש שבועות משביעין אותו שבועה שלא פשעתי בה שבועה שלא שלחתי בה יד שבועה שאינה ברשותי נימא מיגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא

— why do we not say that since he is suspected of fraud in money matters he must also be suspected of swearing falsely? And furthermore, there is the case where R. Shesheth said: We make him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The gratuitous bailee, who pleads that the animal has been lost. ');">³</span>

אלא לא אמרינן מיגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא

take three oaths: 'I swear that I did not cause the loss wilfully; I swear that I did not use [the animal] for myself; I swear that it is not in my possession', — why do we not say that since he is suspected of fraud in money matters<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is assumed that he may appropriate the plaintiff's article by putting forward a wrong plea, which amounts to fraud. ');">⁴</span>

אביי אמר חיישינן שמא מלוה ישנה יש לו עליו

he must also be suspected of swearing falsely? Therefore [we must conclude] that we do not say, 'Since he is suspected of fraud in money matters he must also be suspected of swearing falsely.'

אי הכי נשקול בלא שבועה

Abaye says: We apprehend that he may be claiming the repayment of an old loan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Abaye the reason for the oath imposed by the Rabbis is not that given by R. Johanan (v. supra 3a), but that a litigant may deem himself entitled to an article found by his opponent, on the ground that the latter had borrowed money from him a long time ago and had forgotten about it. Such a litigant would not hesitate to plead that he had found the garment, or that it was all his, in the hope that at least half the value of the garment would be awarded to him. Hence the need for an oath. ');">⁵</span>

אלא חיישינן שמא ספק מלוה ישנה יש לו עליו

But if so, let him take it without an oath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it is assumed that he is claiming the garment in payment of an old debt due to him, why should he have to swear? ');">⁶</span>

ולאו אמרינן תפיס ממונא מספיקא משתבע נמי מספק

— Therefore say that we apprehend that he may be claiming the payment of a doubtful claim of an old loan. But do we not say that if he appropriates money on the strength of a doubtful claim he will also swear falsely in regard to a doubtful claim? — R. Shesheth, the son of R. Idi, said [in reply]: People will desist from taking an oath in regard to a doubtful claim, while they will not desist from appropriating money their right to which is doubtful. For what reason? — Money can be given back [later]; an oath cannot be taken back.

אמר רב ששת בריה דרב אידי פרשי אינשי מספק שבועה ולא פרשי מספק ממונא מאי טעמא ממון איתיה בחזרה שבועה ליתיה בחזרה:

R. Zera asked: If one of the litigants seized [the garment] in our presence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the presence of the Court. ');">⁷</span>

בעי ר' זירא תקפה אחד בפנינו מהו

what is the law? But [it is immediately objected]: How could such a situation arise? If [the other litigant] remained silent, he really admitted [his opponent's claim]; and if he protested, what more could he do? — [R. Zera has in mind] a case where [the aggrieved litigant] was silent at first but protested later, and the question is: Do we say that since he was silent at first he really admitted [his opponent's claim], or [do we] perhaps [say] that, as he protests now, it has become apparent that the reason why he was silent at first is that he thought [it unnecessary to protest, because] the Rabbis [of the Court] saw [what happened]? — R. Nahman answered: Come and hear [a Baraitha]: The ruling [of our Mishnah] refers only to a case where both [litigants] hold [the garment], but if the garment is produced [in Court] by one of them only, then [we apply the principle that], 'the claimant must bring evidence to substantiate his claim.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. B.M. 1; v. supra 2b. ');">⁸</span>

היכי דמי אי דשתיק אודויי אודי ליה ואי דקא צווח מאי הוה ליה למעבד

Now, [let us consider:] how could the case [of one litigant producing the garment] arise? If we say that it was just as stated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That one of the litigants was in possession of the garment when both appeared in Court. ');">⁹</span>

לא צריכא דשתיק מעיקרא והדר צווח מאי מדאשתיק אודויי אודי ליה או דלמא כיון דקא צווח השתא איגלאי מילתא דהאי דשתיק מעיקרא סבר הא קא חזו ליה רבנן

then it is self-evident.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the other litigant must bring evidence to substantiate his claim. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רב נחמן ת"ש בד"א ששניהם אדוקין בה אבל היתה טלית יוצאת מתחת ידו של אחד מהן המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה היכי דמי אי נימא כדקתני פשיטא אלא שתקפה אחד בפנינו

It must therefore be that one of them seized [the garment] in our presence?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Court, in the circumstances as described, which furnishes a solution to the problem propounded. ');">¹¹</span>

לא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דאתו לקמן כדתפיסו לה תרוייהו ואמרינן להו זילו פלוגו ונפקו והדר אתו כי תפיס לה חד מינייהו האי אמר אודויי אודי לי והאי אמר בדמי אגרתי ניהליה דאמרינן ליה עד השתא חשדת ליה בגזלן והשתא מוגרת ליה בלא סהדי

— No. Here we deal with a case where both of them came before us holding [the garment], and we said to them, 'Go and divide it.' They went out, and when they came back one of them was holding it. One said, 'He really admitted [my claim],'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'And this is why he let me have the garment.' ');">¹²</span>

ואיבעית אימא כדקתני דאתו לקמן כי תפיס לה חד מינייהו ואידך מסרך בה סרוכי ואפילו לסומכוס דאמר ממון המוטל בספק חולקין בלא שבועה מודה סומכוס דסרכא לאו כלום היא

and the other said, 'I let him have it on condition that he pays me for it.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'And now he refuses to pay.' ');">¹³</span>

אם תמצי לומר תקפה אחד בפנינו מוציאין אותה מידו הקדישה אינה מקודשת אם תמצי לומר תקפה אחד בפנינו אין מוציאין אותה מידו הקדישה בלא תקפה מהו

Now we say to him: 'Hitherto you implied that he was a robber,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'As you pleaded that the garment was yours, and that he was trying to rob you of it.' ');">¹⁴</span>

כיון דאמר מר אמירתו לגבוה כמסירתו להדיוט דמי כמאן דתקפה דמי

and now you dispose of the garment to him without witnesses!' If you prefer, I could also say that [the Baraitha deals with a case where], as stated, one of them was holding it, and the other was just hanging on to it. In such a case [it is necessary to inform us that] even Symmachus, who maintains<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 2b; B.K. 46a. ');">¹⁵</span>

או דלמא השתא מיהא הא לא תקפה וכתיב (ויקרא כז, יד) ואיש כי יקדיש את ביתו קדש וגו' מה ביתו ברשותו אף כל ברשותו לאפוקי האי דלא ברשותו

that disputed money of doubtful ownership should be divided among the disputants without an oath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And would thus let each litigant who holds the garment have a half without an oath. ');">¹⁶</span>

ת"ש דההיא

would agree,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the claimant is entitled to nothing, even if he is ready to swear. ');">¹⁷</span> for mere hanging on [to a disputed article] counts for nothing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It constitutes no claim, and therefore the garment is not 'disputed money'. ');">¹⁸</span> If you deem it right to say that in the case of one [litigant] seizing it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the garment. ');">¹⁹</span> in our presence, we take it away from him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If R. Zera's question is to be answered in the sense that the litigant who has seized the garment must give up half the garment to the other claimant. ');">²⁰</span> [it is clear that] if he dedicates it [to the Temple]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without seizing it. ');">²¹</span> the dedication does not take effect.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the act of dedication cannot be more effective than the act of seizing it. ');">²²</span> But if you will say that in the case of one [litigant] seizing it in our presence we do not take it away from him, what would be the law if he dedicated it without seizing it? Seeing that a Master says [elsewhere],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. A.Z. 63a; cf. B.B. 133b. ');">²³</span> 'Dedication to the Most High by word of mouth is like delivery in a secular transaction', [do we say that the dedication of the garment] is like seizing it, or [do we say], 'After all, he has not seized it,' and it is written: And if a man shall sanctify his house to be holy, etc.,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 14. ');">²⁴</span> [from which we might conclude that] just as his house is in his possession so must everything [that he may wish to dedicate] be in his possession — which would exclude this case [of the garment which he has not seized and] is not in his possession? — Come and hear [the following]: There was