Bava Metzia 199

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המחליף פרה בחמור וילדה וכן המוכר שפחתו וילדה זה אומר עד שלא מכרתי וזה אומר משלקחתי יחלוקו

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN EXCHANGED A COW FOR AN ASS, AND IT CALVED; AND LIKEWISE IF HE SOLD HIS MAIDSERVANT, AND SHE BORE A CHILD, THE ONE MAINTAINING, 'IT WAS BEFORE I SOLD HER,' WHILST THE OTHER SAID, 'IT WAS AFTER I BOUGHT HER' — THEY MUST DIVIDE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a man buys an animal, it does not become his even after payment, until he performs meshikah. Hence there is no possibility of conflict, since it must be known whether it had calved before or after meshikah. But when an exchange is made, as soon as meshikah is performed on one animal the complete exchange is effected on both. Hence the dispute could arise with respect to the cow only in the case of an exchange. But in respect of the maidservant the dispute is possible even in the case of a sale, because possession of her is effected by paying the purchase price. ');">¹</span>

היו לו ב' עבדים אחד גדול ואחד קטן וכן ב' שדות אחת גדולה ואחת קטנה

IF HE [THE VENDOR] HAD TWO SERVANTS, ONE AN ADULT AND THE OTHER A CHILD; OR LIKEWISE TWO FIELDS, ONE LARGE AND ONE SMALL, THE PURCHASER MAINTAINING, 'I BOUGHT THE LARGE ONE,' WHILST THE OTHER SAYS, 'I DO NOT KNOW,' HE ACQUIRES THE LARGE ONE. IF THE VENDOR SAYS, 'I SOLD THE SMALL ONE,' AND THE OTHER SAYS, 'I DO NOT KNOW,' HE RECEIVES ONLY THE SMALL ONE. IF ONE [THE VENDEE] CLAIMS THAT IT WAS THE LARGE ONE, AND THE OTHER THAT IT WAS THE SMALL ONE, THE VENDOR MUST SWEAR THAT HE HAD SOLD THE SMALL ONE. IF THIS ONE SAYS, 'I DO NOT KNOW,' AND THE OTHER SAYS, 'I DO NOT KNOW,' THEY MUST DIVIDE.

הלוקח אומר גדול לקחתי והלה אומר איני יודע זכה בגדול

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Why should they divide? Let us see in whose possession it [sc. the calf or child] is, and then apply to the other the principle, He who claims from his neighbour has the onus of bringing proof? — R. Hiyya b. Abin said in Samuel's name: It means that it [the calf] was standing in a meadow; the maidservant, too, was in the market-stand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A narrow path adjoining the open road where slaves, cattle, etc., are sold. Thus they were in neither's possession. The Talmud could have answered that they were standing in the street, but, it is unusual to be in the street for a lengthy time (Tosaf.). ');">²</span>

המוכר אומר קטן מכרתי והלה אומר איני יודע אין לו אלא קטן

Then let us presume the ownership of the first master, and apply to the other the principle, He who claims from his neighbour bears the onus of proof?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For when the ownership of an object is in dispute, one may presume that it has not changed hands, unless there is proof to the contrary. ');">³</span>

זה אומר גדול וזה אומר קטן ישבע המוכר שהקטן מכר

— This agrees with Symmachus, who ruled: When the ownership of property is in doubt, it is divided [among the claimants] without an oath. Now, when did Symmachus rule thus? Where [each] claimant pleads, 'Perhaps [it is mine];' but did he maintain it likewise when each states, '[I am] certain'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the Mishnah, v. supra 3b, and B.K. 38b. ');">⁴</span>

זה אומר איני יודע וזה אומר איני יודע יחלוקו:

— Said Rabbah son of R. Huna: Even so: Symmachus ruled thus even when each states '[I am] certain.' Raba said: In truth, Symmachus ruled thus only when each pleads, 'perhaps,' but not when each states, '[I am] certain:' but read [in the Mishnah]: The vendor maintains, 'Perhaps it was before I sold [her],' and the vendee, 'Perhaps it was after I bought [her].'

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמאי יחלוקו וליחזי ברשות דמאן קיימא וליהוי אידך המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה

We learnt: IF THIS ONE SAYS, 'I DO NOT KNOW, AND THE OTHER SAYS, 'I DO NOT KNOW,' THEY MUST DIVIDE. Now, on Raba's view, it is well; since the last clause refers to when both state 'perhaps', the first may likewise refer to a case where both plead 'perhaps'. But according to Rabbah son of R. Huna, who maintained: Indeed, Symmachus ruled thus even when both plead 'certain' — if they divide even on certain claims,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, on his view, the first part of the Mishnah refers to such. ');">⁵</span>

א"ר חייא בר אבין אמר שמואל בעומדת באגם שפחה נמי דקיימא בסימטא

is it necessary to teach it when their claims are uncertain? — As for that, it is no argument. The last clause is stated in order to throw light on the first: [viz.,] that you should not say that the first clause refers [only] to a doubtful plea on both sides, but where both contend with certainty, it is not so;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they do not divide. ');">⁶</span>

ונוקמא אחזקת דמרא קמא וליהוי אידך המע"ה

therefore the last clause teaches the case of 'perhaps', on the part of both, from which it follows that the first refers to a plea of certainty by both;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is superfluous to state two identical clauses. ');">⁷</span>

הא מני סומכוס היא דאמר ממון המוטל בספק חולקין בלא שבועה

and even then, they must divide.

אימור דאמר סומכוס בשמא ושמא בברי וברי מי אמר

We learnt: IF ONE [THE VENDEE] CLAIMS THAT IT WAS THE LARGE ONE, AND THE OTHER [THE VENDOR] THAT IT WAS THE SMALL ONE, THE VENDOR MUST SWEAR THAT HE HAD SOLD THE SMALL ONE. Now, on Raba's view, that Symmachus gave his ruling only where each [claimant] is uncertain, but not when they are both positive, it is well: hence he must swear.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they were both positive. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רבה בר רב הונא אין אמר סומכוס אפילו בברי וברי

But according to Rabbah son of R. Huna, who maintained that the ruling of Symmachus does indeed hold good even when both are positive, why should the vendor swear? Let them divide! — Symmachus admits [that one must swear] where an oath is necessary by Biblical law, as we interpret this below.

רבא אמר לעולם כי אמר סומכוס שמא ושמא אבל ברי וברי לא אמר ותני זה אומר שמא עד שלא מכרתי וזה אומר שמא משלקחתי

IF HE HAD TWO SERVANTS, ONE AN ADULT AND THE OTHER A CHILD, etc. Why should he swear? What he claims he does not admit, and what he admits he does not claim?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra pp. 19 and 563, n. 1. ');">⁹</span>

תנן זה אומר איני יודע וזה אומר איני יודע יחלוקו

Moreover, it is a case of 'Here it is'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Helak, v. supra p. 13. n. 5. When the vendor admits the sale of the child, he offers it immediately to the claimant, and there is a view that in such case there is no oath. ');">¹⁰</span>

בשלמא לרבא מדסיפא שמא ושמא רישא נמי שמא ושמא אלא לרבה בר רב הונא דאמר אין אמר סומכוס אפילו ברי וברי השתא ברי וברי אמר יחלוקו שמא ושמא מיבעיא

Moreover, an oath is not taken with respect to slaves?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Shebu. 42b. ');">¹¹</span>

אי משום הא לא איריא תנא סיפא לגלויי רישא שלא תאמר רישא שמא ושמא אבל ברי וברי לא תנא סיפא שמא ושמא מכלל דרישא ברי וברי ואפ"ה יחלוקו

— Rab said: It means that he demands money: [the vendee claims] the price of an adult slave, whilst [the vendor offers] the value of a child slave; similarly, the value of a large field and that of a small one [are involved].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence all three difficulties are removed: with respect to the second, the vendor admits that he owes the value of a child slave, etc., but does not immediately offer it. ');">¹²</span>

תנן זה אומר גדול וזה אומר קטן ישבע המוכר שקטן מכר

Samuel said: It means that he [the purchaser] claims raiment for an adult slave, and the vendor offers raiment for a child slave;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the purchase of raiment for a slave is in dispute. ');">¹³</span>

בשלמא לרבא דאמר כי אמר סומכוס שמא ושמא אבל ברי וברי לא אמר מש"ה ישבע אלא לרבה בר רב הונא דאמר אין אמר סומכוס אפילו ברי וברי אמאי ישבע מוכר יחלוקו מיבעי ליה

or [the dispute concerns] the sheaves of a large field and those of a small one.

מודה סומכוס היכא דאיכא שבועה דאורייתא כדבעינן למימר לקמן:

היו לו ב' עבדים אחד גדול ואחד קטן [וכו']: אמאי ישבע מה שטענו לא הודה לו ומה שהודה לו לא טענו

ועוד הילך הוא

ועוד אין נשבעין על העבדים

אמר רב בטוענו דמי דמי עבד גדול דמי עבד קטן דמי שדה גדולה דמי שדה קטנה

ושמואל אמר בטוענו כסות עבד גדול כסות עבד קטן עומרי שדה גדולה עומרי שדה קטנה