ח אי משום הא לא איריא תנא סיפא לגלויי רישא שלא תאמר רישא דאמר חצי חצי אבל אמר כולו קנו תנא סיפא דאמר חצי חצי מכלל דרישא דאמר כולו ואפ"ה לא קנו
8 But the second clause goes on: 'If he says, half [to one] and half [to the other] they do not acquire ownership.' Does not this show that the first clause refers to the case where he says 'the whole'? — This second clause explains the first, [thus:] 'They do not acquire ownership even of themselves. When is this so? If, for instance, he says, half [to one] and half [to the other].' This supposition is reasonable, since if we assume the first clause [to refer to the case] where he says 'the whole', seeing that where he says 'the whole they do not acquire ownership, is it necessary [to tell us that they do not do so] where he says 'half and half'? — This is not a conclusive argument. [It may be that] the second clause was put in to make clear [the reference in] the first: lest you might think that the first clause [refers to] where he said half [to one] and half [to the other], leaving us to infer that where he said 'the whole' they acquire ownership, he adds in the second clause, 'where he says half and half,' which shows that the first clause [speaks of the case] where he says 'the whole,' and even so they do not acquire ownership. Or if you like I can say that there is no contradiction, as the one authority is speaking of one document<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case they are not liberated, just as two women cannot become divorced with one Get. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>