Ask A Question on the daf

1) ACQUISITION OF A FOUND OBJECT

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven and Shimon are holding a garment; Reuven says 'I found it', and so does Shimon; Reuven says 'it is mine', and so does Shimon. Each swears that he does not own less than half, and they divide it.
(b) If Reuven says 'it is all mine', and Shimon says 'it is half mine', Reuven swears that he does not own less than three quarters, and Shimon swears that he does not own less than 1 quarter; each gets as he swore.
(c) Two men are riding on an animal, or 1 is riding, the other is leading it; each says 'it is mine'. Each swears that he does not own less than half, and they divide it.

1. When they admit, or when they have witnesses, they divide without an oath.

(d) (Gemara) Question: Why must the Mishnah say 'Reuven says 'I found it', and so does Shimon; Reuven says 'it is mine', and so does Shimon' - it suffices for each to make

1 claim!

(e) Answer #1: Indeed, each makes 1 claim - each says 'I found it, and it is mine'.

1. Question: It should suffices to teach 'I found it', we would know 'it is mine'!
2. Answer: If it only said 'I found it', one might have thought that it means 'I saw it', and he acquires through seeing alone - therefore, it says 'it is mine' to teach that he does not acquire through seeing alone.
3. Question: Could one have really thought that he acquires through seeing alone?!

i. But Ravnai taught "And you will find it" - this connotes, it came to your hand.

4. Answer: Yes, when the Torah says "And you will find it", it connotes that it came to your hand - but the Tana speaks as people speak;

i. People say 'I found it' once they see it.

5. Question: It should suffices to teach 'It is mine'!
6. Answer: The Tana wanted to teach that one does not acquire through seeing alone;

i. By teaching 'I found it' and additionally 'it is mine', we learn that mere finding (seeing) does not acquire.

(a) Objection: How can we say that each makes 1 claim - the Mishnah says 'Reuven says 'I found it', Shimon says 'I found it'; Reuven says 'It is mine'...'!
(b) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): The Mishnah teaches 2 cases - 'I found it' is when they argue over a found object, 'it is mine' is when each claims to have bought it.
(c) We need to hear both cases.

1. If we only heard by a found object - one might have thought, only there Chachamim imposed an oath on them, because a person justifies grabbing a found object and claiming it (in order to receive half), since he does not take what another person toiled for;
2. If we only heard by a bought object - one might have thought, only there Chachamim imposed an oath on them, because a person justifies claiming what was sold to another person;

i. He reasons - we both paid for it - I need it, I will take it, he can get his money back and buy another.

(d) Question: Why must they swear regarding a bought object - surely, it was sold to the one who paid!
(e) Answer: The case is, the seller received money from both of them, from one willingly, the other forced the money into his hand; we do not know from whom he accepted willingly.

(a) Suggestion: Our Mishnah is not as Ben Nanas, for he does not allow both parties to swear, since surely one is swearing falsely.
(b) Rejection: It can be as Ben Nanas - he only said that (in a dispute whether workers were paid,) when it is impossible that both oaths are true;

1. Here, perhaps both oaths are true, e.g. if they picked it up at the same time, so each acquired half.

(c) Suggestion: Our Mishnah is not as Sumchus, for he holds that when in doubt, we divide the money without an oath.

1. Question: But nor is it as Chachamim - they say, to take money from another, one must bring proof!
2. Answer: It can be as Chachamim - they only said that one must bring proof to take money from one who holds it (or has a Chazakah on it) by himself;

i. Here, both are holding it, they swear and divide it.
ii. But Sumchus holds, even when 1 person holds it, they divide it without swearing - all the more so, when both are holding it, they divide it without swearing!

(d) .Rejection: It can even be as Sumchus - he only said that they divide it without swearing when both parties are unsure - but here, both parties make definite claims, they swear and divide it.
(e) Question: Rabah holds that Sumchus says that they divide without swearing even when both make definite claims - can he establish the Mishnah as Sumchus?
(f) [Version #1 (Rashi) Answer #1: Yes - Sumchus only said that they divide it without swearing when surely, 1 side stands to lose;

1. Here, perhaps each side gets what it truly owns, they swear and divide.

(g) Question: This is illogical!

1. If they divide without swearing when it surely belongs to 1, and that side surely loses - all the more so when it is possible that neither side loses!]

(h) [Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer #1: Yes - Sumchus only said that they divide it without swearing when the doubt is not due to their claims, even without their claims, Beis Din had a doubt;

1. Here, the doubt is because of their claims, they swear and divide.

(i) Question: This is illogical!

1. There, even without their claims, we know that it belongs to 1 (but we do not know which), they divide without swearing;
2. Here, the doubt is because of their claims - had they kept silent, one could have said that each owns half, all the more so they should divide without swearing!]

(j) Answer #2: Sumchus can admit here - the oath of our Mishnah is only mid'Rabanan.

1. (R. Yochanan): The oath of our Mishnah is a Rabbinical enactment, in order that people will not grab onto others' property and claim it.