Related%20passage for Bava Metzia 1:1

שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּטַלִּית, זֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ, זֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי, זֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיָהּ, וְזֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיָהּ, וְיַחֲלֹקוּ. זֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר חֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלִּי, הָאוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי, יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלשָׁה חֲלָקִים, וְהָאוֹמֵר חֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלִּי, יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָּחוֹת מֵרְבִיעַ. זֶה נוֹטֵל שְׁלשָׁה חֲלָקִים, וְזֶה נוֹטֵל רְבִיעַ:

Two are holding a garment. The first says: "I found it"; the second: "I found it." [The Gemara construes the instance in our Mishnah as one where the first was holding the strands on one side of the garment, and the second, the strands on the other side. But if they were holding onto the garment itself, the first takes as far as his hand reaches, and the second, as far as his hand reaches. And the rest, they divide equally with an oath.] The first says: "It is all mine"; the second: "It is all mine." [i.e., I bought it, and the seller sold it to me and not to you. And the seller sold it to one of them and took the money from both of them; one, by consent, and the other, against his will. And he does not know which is which. For if he did know and he said: "I sold it to this one," one witness would obtain, in which instance a Torah oath would be imposed upon the other to refute the witness. Now that he does not know, both swear this oath specified in our Mishnah. By law, they should divide without an oath; but the sages ordained that neither of them takes anything without an oath, so that a man should not go and take hold of his neighbor's garment and say: "It is mine!" And it was necessary for the tanna to apprise us both of "I found it" — (an instance of) finding a lost object, and: "It is all mine" — (an instance of) buying and selling. For if only the first were taught, I would say that it is only in that case that the Torah imposed an oath, one being apt to rationalize to take a lost object unlawfully, viz.: "My friend will lose nothing. I will go and seize it and divide it with him." But, in the instance of buying and selling, where if he did not need it, he would not pursue the seller to buy it, the one who comes to divide with him and give half the price causes him a loss unlawfully, without a rationalization — so that I might say (unless apprised otherwise) that the rabbis did not impose an oath upon him. And if we were apprised only of buying and selling, I would say that it is only in that instance that the rabbis imposed an oath, for in that instance he might say: "My friend gave money and I, too, gave money. Now, that I need it for myself, I will take it, and let my friend go and buy another one." But in the instance of a lost object, where such (a rationalization) does not obtain, I might say not (i.e., that no oath is imposed.) We are, therefore, apprised otherwise.] The first swears that he has in it no less than a half, and the second swears that he has in it no less than a half, and they divide, [He does not swear that it is all his as per his original claim, for they will not give him all of it. And if he swears that half is his, in accordance with what he is given, he vitiates his original claim of "It is all mine." Therefore, he swears that he has in it no less than a half, which implies: It is all mine, as I said in the beginning; and, according to you, who do not believe me for the whole, I take an oath that I have (possession) in it, and that I have in it no less than a half.] If the first says: "It is all mine"; and the second: "Half of it is mine," the one who says "It is all mine" swears that he has no less than three quarters, and the one who says "Half of it is mine" swears that he has no less than one quarter. The first takes three quarters, and the second, one quarter.

Explore related%20passage for Bava Metzia 1:1. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.