Commento su Bava Metzia 1:2

הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹכְבִין עַל גַּבֵּי בְהֵמָה, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד רוֹכֵב וְאֶחָד מַנְהִיג, זֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי, זֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיָהּ, וְזֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיָהּ, וְיַחֲלֹקוּ. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵם מוֹדִים אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן עֵדִים, חוֹלְקִים בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה:

Se entrambi stessero cavalcando una bestia [Con la presente siamo informati che la cavalcata acquisisce, anche se lui (il cavaliere) non conduce, la bestia non si muove dal suo posto], o se uno stava guidando e l'altro in testa [È solo quando il cavaliere muove i piedi per far andare l'animale che il cavaliere è equiparato al leader; ma in caso contrario, il leader acquisisce e non il cavaliere.], il primo dice: "È tutto mio" e il secondo dice: "È tutto mio", il primo giura che ha in esso non meno di un metà, e il secondo giura che ha in esso non meno della metà, e si dividono. Quando concedono, o quando ci sono testimoni, si dividono senza giuramento. [Se concedono, o se arrivano i testimoni, anche dopo che è stato deciso che devono dividersi con un giuramento, si dividono senza giuramento.]

Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia

היו שנים רוכבים על גבי בהמה – this comes to the us that a rider purchases, and even though he does not direct the animal [by leading it] as the animal does not move from its place.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia

If two men were riding on an animal, or one was riding and the other was leading the animal, and one of them said, “The animal is all mine”, and the other said “It is all mine.”, they each swear that they don’t own less than half of the animal and they split it.
If after the case is settled, they both admit to the others claim, or if there are witnesses they can split the animal without an oath.
This mishnah is similar to the previous mishnah and just deals with a different disputed object. In the second clause the mishnah states that if they agree to the other party’s claim or if there are witnesses that the animal is owned by both parties, they split the animal without an oath. The function of the oath is to ensure that the person is telling the truth. When there is no dispute, or when there are witnesses who testify, there is no need for an oath. Since it is preferable to avoid oaths altogether the two may split the animal without an oath.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia

או שהיה אחד רוכב ואחד מנהיג – at the time when he rides, he stirs it up with his legs so that when the animal moves in consequence of this, the rider and the leader are identical , but if there only was a rider alone, the leader purchased the animal; the rider did not purchase the animal. But if they admitted or witnesses came even after the law was decided for them, that they should divide it with an oath, they divide it without an oath [administered].

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Versetto precedente Capitolo completo Versetto successivo