{"id":3683,"date":"2016-10-02T07:54:35","date_gmt":"2016-10-02T05:54:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/?p=3683"},"modified":"2016-10-05T05:52:59","modified_gmt":"2016-10-05T03:52:59","slug":"bava-metzia-5","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/2016\/10\/bava-metzia-5\/","title":{"rendered":"Bava Metzia 6"},"content":{"rendered":"

The gemara questions Rabbi Yochanan’s understanding\u00a0that the reason the mishna required the two people holding the tallit to swear was because the rabbis wanted to prevent people from grabbing other people’s tallit and claiming it as their own. \u00a0The question is: if there is concern one is lying about money (stealing), shouldn’t we suspect that he will swear falsely? \u00a0The gemara brings 3 proofs from other cases where one can swear but disproves them as each case can be explained that the one obligated to swear is not actually stealing because his claim can be justified. \u00a0 Then the gemara brings 3 proofs that are accepted. \u00a0Abaye brings a different explanation for the reason the mishna requires the two to swear. \u00a0The gemara then raises a question about a case where after the two people were holding the tallit in the court, one grabbed it from the other. \u00a0Does he have full rights to it? \u00a0Under what circumstances is this question valid? \u00a0What are the arguments for and against? \u00a0Assuming we hold that he gets to keep it, would the same hold true if one consecrated the whole tallit because speech by consecration is the same as taking it in hand. \u00a0In order to sanswer this question, they bring a story about a bathhouse that two people claimed rights to and then one consecrated it. \u00a0Rav Hamnuna ruled that the consecration worked and learned it from a mishna about a sefak bechor<\/em>\u00a0but Raba rejected his proof. \u00a0Abaye first questions Raba’s understanding but then proves that he is correct.<\/p>\n

\n