Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain
Resolving Ownership Disputes: An Overview
Dr. Elana Stein Hain – dinanddaf@hadran.org.il
The opening mishnah in Bava Metzia is about two people holding the same found garment and is an important springboard for discussions about the different ways that ownership disputes are resolved throughout Shas. In this shiur, we will offer a general overview of the different methodologies used by Chazal to resolve such disputes, and what variables determine those methods.
Available as a podcast or video shiur:
Listen here:
Watch here:
Sources:
- בבא מציעא ב. (משנה א:א)
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:
If two people came to court holding a garment, and this one, the first litigant, says: I found it, and that one, the second litigant, says: I found it; this one says: All of it is mine, and that one says: All of it is mine; how does the court adjudicate this case? This one takes an oath that he does not have ownership of less than half of it, and that one takes an oath that he does not have ownership of less than half of it, and they divide it. If this one says: All of it is mine, and that one says: Half of it is mine, since they both agree that half of the cloak belongs to one of them, the conflict between them is only about the other half. Therefore, the one who says: All of it is mine, takes an oath that he does not have ownership of less than three parts, i.e., three-fourths, of it, and the one who says: Half of it is mine, takes an oath that he does not have ownership of less than one-quarter of it. This one takes three parts, and that one takes one-quarter.
- בבא בתרא לד:
הָהוּא אַרְבָּא דַּהֲווֹ מִינְּצוּ עֲלַהּ בֵּי תְרֵי, הַאי אָמַר: ״דִּידִי הִיא״, וְהַאי אָמַר: ״דִּידִי הִיא״. אֲתָא חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ לְבֵי דִינָא, וְאָמַר: תִּיפְסוּהָ אַדְּמַיְיתֵינָא סָהֲדֵי דְּדִידִי הִיא. תָּפְסִינַן, אוֹ לָא תָּפְסִינַן? רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: תָּפְסִינַן. רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: לָא תָּפְסִינַן.
There was a certain boat that two people were quarreling about with regard to its ownership. This one said: It is mine, and that one also said: It is mine. One of them came to court and said: Seize it until I am able to bring witnesses that it is mine. The Gemara asks: In such a case, do we seize it or do we not seize it? Rav Huna said: We seize it. Rav Yehuda said: We do not seize it, as there is no cause for the court to intervene.
אֲזַל, וְלָא אַשְׁכַּח סָהֲדֵי. אֲמַר לְהוּ: אַפְּקוּהָ, וְכֹל דְּאַלִּים גָּבַר. מַפְּקִינַן, אוֹ לָא מַפְּקִינַן? רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: לָא מַפְּקִינַן. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: מַפְּקִינַן. וְהִלְכְתָא: לָא תָּפְסִינַן, וְהֵיכָא דִּתְפַס – לָא מַפְּקִינַן.
The court seized the boat. The one who requested of the court to seize it went to seek witnesses, but did not find witnesses. He then said to the court: Release the boat, and whoever is stronger prevails, as this is the ruling in a case where there is neither evidence nor presumptive ownership for either litigant. The Gemara asks: In such a case, do we release it or do we not release it? Rav Yehuda said: We do not release it. Rav Pappa said: We release it. And the halakha is that we do not seize property in a case where ownership is uncertain, and where it was seized, we do not release it.
משנה בבא מציעא ג:ד (גמ’ ב”מ לז.)
שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהִפְקִידוּ אֵצֶל אֶחָד, זֶה מָנֶה וְזֶה מָאתַיִם, זֶה אוֹמֵר שֶׁלִּי מָאתָיִם וְזֶה אוֹמֵר שֶׁלִּי מָאתָיִם, נוֹתֵן לָזֶה מָנֶה וְלָזֶה מָנֶה, וְהַשְּׁאָר יְהֵא מֻנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אִם כֵּן מַה הִפְסִיד הָרַמַּאי? אֶלָּא הַכֹּל יְהֵא מֻנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ:
In the case of two people who deposited money with one person, and this one deposited one hundred dinars and that one deposited two hundred dinars, and when they come to collect their deposit, this one says: My deposit was two hundred dinars, and that one says: My deposit was two hundred dinars, the bailee gives one hundred dinars to this one and one hundred dinars to that one. And the rest of the money, i.e., the contested one hundred dinars, will be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes and prophetically determines the truth. Rabbi Yosei said: If so, what did the swindler lose? He lost nothing by claiming the one hundred dinars that belongs to another, and he has no incentive to admit the truth. Rather, the entire deposit will be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes. As his fraud will cause him to lose even the one hundred dinars that he deposited, perhaps he will be discouraged from making a fraudulent claim.
תוספות ב”מ ב. ד”ה ויחלוקו
ויחלוקו – תימה דמאי שנא מההיא דארבא דאמר כל דאלים גבר פרק חזקת הבתים (ב”ב דף לד: ושם) וי”ל דאוחזין שאני דחשיב כאילו כל אחד יש לו בה בודאי החצי דאנן סהדי דמאי דתפיס האי דידיה הוא וכן במנה שלישי דמדמי בגמרא לטלית חשיב ההוא שהנפקד תופס בחזקת שניהם כאילו הם עצמם מוחזקים בו לכך משני דהתם ודאי דחד מינייהו הוא ואין החלוקה יכולה להיות אמת ולכך יהא מונח אבל טלית דאיכא למימר דתרוייהו הוא יחלוקו וכן שנים אדוקים בשטר דמדמי לקמן (בבא מציעא דף ז.) למתני’ משום דשניהם אדוקים בו דהחלוקה יכולה להיות אמת דאפשר שפרע לו החצי ובמנה אין דרך שיקנה לו החצי אחרי שהוא ביד חבירו אבל בארבא אע”ג דאפשר שהיא של שניהם כיון דאין מוחזקין בו הוי דינא כל דאלים גבר ולסומכוס אע”ג דאין מוחזקין בו ואין החלוקה יכולה להיות אמת היכא דאיכא דררא דממונא פירוש שבלא טענותיהם יש ספק לבית דין יחלוקו:
And they should split – Question: how is this different from the case of the boat in which whoever is stronger prevails in chapter chezkat habatim (BB 34b)? It is possible to say that grasping the item is different because it is as though each person definitely owns their half; for we can all see that what someone is holding is theirs. And likewise regarding the third maneh which the Gemara compares to the garment case: the fact that a third party holds it on behalf of both of them is considered as though the claimants themselves are actually holding it. Therefore, the Gemara answers that only because it must belong only to one of them and dividing the money cannot be a true verdict, and therefore, the money should stay where it is until Elijah comes. But concerning the garment, where it is possible that it actually belongs to both of them, they should split it(s value). And likewise is the case regarding two people who are jointly holding a contract (BM 7a), which is also compared to our mishnah, where the division may be a true verdict because perhaps one already paid the other half. But regarding a maneh, it is not customary to given ownership over half of it to someone else once it is in a third party’s hand. But regarding the boat, even though it may belong to both of them, because they are not both physically holding it, the ruling is whoever is stronger prevails. And for Sumchus, even though they are not holding it and the ruling cannot be true, where there is derara de-mamona – meaning that even without their claims the court is uncertain to whom this belongs – they should split it.
ר”י מיגאש בבא בתרא דף לד:
כל דאלים גבר וכו’ עד ואי דמר לא דמר.
Whoever is stronger prevails…if it belongs to one, it does not belong to the other.
מחוורתא דהאי דינא דכל מידי דמינצו עלה בי תרי האי אמר דידי הוא והאי אמר דידי הוא אי איתיה לההוא מידי בידא דחד מינייהו הא ודאי המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה וזה אינו צריך לפנים ולא לפני לפנים.
It is clear that the rule that anything that two people fight over, and one says it’s mine, and the other says it’s mine, if that item is in the hands of one of them, the rule is certainly that the one who comes to take something from the other bears the burden of proof. And this does not require…..
ואי איתיה לההוא מידי בידא דתרווייהו וקא נקטי ליה פלגי ליה בשבועה והיינו דתנן (בריש מציעא) שנים אוחזין בטלית זה אומר אני מצאתיה וכו’ והוא הדין נמי היכא דהוי ההוא מידי ברשותא דתרווייהו.
But if the item is in both their hands, they divide it with an oath, and that is what is taught in the Mishnah at the outset of Bava Metzia – Two who are holding a piece of clothing, and one says I found it [and the other says, I found it], etc., and the same would be if that item was in the jurisdiction of both of them.
ואי ליתיה לההוא מידי בידא דחד מינייהו אי ביד שליש נתון יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו והיינו דתנן (שם פ”ג) שנים שהפקידו אצל א’ זה מנה וזה מאתים זה אומר מאתים שלי וזה אומר מאתים שלי זה נוטל מנה וזה נוטל מנה והשאר יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו וכו’
But if the item is not in the hands of one of them, or it is in the hand of a third party, it should remain in escrow until Elijah comes, and that is what is taught in the Mishnah (BM ch. 3), Two who gave a deposit to someone – one deposited 100 while the other deposited 200, but each claims that they deposited 200 – each gets 100 and the rest is held in escrow until Elijah comes, etc.
ואי לאו ביד שליש הוא אלא דרמי ברשות הרבים אי נמי ברשותא דליתיה לחד מינייהו אי הוו טענתא דידהו טענתא דאיכא למיקם עלה דמילתא נהי כגון זה אומר שלי וזה אומר שלי זה אומר של אבותי וזה אומר של אבותי דאיפשר דאתו סהדי ואמרי כחד מינייהו כיון דאיכא למיקם עלה דמילתא לא פלגינן ליה בהדייהו אלא כל דאלים גבר והוי אידך המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה
And if it is not in the hand of a third party, but is in the public thoroughfare or a property that belongs to neither of them, if their claims are proveable – e.g., one says this is mine, and the other says this is mine, or one says this belonged to my ancestors and the others says this belonged to my ancestors – that it is possible that witnesses might come to substantiate one of them; because it is possible to find out the truth, we do not divide it among them, but instead, whoever is stronger prevails, and the other becomes the one who is trying to remove it from their fellow and the burden of proof rests on him.
ואי ליכא למיקם עלה דמילתא כגון דהוה ליה ההוא מידי מידי דאסתפק ליה מעיקריה דהוי לי’ ממון המוטל בספק היכא דאיכא דררא דממונא כגון המחליף פרה בחמור וכו’ יחלוקו. והיכא דליכא בינייהו דררא דממונא כגון ב’ שטרות היוצאין ביום אחד שודא דדייני כשמואל דקיימא לן כשמואל…
And if it is impossible to find out the truth, but instead it is fully uncertain, i.e., it is uncertain money, if each side has a monetary connection, they divide it. But if neither of them has a monetary connection, as in the case of two documents from the same day, we follow the discretion of the judges, like Samuel’s position.
תוספות בבא בתרא ל״ד:
…בארבא כיון דאיכא רמאי לא יחלוקו אלא הוי דינא כל דאלים גבר…
…In the case of the boat, because one of them is lying, they do not split (the value). Rather, the ruling is whoever is stronger will overpower…
Dr. Elana Stein Hain is the Rosh Beit Midrash and a senior research fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America. Passionate about bringing Torah into conversation with contemporary life, she teaches Talmud from the Balcony, an occasional learning seminar exposing the big ideas, questions, and issues motivating Talmudic discussions; she authored Circumventing the Law: Rabbinic Perspectives on Legal Loopholes and Integrity (pre-order discount code: PENN-ESHAIN30) which uses halakhic loopholes as a lens for understanding rabbinic views on law and ethics; and she co-hosts For Heaven’s Sake, a bi-weekly podcast with Donniel Hartman and Yossi Klein Halevi, exploring contemporary issues related to Israel and the Jewish world. Elana has also started TEXTing; a podcast where she and guest scholars study Torah texts that engage issues of the moment for the Jewish world. She lives in Manhattan with her beloved family.
Hadran’s Beyond the Daf shiurim are also available by podcast on
Beyond the Daf is where you will discover enlightening shiurim led by remarkable women, delving deep into the intricacies of Talmudic teachings, and exploring relevant and thought-provoking topics that arise from the Daf.
