About this episode
Today's daf is sponsored by Lesley Glassberg Nadel in loving memory of her mother, Theresa Glassberg, Tova bat Tzvi Hirsch and Bayla on her 20th yahrzeit, on Rosh Chodesh Sivan. "May her memory be for a blessing." If one traded animals or slaves and the animal/slave gave birth and each side claimed the offspring as their own (born before or after the sale), the offspring is split between the buyer and the owner. If one had two animals or slaves - one small and one large and each side claims they bought/sold the bigger/smaller one, what is the law? The Mishna delineates different possibilities depending on whether each side brought a definitive claim ( bari ) or a non-definitive claim ( shema ) and rules in each case. In the case of the animal/slave, why is it divided? Why does it not remain where it is presently? After resolving this question by assuming the case is where it is not in the hands of either side, the Gemara raises another question - why does it not remain in the original owner's possession where is the last place where it had presumptive ownership? The Mishna must be according to Sumchus who holds that money in doubt is split without swearing. But, there is a debate about whether Sumchus held that position even in a case where both cases have definitive claims. Therefore, the Mishna is explained according to each position - either they have non-definitive or definitive claims. Two difficulties are raised against Raba bar Rav Huna's explanation of the Mishna. In the case of the two slaves/two pieces of land, if each claims definitively which slave/piece of land they bought/sold, why do they take an oath? There are three reasons why there should not be an oath in this case. To resolve this, they suggest four possible answers and analyze whether these answers are feasible.