Daf 2a: Two Holding a Garment: Division, Oaths, and Finding

Here is the complete Gemara text of this daf, word for word, divided into the stages of the sugya: Mishnah, question, kushya, terutz, raya and conclusion. Read each stage in the source first, then the explanation.

1. 01·Mishnah / BaraitaBava Metzia 2a

   שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּטַלִּית, זֶה אוֹמֵר: ״אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: ״אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ״. זֶה אוֹמֵר: ״כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: ״כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי״. זֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיָהּ, וְזֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיָהּ – וְיַחְלוֹקוּ.

   Two people hold the same garment, and each presents a claim to the whole. The Mishnah uses both “I found it” and “It is all mine,” whose relationship the Gemara will investigate. Their joint possession and matching claims provide the basis here for equal division rather than preferring either claimant. Each swears that his share is no less than half, and they divide it. The oath concerns the portion he will receive, although his original claim covers the whole. The reason for instituting this oath is explained later in the tractate; here we establish the case’s foundations.

2. 02·Mishnah / BaraitaBava Metzia 2a

   זֶה אוֹמֵר: ״כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: ״חֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלִּי״, הָאוֹמֵר כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי – יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים, וְהָאוֹמֵר חֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלִּי – יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ פָּחוֹת מֵרְבִיעַ. זֶה נוֹטֵל שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים, וְזֶה נוֹטֵל רְבִיעַ.

   Now one person claims the whole, while the other claims only half. The person claiming half does not contest the other person’s right to the remaining half. One half is therefore undisputed, and only the other half is divided between them. The claimant to the whole receives three quarters, and the claimant to half receives one quarter. Each swears that his share is no less than the portion awarded to him. This is an important structural principle: first identify what is actually disputed, rather than automatically dividing the entire object.

3. 03·Mishnah / BaraitaBava Metzia 2a

   הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹכְבִין עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד רוֹכֵב וְאֶחָד מַנְהִיג, זֶה אוֹמֵר: כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי – זֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיָהּ, וְזֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיָהּ, וְיַחְלוֹקוּ.

   The Mishnah moves from a garment to an animal, and from holding by hand to riding and leading. It describes two riders, or a rider and a leader, each claiming the entire animal. In these cases, the Mishnah does not give either person a larger portion merely because of his form of control. Each swears that his share is no less than half, and they divide it. This connects to the later discussions of riding and leading, which also examine these actions as methods of acquisition. The ruling here does not establish that every act of riding, under every condition, effects acquisition.

4. 04·Mishnah / BaraitaBava Metzia 2a

   בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵם מוֹדִים אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן עֵדִים – חוֹלְקִין בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה.

   When the parties acknowledge their shared entitlement, or witnesses establish it, they divide without an oath. Acknowledgment here does not mean repeating their conflicting claims; it means agreement that removes the dispute over shared ownership. Likewise, the witnesses are not merely witnesses to their presence, but support the entitlement on which division rests. The oath accompanying division in the earlier cases is unnecessary in this setting. This ending distinguishes two components: division can occur without an oath.

5. 05·TerutzBava Metzia 2a

   גְּמָ׳ לְמָה לִי לְמִתְנָא זֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ, זֶה אוֹמֵר כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי? לִיתְנֵי חֲדָא! חֲדָא קָתָנֵי: זֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ וְכוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ וְכוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי.

   The Gemara opens by asking why the Mishnah needs both “I found it” and “It is all mine.” The question assumes that both expressions seem to serve the same function: asserting ownership. The first answer is “It teaches one case”: each person says that he found the garment and that it is entirely his. On this proposal, there are not two cases, but one account combining the source of entitlement with the ownership claim. This initially explains the sentence’s structure, but not yet why both parts are necessary.

6. 06·TerutzBava Metzia 2a

   וְלִיתְנֵי ״אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ״, וַאֲנָא יָדַעְנָא דְּכוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי! אִי תְּנָא ״אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מַאי ״מְצָאתִיהָ״ – רְאִיתִיהָ. אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אֲתַאי לִידֵיהּ – בִּרְאִיָּה בְּעָלְמָא קָנֵי, תְּנָא: ״כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי״ – דְּבִרְאִיָּה לָא קָנֵי.

   The Gemara challenges the single-case proposal: “I found it” seemingly already expresses a claim to the whole. It answers that finding could be understood as merely seeing. If that were the only wording, one might mistakenly infer that sight itself acquires the object, even before it reaches the finder’s hands. Adding “It is all mine” clarifies that the discussion concerns ownership through acquisition, not merely discovering the object. On this proposed explanation, the combined wording teaches that seeing alone does not acquire. The distinction between locating a lost object and acquiring it underlies later discussions in the chapter.

7. 07·KushyaBava Metzia 2a

   וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ מַאי ״מְצָאתִיהָ״ – רְאִיתִיהָ, וְהָא אָמַר רַבְנַאי ״וּמְצָאתָהּ״ – דַּאֲתַאי לִידֵיהּ מַשְׁמַע.

   The Gemara attacks the assumption that “I found it” can mean merely seeing. Ravnai taught that the biblical word “and you find it” means that the lost object has reached the finder’s hands. If the same meaning governs the Mishnah, there is no concern that finding will be understood as sight alone. The explanation for adding “It is all mine” would then seemingly collapse. The objection transfers a biblical meaning to the litigants’ language in the Mishnah, and that transfer becomes the focus of the answer.

8. 08·TerutzBava Metzia 2a

   אִין ״וּמְצָאתָהּ״ דִּקְרָא – דַּאֲתָא לִידֵיהּ מַשְׁמַע, וּמִיהוּ תַּנָּא לִישָּׁנָא דְעָלְמָא נָקֵט, וּמִדְּחָזֵי לֵיהּ אָמַר: אֲנָא אַשְׁכַּחִית, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אֲתַאי לִידֵיהּ בִּרְאִיָּה בְּעָלְמָא קָנֵי, תָּנֵי: ״כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי״ – דְּבִרְאִיָּה בְּעָלְמָא לָא קָנֵי לַהּ.

   The Gemara accepts Ravnai’s interpretation of Scripture but distinguishes biblical language from ordinary speech. The Mishnah quotes the everyday language of the claimants. A person may say “I found it” as soon as he sees an object, even before it reaches his hands. The concern therefore remains that a reader might attribute acquiring power to sight. On this argument, “It is all mine” is needed to rule out that interpretation. The answer resolves the objection without rejecting the source: it limits the setting in which its meaning applies.

9. 09·TerutzBava Metzia 2a

   וְלִיתְנֵי ״כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי״ וְלָא בָּעֵי ״אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ״! אִי תָּנֵי ״כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: בְּעָלְמָא דְּקָתָנֵי ״מְצָאתִיהָ״ בִּרְאִיָּה בְּעָלְמָא קָנֵי, תְּנָא ״אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ״ וַהֲדַר תְּנָא ״כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי״ דְּמִמִּשְׁנָה יַתִּירָה אַשְׁמְעִינַן דִּרְאִיָּה לָא קָנֵי.

   The Gemara now tests the reverse possibility: teach only “It is all mine.” That wording presents an ownership claim without the ambiguity of “I found it.” The answer is that we would then learn nothing about the meaning of finding-language elsewhere. One might still think that where “I found it” appears, seeing suffices for acquisition. On this proposal, the apparent redundancy of both expressions deliberately signals that sight does not acquire. The argument thus seeks to justify not only the Mishnah’s content but also its repetition.

10. 10·KushyaBava Metzia 2a

    וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ חֲדָא קָתָנֵי? וְהָא ״זֶה״ וְ״זֶה״ קָתָנֵי: ״זֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ, זֶה אוֹמֵר כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי״ וְכוּ׳.

    The Gemara returns to the foundation: can this actually be read as one case? The Mishnah does not simply join “I found it and it is all mine” for each claimant. It repeats the framework “this one says” and “that one says” before the second pair of claims. That repetition indicates another unit rather than merely continuing each person’s statement. The explanations for needing both expressions therefore do not resolve the structural problem. The objection undermines “It teaches one case,” not the principle that seeing alone does not acquire.

11. 11·TerutzBava Metzia 2a

    אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ כְּדִי: רֵישָׁא בִּמְצִיאָה, וְסֵיפָא בְּמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר.

    A new explanation is attributed to Rav Pappa, alternatively to Rav Shimi bar Ashi, and in another version transmitted without attribution. The first clause, “I found it,” concerns finding. The second, “It is all mine,” concerns buying and selling. Here “first” and “second” refer to the two sets of claims at the Mishnah’s opening, not to the later case of “Half is mine.” Repeating “this one says” now makes sense: the Mishnah introduces another case with a different source of ownership. The purchase dispute’s details, and why both cases must be taught, remain unexplained.

12. 12·The Gemara asksBava Metzia 2a

    וּצְרִיכָא:

    The word “Both are necessary” opens the examination of why both cases must be taught. It asserts their necessity and sets up the next question: why would one not suffice? Once the repeated wording has been explained, the repeated ruling still needs justification. The expected structure is to show that each setting invites an inference we would not automatically transfer to the other. This page has not yet supplied those reasons, so they must not be presented as conclusions already established.

1. 1Why does the claimant to the whole receive three quarters against someone claiming half? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
2. 2What does the proposal “It teaches one case” mean? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
3. 3How is the objection from Ravnai’s interpretation of “and you find it” answered? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
4. 4What undermines reading both expressions as one case? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
5. 5Where does the discussion stand at the end of ב ע״א (2a)? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.