Daf 6a: Suspicion and Oaths, Seizing a Garment, and Consecration

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·KushyaBava Metzia 6a

   וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ שְׁבוּעַת הֶיסֵּת, נֵימָא מִיגּוֹ דַּחֲשִׁיד אַמָּמוֹנָא חֲשִׁיד אַשְּׁבוּעָתָא. וְתוּ הָא דְתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: שְׁנֵיהֶם נִשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת, נֵימָא מִיגּוֹ דַּחֲשִׁיד אַמָּמוֹנָא חֲשִׁיד אַשְּׁבוּעָתָא. וְתוּ הָא דְּאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁבוּעוֹת מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ: שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁעְתִּי בָּהּ, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא שָׁלַחְתִּי בָּהּ יָד, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בִּרְשׁוּתִי. נֵימָא: מִיגּוֹ דַּחֲשִׁיד אַמָּמוֹנָא חֲשִׁיד אַשְּׁבוּעָתָא.

   The Gemara raises three objections to the assumption that someone suspected over money is also suspect regarding an oath. Rav Nachman requires a defendant who denies everything to take a rabbinic oath, despite concern that he is withholding another’s money. In Rabbi Chiyya’s teaching about a shopkeeper and workers with conflicting accounts, both swear and collect from the employer. Rav Sheshet requires a custodian to swear that he was not negligent, did not misappropriate the deposit, and does not have it in his possession. In each case, an oath addresses a concern about improper monetary conduct. If monetary suspicion always destroyed the credibility of an oath, this structure of obligations would be inexplicable.

2. 02·Conclusion of the sugyaBava Metzia 6a

   אֶלָּא לָא אָמְרִינַן מִיגּוֹ דַּחֲשִׁיד אַמָּמוֹנָא חֲשִׁיד אַשְּׁבוּעָתָא.

   The Gemara concludes that monetary suspicion does not automatically extend to suspicion concerning an oath. Here, “migo” means moving from one suspicion to another, not credibility based on an alternative claim. A person may recoil from a false oath even when there is concern that he takes money unlawfully. This preserves the role of the oath in the Mishnah of two people holding a garment and in the cited sources. The conclusion concerns the suspicion under discussion, not a blanket rule that a proven robber is qualified to swear.

3. 03·TerutzBava Metzia 6a

   אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא מִלְוֶה יְשָׁנָה יֵשׁ לוֹ עָלָיו.

   Abaye offers another explanation for the oath instituted in the Mishnah of two people holding a garment. The person taking hold may believe that the other owes him an old loan. On this account, his conduct does not necessarily show a deliberate attempt to steal without any basis. He may view it as collecting a debt, although the explicit dispute concerns the garment. Abaye thus locates the underlying concern within the parties’ financial relationship.

4. 04·KushyaBava Metzia 6a

   אִי הָכִי נִשְׁקוֹל בְּלָא שְׁבוּעָה!

   The Gemara asks: if an old loan explains the conduct, why not let him take without an oath? As the proposal is currently understood, the holder is collecting a debt he knows is owed to him. The proposal therefore has not explained what concern the oath is meant to remove. This objection does not grant general permission to collect debts by force. It demands an explanation of why the debt hypothesis specifically supports requiring an oath.

5. 05·TerutzBava Metzia 6a

   אֶלָּא חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא סְפֵק מִלְוֶה יְשָׁנָה יֵשׁ לוֹ עָלָיו.

   The Gemara revises the proposal: the concern is an uncertain old debt. The holder is unsure that the debt is still owed, yet may seize property on the strength of that uncertainty. The oath now has a possible function: stopping a taking unsupported by certainty. This revision explains why he should not simply take without further scrutiny. It still remains to explain why an oath would deter someone who has already acted on a doubt.

6. 06·KushyaBava Metzia 6a

   וְלָאו אָמְרִינַן תָּפֵיס מָמוֹנָא מִסְּפֵיקָא? מִשְׁתְּבַע נָמֵי מִסָּפֵק!

   The Gemara objects that uncertainty may undermine the oath as well. If a person permits himself to seize money on a doubt, perhaps he will also permit himself to swear on a doubt. The objection assumes that the same internal justification may support both actions. Merely changing a definite debt into an uncertain one therefore does not complete the explanation. A distinction is needed between the person’s attitude toward money and his attitude toward an oath.

7. 07·TerutzBava Metzia 6a

   אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: פָּרְשִׁי אִינָשֵׁי מִסְּפֵק שְׁבוּעָה וְלָא פָּרְשִׁי מִסְּפֵק מָמוֹנָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? מָמוֹן אִיתֵיהּ בַּחֲזָרָה, שְׁבוּעָה לֵיתֵיהּ בַּחֲזָרָה.

   Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, distinguishes monetary uncertainty from uncertainty about an oath. People may avoid an uncertain oath even when they do not avoid taking money on uncertain grounds. Money can be returned if the taking proves unjustified. An oath already uttered cannot be undone by returning the money. This is an explanation of deterrence, not permission to seize on a doubt. The oath can therefore restrain the holder and sustain Abaye’s explanation.

8. 08·The Gemara asksBava Metzia 6a

   בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: תְּקָפָהּ אֶחָד בְּפָנֵינוּ, מַהוּ?

   Rabbi Zeira opens a new inquiry within the framework of two people holding a garment. Both held it, and one forcibly took it from the other before the court. The question is whether the court removes what he seized or leaves the garment with him. The focus shifts from the credibility of an oath to the significance of a change in possession. Because the court witnessed the seizure, it can compare the earlier situation with the new one.

9. 09·The Gemara asksBava Metzia 6a

   הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּשָׁתֵיק, אוֹדוֹיֵי אוֹדִי לֵיהּ. וְאִי דְּקָא צָוַוח, מַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֶעְבַּד?

   The Gemara seeks to define the case in which there is genuine uncertainty. If the dispossessed party remains silent, his silence appears to acknowledge the seizer’s right. If he protests immediately, he has objected, and no further action can be demanded to preserve his claim. The Gemara does not locate Rabbi Zeira’s uncertainty at either extreme. It therefore needs an intermediate case in which the response itself requires interpretation.

10. 10·TerutzBava Metzia 6a

    לָא צְרִיכָא דִּשְׁתֵיק מֵעִיקָּרָא וַהֲדַר צָוַוח, מַאי? מִדְּאִשְׁתִּיק – אוֹדוֹיֵי אוֹדִי לֵיהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּקָא צָוַוח הַשְׁתָּא אִיגַּלַּאי מִילְּתָא דְּהַאי דִּשְׁתֵיק מֵעִיקָּרָא, סָבַר: הָא קָא חָזוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן.

    The case is one in which the dispossessed party was initially silent and later protested. The initial silence may be an admission, with the later protest an attempt to retract it. Alternatively, the silence may express reliance on the judges who witnessed the seizure. On that reading, the later protest reveals that there was never an admission. This answer precisely defines the inquiry but does not decide between the two interpretations.

11. 11·RayaBava Metzia 6a

    אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, תָּא שְׁמַע: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם אֲדוּקִין בָּהּ, אֲבָל הָיְתָה טַלִּית יוֹצֵאת מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן, הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי נֵימָא כִּדְקָתָנֵי, פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא שֶׁתְּקָפָהּ אֶחָד בְּפָנֵינוּ.

    Rav Nachman brings a baraita as a possible proof resolving the inquiry. It distinguishes two people holding a garment from a garment held by one, where the claimant seeking recovery bears the burden of proof. The Gemara argues that if there was only one holder from the outset, the rule appears obvious. It therefore proposes that the baraita concerns a seizure before the court in the case under discussion. On that reading, the seizer retains possession and the other party must bring evidence. This is an attempted proof based on identifying the baraita’s novelty, not an established conclusion.

12. 12·TerutzBava Metzia 6a

    לָא, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן דְּאָתוּ לְקַמַּן כְּדִתְפִיסוּ לַהּ תַּרְוַיְיהוּ, וְאָמְרִינַן לְהוּ: זִילוּ פְּלוּגוּ, וּנְפַקוּ, וַהֲדַר אֲתוֹ כִּי תָּפֵיס לַהּ חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ, הַאי אֲמַר: אוֹדוֹיֵי אוֹדִי לִי. וְהַאי אֲמַר: בִּדְמֵי אֹגַרְתִּי נִיהֲלֵיהּ, דְּאָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: עַד הַשְׁתָּא חָשְׁדַתְּ לֵיהּ בְּגַזְלָן, וְהַשְׁתָּא מוֹגְרַת לֵיהּ בְּלָא סָהֲדִי.

    The Gemara rejects the proof by placing the baraita in a different case. The parties arrived holding the garment, were sent to divide it, and returned with only one holding it. The holder says the other acknowledged his claim, while the other says he rented the garment to him for payment. The court challenges the plausibility of the rental claim: why rent without witnesses to someone just suspected of robbery? The holder’s advantage can thus be explained without assuming that seizure before the court is effective. This rebuttal leaves Rabbi Zeira’s question open.

13. 13·TerutzBava Metzia 6a

    וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, כִּדְקָתָנֵי: דְּאָתוּ לְקַמַּן כִּי תָּפֵיס לַהּ חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ, וְאִידַּךְ מְסָרֵךְ בָּהּ סָרוֹכֵי, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְסוֹמְכוֹס דְּאָמַר מָמוֹן הַמּוּטָּל בְּסָפֵק חוֹלְקִין בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה, מוֹדֶה סוֹמְכוֹס דְּסִרְכָא לָאו כְּלוּם הִיא.

    The Gemara offers an alternative interpretation of the baraita without any seizure. From the outset, one person holds the garment while the other has only a weak attachment that does not count as substantive possession. The novelty is that even Sumakhos agrees this attachment has no weight. Although Sumakhos holds that money in doubt is divided without an oath, the weak attachment here does not establish a basis for division against the holder. This connects the baraita to the tractate’s opening discussion of division and the status of holders. This interpretation likewise provides no proof about silence after seizure.

14. 14·The Gemara asksBava Metzia 6a

    אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר תְּקָפָהּ אֶחָד בְּפָנֵינוּ מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדוֹ, הִקְדִּישָׁה – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר תְּקָפָהּ אֶחָד בְּפָנֵינוּ אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדוֹ, הִקְדִּישָׁהּ בְּלֹא תְּקָפָהּ – מַהוּ?

    The Gemara builds a follow-up inquiry with two conditional branches. If the garment is removed from the seizer, consecration cannot give him a power that his seizure lacks. If it is not removed, a new question arises: can he consecrate it without seizing it? The uncertainty rests on whether verbal consecration can operate in place of a physical change in possession. This does not decide the seizure question; it explores the consequences of each assumption. The proposed consecration is likewise considered against the disputed garment and the other party’s response.

15. 15·RayaBava Metzia 6a

    כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מָר: אֲמִירָתוֹ לַגָּבוֹהַּ כִּמְסִירָתוֹ לַהֶדְיוֹט דָּמֵי. כְּמַאן דְּתַקְפַהּ דָּמֵי.

    The Gemara presents support for the possibility that consecration takes effect. The governing principle is that a declaration to the sacred domain is like delivery to a private person. One might therefore propose that declaring consecration resembles seizure, even without physical taking. The power of speech in consecration might perform the role of a change in possession. This supports one side of the uncertainty; it does not prove that a person can consecrate any disputed property.

16. 16·RayaBava Metzia 6a

    אוֹ דִלְמָא: הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא הָא לָא תַּקְפַהּ, וּכְתִיב: ״וְאִישׁ כִּי יַקְדִּישׁ אֶת בֵּיתוֹ קֹדֶשׁ וְגוֹ׳״, מָה בֵּיתוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ – אַף כֹּל בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, לְאַפּוֹקֵי הַאי דְּלֹא בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ.

    The opposing side emphasizes that the person has not actually seized the garment. The verse “When a man consecrates his house” teaches that the consecrated property must be in his domain, like his house. On this view, the disputed garment is not in his domain in the manner required for consecration. The rule empowering a declaration does not necessarily create a prerequisite of control that was absent beforehand. The key distinction is between the mechanism of consecration and the authority to consecrate the property. This argument too is presented as one side of the uncertainty, not as the sugya’s conclusion.

17. 17·RayaBava Metzia 6a

    תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּהָהִיא

    The words “Come and hear, for there was that…” introduce an attempted proof from an incident. The incident itself is not included in this segment and continues beyond the page boundary. We can therefore identify a move from conceptual arguments to examining a case, but not the result of that examination. The introductory words alone do not establish whether consecration takes effect. At our stopping point, the consecration question remains open.

1. 1What does the conclusion rejecting the inference from monetary suspicion to oath suspicion establish? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
2. 2Why might an oath deter someone who seizes property because of an uncertain old debt? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
3. 3Which case is the focus of Rabbi Zeira’s inquiry? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
4. 4How does the interpretation involving a weak attachment reject the proof from the baraita? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
5. 5What is the central tension in the question of consecration without seizure? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.