Please note that unless otherwise indicated, we follow the explanation of Rashi. Consequently, our notes and comments do not necessarily have any bearing on the practical Halachah.

1)

(a) What does our Mishnah rule in a case where two people arrive in Beis-Din holding a Talis (a cloak), each of whom claims that he found it and that it all belongs to him?

(b) What will the Din be, if ...

1. ... only one of them is holding it?
2. ... neither of them is holding it (see Tosfos DH 've'Yachloku')?

(c) If one of them claims the whole Talis, and the other one, only half, then the former takes three quarters and the latter, a quarter.
Why is that?

(a) And what does the Tana say in a case where ...

1. ... both of them lay claim to the animal which they are riding or leading?
2. ... one of them is riding it and the other one, leading it?

(b) Why does the Tana find it necessary to add these cases?

(c) And how will the Din differ if they both agree, or if they have witnesses that the article belongs to both of them? Note, that this latter ruling will be explained later in the Sugya.

(a) How do we initially explain the Tana's double-case ('Zeh Omer Ani Metzasihah ... Zeh Omer Kulah she'Li ... ')?

(b) How do we explain the need for this? Why will the claim of 'Ani Metzasihah' not suffice?

(c) We query this however, from Ravina.
What did Ravina (in connection with the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "le'Chol Aveidas Achicha", from which we preclude the lost article of a Nochri) learn from the word "u'Metzasah"?

(d) How do we refute this Kashya? What distinction do we make between Lishna di'K'ra and Lishna de'Alma?

(a) If 'Kulah she'Li' comes to teach us that the finder actually picked up the object, why does the Tana need to insert 'Ani Metzasihah'? Let him just speak about 'Kulah she'Li'?

(b) On what grounds do we reject the current explanation of our Mishnah?

(c) So how does Rav Papa (or Rav Shimi bar Ashi or K'di) establish the two cases?

(d) Having presented the case of ...

1. ... Metzi'ah, why did the Tana need to mention that of purchasing?
2. ... purchasing, why did he need to mention that of Metzi'ah?

5)

(a) In the case of purchase, where they both claim that they bought the Talis, why do we not just ask the seller who paid him the money?

(b) Is a storekeeper believed to say to whom he sold a disputed article ...

1. ... assuming that it is still in his domain?
2. ... assuming that he has already given it into the disputants' hands?

(c) Why is the correct text 've'Lo Yad'inan me'Hei mi'Da'atei ... ', rather than 've'Lo Yada'?

(a) In the case of 'Chenvani al Pinkaso' who is claiming from whom?

(b) The Rabbanan there rule that both the worker and the storekeeper swear and claim their due from the Balabos.
What does Ben Na'nes say?

(c) How do we reconcile our Mishnah with ben Na'nes?

(a) What does Sumchus say in the case of an ox that gored a cow and we do not know whether the dead stillborn calf that is lying beside it was born before the goring or after it?

(b) What makes us think that the author of our Mishnah cannot be Sumchus?

(c) Why is there no problem with establishing our Mishnah like the Rabbanan there? Why can we not use the same S'vara to reconcile it with Sumchus?

(a) What distinction do we initially draw between 'Shema ve'Shema' and 'Bari u'Bari' to reconcile Sumchus with our Mishnah?

(b) This answer will not work according to Rabah bar Rav Huna. What did Rabah bar Rav Huna say in connection with Sumchus' ruling?

(a) We try to reconcile Sumchus with our Mishnah by confining his opinion to where there is a D'rara de'Mamona.
What is 'D'rara de'Mamona'?

(b) On what grounds do we repudiate this suggestion?

(c) What other objection do we raise to establishing our Mishnah like Sumchus? Why would it seem highly unlikely for Sumchus to require a Shevu'ah in our Mishnah?

(d) We answer both Kashyos with a statement of Rebbi Yochanan.
What does Rebbi Yochanan say about the Shevu'ah in our Mishnah?

Next daf