Bava Metzia

[You say] 'Raiment', but [surely] what he claims he does not admit, and what he admits he does not claim! — Even as R. papa said [below], when it is on the roll; so here too, when it is on the roll.  Now, this presented a difficulty to R. Hoshaia:  does then the Mishnah state 'raiment'? It states 'a slave'! — But, said R. Hoshaia, it means, e.g., that he claimed a slave together with his raiment, or a field with its sheaves. But still the difficulty remains: With respect to raiment, what he claims he does not admit; and what he admits he does not claim! — Said R. papa: It refers to cloth on the roll.  This presented a difficulty to R. Shesheth: Does he [the Tanna] wish to teach us that [movable property] binds [immovable]? But we have already learnt it: Unsecured chattels bind secured property in respect of an oath!  — But, said R. Shesheth, [the Tanna of the Mishnah] is R. Meir, who maintained that a slave ranks as movable chattels. But the difficulty still remains: what he claims he does not admit; what he admits he does not claim. — He [the Tanna] is of R. Gamaliel's opinion. For we learnt: If he [the plaintiff] claims wheat, whilst the other [the defendant] admits [owing] barley, he is free [from an oath]. R. Gamaliel held him liable. Yet even so, it is still a case of 'Here it is!' — Said Raba: In the case of the slave [which he admitted], he [the seller] had cut off his hand; and in the case of the field, he had dug in its pits, ditches, and cavities. But are we not informed that R. Meir holds the reverse? For we learnt: If a man took by violence a cow, and it aged, or slaves, and they aged, he must pay their value at the time of the robbery.  R. Meir said: In the case of slaves he can say to him [the owner], 'Behold, here is yours before you!'  — That is no difficulty. It is as Rabbah b. Abbuha  reversed [the Mishnah] and read: R. Meir said: He must pay their value at the time of the robbery; but the Sages ruled: In the case of slaves he can say to him [the owner], 'Behold, here is yours before you.' But [there is this difficulty]: How do we know that R. Meir holds that real estate is equated to slaves: just as an oath is taken for slaves, so also is an oath taken for real estate? Perhaps [in his opinion] there is an oath only in respect of slaves, but not for immovable property?  — You cannot think so. For it has been taught: If a cow is exchanged for an ass, and it calved; likewise, if one sells his maidservant, and she bore a child, one says, 'It happened in my possession,' and the other is silent, the former acquires it. If each says, 'I do not know,' they divide; if each pleads, 'It happened in my ownership,' the vendor must swear that she bore whilst in his possession, because all who take an oath in accordance with Scriptural law, swear to be freed from liability:  this is R. Meir's view. But the Sages rule: No oath is taken in respect of slaves or lands.  Surely then it follows that in R. Meir's opinion an oath is taken [even on lands]. But how is this to be inferred? perhaps they argue by analogy:  Just as you admit to us in the matter of lands [that there is no oath], so should you admit in respect to slaves? The proof  is this: We learnt, R. Meir said: Some things are similar to real estate, yet do not rank as such; but the Sages dispute it. E.g., [If A claims from B,] 'I delivered you ten laden vines,' and B replies, 'There were only five,' — R. Meir makes him liable; but the Sages say: That which is attached to the soil is as the soil.  Whereon R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: They differ with respect to grapes which are ready for vintaging: one Master [sc. R. Meir] regards them as already vintaged;  whilst the other maintains that they are not as already vintaged! But after all, it must be explained as R. Hoshaia:  and as to your difficulty, '[does the Tanna wish to teach that movable property] binds [immovable]?' It is necessary. For I might think that a slave's garment is as the slave himself; likewise the sheaves of a field are as the field itself:  therefore we are taught [otherwise]. 'If each says, "I do not know," they must divide.'  With whom does this agree? With Symmachus, who ruled: When the ownership of property is in doubt, it is divided. Then consider the latter clause: 'If each pleads, "It happened in my ownership," the vendor must swear that she bore whilst in his possession.' Now according to Rabbah son of R. Huna, who maintained: Indeed, Symmachus gave his ruling even where both make positive statements; why should he swear? Surely they ought to divide! — Symmachus admits [that one must swear] when an oath is required by Biblical law; [the circumstances being] that he [the owner] had cut off her [sc. the slave's] hand, and in accordance with Raba's explanation. MISHNAH. IF ONE SELLS HIS OLIVE TREES FOR THEIR WOOD,  AND THEY YIELD LESS THAN A QUARTER LOG [OF] OIL] PER SE'AH [OF OLIVES],  IT IS THE PURCHASER'S.  BUT IF THEY PRODUCED [OLIVES YIELDING] A QUARTER LOG [OF OIL] PER SE'AH, ONE [THE PURCHASER] CLAIMING, 'MY OLIVE TREES PRODUCED THEM;' AND THE OTHER [THE VENDOR] MAINTAINING, 'IT WAS MY LAND WHICH CAUSED THE YIELD,' THEY MUST DIVIDE. IF THE RIVER SWEPT AWAY A MAN'S OLIVE TREES AND DEPOSITED THEM IN HIS NEIGHBOUR'S FIELD [AND THERE THEY PRODUCED OLIVES] [AND] ONE MAINTAINS, 'MY OLIVE TREES PRODUCED THEM,' WHEREAS THE OTHER CLAIMS, 'MY LAND CAUSED THE YIELD,' THEY DIVIDE. GEMARA. How is it meant? If he stipulated, 'Cut [them] down immediately,' then even [if the oil yield is] less than a quarter log [per se'ah], it should belong to the landowner; whilst if he stipulated, 'Cut [them] down whenever you desire,' even when it is a quarter log, it ought to be the purchaser's? — It is necessary to state this only when he made no stipulation: [in which case] when there is less than a quarter log, one is not particular;  when [however] there is a quarter log, people are particular. R. Simeon b. Pazzi  said: The quarter log that was stated