(Mishnah #1): If Reuven traded a cow for Shimon's donkey, or he sold a slave, and the cow or slave gave birth (elsewhere), and Reuven says that the birth was before the sale (so the child is mine), and Shimon says that the birth was after the sale, they divide the offspring;

If Reuven had two slaves (or fields), one big and one small, and Shimon says 'I bought the big one', and Reuven is unsure which he sold, Shimon gets the big one.

If Reuven says, 'I sold the small one' and Shimon is unsure, he gets the small one.

If Shimon says 'I bought the big one', and Reuven says 'I sold the small one', Reuven swears that he sold the small one;

If each says 'I don't know', they divide them.

(Gemara) Question: (In the first clause) why do they divide? The one in whose premises the baby lies is Muchzak. The other must bring proof to take from him!

Answer (R. Chiya bar Avin): The case is, the calf is in the swamp, and the slave is by the selling-block (neither owns the premises).

Question: The seller is Muchzak. The buyer must bring proof to take from him!

Answer: The Mishnah is Sumchus, who says that when we are in doubt, we divide the money without an oath.

Question: Sumchus (explicitly) said that they divide without swearing only when both parties are unsure. Would he say this when both parties make definite claims?

Answer #1 (Rabah bar Rav Huna): Yes, Sumchus' law is even when both make definite claims.

Answer #2 (Rava): Sumchus said that they divide without swearing only when both parties are unsure;

In our Mishnah, Reuven says 'perhaps the birth was before the sale', and Shimon says 'perhaps it gave birth after the sale.'

Question (Mishnah): If each says 'I don't know', they divide them.

Granted, according to Rava, in the Reisha and Seifa, each side is unsure.

However, according to Rabah bar Rav Huna, the Reisha teaches that they divide when each is certain. It need not teach this when each is unsure!

Answer: From the Seifa we deduce that in the Reisha, both are certain. Otherwise, we might have thought (like Rava) that both are uncertain.

Question (Mishnah): If Shimon says 'I bought the big one', and Reuven says 'I sold the small one', Reuven swears that he sold the small one.

We understand according to Rava. Sumchus says that we divide the money only when neither side is sure.

But according to Rabah bar Rav Huna, even when both are sure, Sumchus says that they divide!

Answer: When one party is obligated to take an oath mid'Oraisa, Sumchus agrees (that he swears and gets like he says).

(Mishnah #1): Reuven had two slaves, one big and one small...

Questions: (When Shimon claims the big one and Reuven says that he sold the small one,) why does Reuven swear?

Question #1: His admission is not part of what Shimon claimed!

Question #2: This is Heilach (he gives him the small slave (or land) he admits to at the time of the admission)!

Question #3: We do not swear about slaves (or land)!

Answer #1 (to all three questions - Rav): Reuven and Shimon argue about the money of a big or small slave or field.

Answer #2A (Shmuel): They argue about the clothing of a big or small slave, or the piles of grain of a big or small field.

Question: If they argue about the clothing of a big or small slave, Question #1 remains. The admission is unlike what was claimed!

Answer #2B: We answer like Rav Papa taught (below), that 'clothing' refers to fabric from which to make clothing.

Objection (R. Hoshaya): The Mishnah does not discuss clothing. It discusses slaves!

Answer #3A (R. Hoshaya): They argue about a big or small slave with the clothing he wears, or a big or small field with the piles of grain in it.

Question: Also regarding a clothed slave, Question #1 remains. The admission is not a portion of the claim! (A small garment is not a portion of a larger garment.)

Answer #3B (Rav Papa): 'Clothing' refers to fabric from which to make clothing.

Objection (Rav Sheshes): Does the Mishnah teach that once he must swear about Metaltelim, he must swear about land (or slaves)? Another Mishnah teaches this!

If one must swear about Metaltelim, his opponent can make him swear also about land.

Answer #4A (to Question #3 - Rav Sheshes): The Mishnah is R. Meir, who says that slaves are considered Metaltelim (so we swear about them).

Question #1 remains. The admission is not a portion of what was claimed!

Answer #4B (to Question #1 - Rav Sheshes): R. Meir holds like R. Gamliel.

(Mishnah): If Yehudah claimed wheat and Levi admitted to owing only barley, Levi is (totally) exempt;

R. Gamliel says, he is liable (to swear that he does not owe wheat. Most explain, he must also pay the barley.)

Question #2 remains. This is Heilach!

Answer #4C (to Question #2 - Rava): Reuven does not return the small slave or land intact. He cut a limb off the slave, or dug pits in the land.

Question (against Answer #4A): R. Meir holds that slaves are like land (which we do not swear about)!

(Mishnah #2): If a man stole an animal or slaves and they grew old, he pays like at the time of the theft;

R. Meir says, regarding slaves he can say 'here are your slaves.' (Slaves are like land, so they are never considered to be stolen.)

Answer: We can answer like Rabah bar Avuha, who switches the opinions in Mishnah #2. R. Meir says that one must pay for slaves (for they are unlike land). Chachamim exempt.

Question: (Mishnah #1 holds that we swear about land.) What is the source that R. Meir equates land to slaves, to teach that we swear about land? Perhaps we swear about slaves, but not about land!

Answer (Beraisa #1 - R. Meir): If Reuven traded a cow for Shimon's donkey, or he sold a slave, and the cow or slave gave birth (elsewhere), and one party says 'I owned the mother at the time of birth (so the child is mine)', and the other party is silent, the party claiming the child gets it;

If both parties are unsure, they each own half the child;

If both parties claim the child, the original owner of the mother swears that he still owned her at the time of birth (and he gets the child), for mid'Oraisa, the one who swears does not pay.

Chachamim say, we do not swear about land or slaves.

Inference: Chachamim say that we do not swear about land. This implies that R. Meir says that we swear about land!

Rejection: Perhaps Chachamim came to argue with R. Meir only about slaves., and say 'you should admit that we do not swear about slaves, just like you admit that we do not swear about land!'

Support (for Rejection - Mishnah - R. Meir): There are things that are (attached) like land, but they are not considered land (so we swear about them; Chachamim disagree);

If Reuven claims that he entrusted ten laden vines to Shimon, who only admits to five, Shimon must swear;

Chachamim say, anything attached is like land (we do not swear about it).

(R. Yosi bar Chanina): They argue about grapes ready to be harvested. R. Meir considers them as if they are already harvested, and Chachamim do not.

(Rav Sheshes' answer does not answer Question #3, i.e. why does he swear about land? However,) we can defend R. Hoshaya's answer (according to Rav Papa, that they argue about a big or small slave and fabric to make clothing for him, or a big or small field with piles of grain in it).

Answer (to Question 2:i): Even though another Mishnah teaches that one who must swear about Metaltelim must swear about land, Mishnah #1 is needed;

One might have thought that (fabric for) a slave's clothes are considered like a slave (and we do not swear about this), and piles of grain in a field are like a field. Mishnah #1 teaches that this is not so.

(Beraisa #1): If each says 'I don't know', they divide them.

The Beraisa is Sumchus, who says that when we are in doubt, we divide the money.

Question (Seifa): If both parties claim the child, the original owner of the mother swears that he still owned her at the time of birth.

According to Rabah bar Rav Huna, Sumchus' law is even when both make definite claims. Why does the seller swear? They should divide it!

Answer: When one party is obligated to take an oath mid'Oraisa, Sumchus admits that he swears and gets like he says;

We must establish it like Rava. He cut a limb off the slave, therefore it is not Heilach.

(Mishnah): If Reuven sold his olive trees to Shimon for the wood, and before he cut them, they produced poor olives, which yield less than a Revi'is of oil per Se'ah of olives, Shimon keeps them;

If they produced olives that yield a Revi'is of oil per Se'ah, and Shimon claims 'it is due to my trees', and Reuven claims 'it is due to my land', they divide them.

If a river flooded Levi's trees and deposited them in Shimon's land, and they produced olives, and each claims 'it is due to my trees/land', they divide them.

(Gemara) Question: What is the case?

If Reuven told Shimon to cut the trees immediately, even if the olives yield less than a Revi'is, they belong to Reuven (Shimon had no right to leave the trees standing)!

If he told Shimon to cut them whenever he wants, even if the olives yield a Revi'is, they belong to Shimon!

Answer: He did not specify;

One is not concerned about poor olives that yield less than a Revi'is. One is concerned about olives that yield a Revi'is.

(R. Shimon ben Pazi): The Mishnah discusses producing a Revi'is, i.e. profit (above the expenditures of harvesting and pressing the olives).