We do not accept it as a presumption that the utensils in the possession of a craftsman belong to him. This applies both to articles that are made to lend and rent out, and to other articles.

What is implied? A person sees his utensils in the possession of a craftsman. He brings witnesses who testify that they know that the article belongs to him and claims that he gave it to the craftsman to repair. The craftsman, by contrast, maintains that he purchased it, or that it was given to him as a present. Or he claims: "After it was given to me to repair, you sold it to me or gave it to me as a present." Although the owner of the utensil did not give it to the craftsman in the presence of witnesses, his word is accepted and the article is expropriated from the craftsman. The owner must however, take an oath to support his claim.

There are Geonim who ruled that even though the owner did not bring witnesses to testify that the article was his, since he saw his article in the craftsman's possession and the craftsman admits that the article belonged to him, but claims that he sold it to him, the owner's word is accepted. If, however, the craftsman claimed: "This never happened; the article is mine," the craftsman's word is accepted, provided that he takes a sh'vu'at hesset. If, however, the owner brings witnesses who testify that the article was known to belong to him, the craftsman's word is not accepted. This decision is incredulous in my eyes.


הָאֻמָּן אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה בַּכֵּלִים שֶׁתַּחַת יָדוֹ. אֶחָד כֵּלִים הָעֲשׂוּיִים לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר וְאֶחָד שְׁאָר כֵּלִים. כֵּיצַד. רָאָה כֶּלְיוֹ בְּיַד הָאֻמָּן וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהֵן יוֹדְעִין שֶׁהַכְּלִי זֶה שֶׁלּוֹ וְהוּא טוֹעֵן וְאוֹמֵר לְתַקֵּן נְתַתִּיו לְךָ. וְהָאֻמָּן אוֹמֵר לֹא בָּא לְיָדִי אֶלָּא בִּמְכִירָה אוֹ מַתָּנָה. אוֹ שֶׁטָּעַן אַתָּה נְתַתּוֹ לִי אַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי אַחַר שֶׁבָּא לְיָדִי לְתַקְּנוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּסָרוֹ לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים בַּעַל הַכְּלִי נֶאֱמָן וּמוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיַּד הָאֻמָּן וְיִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֶסֵּת עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ. וְיֵשׁ גְּאוֹנִים שֶׁדָּנוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עֵדִים שֶׁזֶּה הַכְּלִי שֶׁלּוֹ הוֹאִיל וְרָאָה כֶּלְיוֹ בְּיַד הָאֻמָּן וַהֲרֵי הָאֻמָּן מוֹדֶה לוֹ שֶׁהָיָה שֶׁלּוֹ וּמְכָרוֹ לוֹ נֶאֱמָן. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם וְשֶׁלִּי הוּא הַכְּלִי נֶאֱמָן הָאֻמָּן וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת. וְאִם הֵבִיא בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עֵדִים שֶׁהַכְּלִי הַזֶּה יָדוּעַ לוֹ אֵין הָאֻמָּן נֶאֱמָן. וְדִין זֶה פֶּלֶא הוּא בְּעֵינַי:


Different rules apply if the owner did not see his utensil in the possession of the craftsman, but instead claimed: "I gave you this-and-this utensil to repair." If the craftsman claims: "You came back and sold it to me" or "... gave it to me as a present," the craftsman is required to take a sh'vu'at hesset and is then released of responsibility. The rationale is that he could claim that the article was never given him.

Moreover, even if the owner gave the article to the craftsman to repair in the presence of witnesses, the craftsman's word is accepted, because he could claim: "I returned it." For although an article is entrusted to a person in the presence of witnesses, he is not required to return it to him in the presence of witnesses. Therefore, the craftsman is required to take only a sh'vu'at hesset; we do not require him to produce the article.

If, however, he does produce the article, since it becomes visible, the owner may bring witnesses who testify that it belongs to him. He may then expropriate it even though he did not entrust it to the craftsman in the presence of witnesses, as explained in the previous halachah.

Based on the above, the following rules apply if the craftsman claimed: "You agreed to pay me two dinarim as a wage," and the owner responded: "I agreed to pay you only one." If the utensil was visible before them, since the craftsman's possession does not bring about an accepted presumption of ownership, and we would not accept his claim that he purchased the article, the owner's claim regarding the promised wage is accepted, provided that he takes a sh'vu'at hesset, as we stated in Hilchot Sechirut. He must pay that amount.

If, however, the utensil is not visible, since the craftsman could claim that he purchased the article, he can also claim a wage equal to its value. He must take an oath holding a sacred article. Then he may collect his claim, as do all those who take an oath and collect, as we have explained.


לֹא רָאָה הַכְּלִי בְּיַד הָאֻמָּן אֶלָּא טָעַן וְאָמַר כְּלִי פְּלוֹנִי נְתַתִּיו לוֹ לְתַקֵּן וְהָאֻמָּן אוֹמֵר חָזַרְתָּ וּמְכַרְתּוֹ אוֹ נְתַתּוֹ לִי הָאֻמָּן נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. וַאֲפִלּוּ מְסָרוֹ לְתַקֵּן בְּעֵדִים הָאֻמָּן נֶאֱמָן מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר הֶחְזַרְתִּי שֶׁהַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ בְּעֵדִים אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַחְזִיר לוֹ בְּעֵדִים. לְפִיכָךְ נִשְׁבָּע הָאֻמָּן הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר וְאֵין מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא הַכְּלִי. וְאִם הוֹצִיאוֹ הוֹאִיל וְנִרְאֶה הֲרֵי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלּוֹ וְנוֹטְלוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּסָרוֹ לוֹ בְּלֹא עֵדִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם טָעַן הָאֻמָּן וְאָמַר שְׁתַּיִם קָצַצְתָּ לִי בִּשְׂכָרִי וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹמֵר לֹא קָצַצְתִּי לְךָ אֶלָּא אַחַת אִם הָיָה הַכְּלִי נִרְאֶה בִּפְנֵיהֶם הוֹאִיל וְהָאֻמָּן אֵין לוֹ בּוֹ חֲזָקָה וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן שֶׁהוּא לָקוּחַ בְּיָדוֹ הֲרֵי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת נִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ עַל הַקְּצִיצָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בִּשְׂכִירוּת וְנוֹתֵן. וְאִם אֵין הַכְּלִי נִרְאֶה בִּפְנֵיהֶם הוֹאִיל וְהָאֻמָּן נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר לָקוּחַ הוּא בְּיָדִי יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן עַד כְּדֵי דָּמָיו וְנִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ וְנוֹטֵל כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:


A craftsman who gave up his profession, and a craftsman's son are like any other person. When movable property is in their possession, we presume that it belongs to them, as we have explained.


אֻמָּן שֶׁיָּרַד מֵאֻמָּנוּתוֹ וּבֶן הָאֻמָּן הֲרֵי הֵן כִּשְׁאָר כָּל אָדָם וְיֵשׁ לָהֶן חֲזָקָה בְּכָל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:


The following rules apply when a person enters a colleague's house in the presence of the owner and leaves with utensils hidden under the corners of his garments, and witnesses see him. Afterwards, the owner lodges a claim against him, saying: "Return the utensils that I lent you; here are witnesses." Although the defendant claims: "I purchased them," his word is not accepted. Instead, the owner must take a sh'vu'at hesset to support his claim that he did not sell or give away the utensils. The court returns the utensils to the owner.

When does the above apply? With regard to an owner who is not accustomed to sell his property, when the person who removed the utensils under his cloak does not normally hide them, and when the utensils are not of the type that people would ordinarily hide. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the articles. We assume that he hid them only so that he could deny taking them.

If, however, an owner frequently sells his personal property, even though the person who took the utensils would not ordinarily hide them, and it is not ordinary practice for these utensils to be hidden under one's cloak, the defendant may take a sh'vu'at hesset that he purchased the articles.

Similarly, if he took the articles out so that they were visible for the witnesses to see, even when the owner does not frequently sell his personal property, the defendant's word is accepted when he says that he purchased the utensils, provided that the articles are not of the type that are made with the intent of being lent or rented out. For it is possible that the owner needed money, and hence sold his property.

If, however, the articles are of the type that are made with the intent of being lent or rented out, our presumption is always that they belong to their original owner, as we have explained. Even if the person took out such utensils in a visible manner and the owner was accustomed to selling his personal utensils, if he has witnesses that this utensil that was made with the intent of being lent or rented out was known to belong to him, he may expropriate the utensils from the defendant immediately, unless he brings proof that he sold it to him or gave it to him as a present, as is the law with regard to landed property.


מִי שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְבֵיתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ בִּפְנֵי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְיָצָא וְכֵלִים טְמוּנִין תַּחַת כְּנָפָיו וְהָעֵדִים רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ. וּלְאַחַר זְמַן תְּבָעוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְאָמַר לוֹ הַחְזֵר לִי כֵּלִים שֶׁהִשְׁאַלְתִּיךָ וַהֲרֵי הָעֵדִים וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לְקוּחִין הֵן בְּיָדִי אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. וְנִשְׁבָּע בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֶסֵּת עַל טַעֲנָתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מְכָרָן וְלֹא נְתָנָן וְיַחֲזִירוּ בֵּית דִּין הַכֵּלִים לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁאֵינוֹ עָשׂוּי לִמְכֹּר אֶת כֵּלָיו. וְזֶה שֶׁהוֹצִיא הַכֵּלִים תַּחַת כְּנָפָיו אֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהַצְנִיעַ. וְאוֹתָן הַכֵּלִים אֵין דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם לְהַצְנִיעָן. לְפִיכָךְ חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא הִצְנִיעָן אֶלָּא לִכְפֹּר בָּהֶן. אֲבָל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֶעָשׂוּי לִמְכֹּר אֶת כֵּלָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין זֶה צָנוּעַ וְאֵין דֶּרֶךְ אוֹתָן הַכֵּלִים לְהַטְמִינָן תַּחַת הַכְּנָפַיִם הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁהֵן לְקוּחִין בְּיָדוֹ. וְכֵן אִם יָצָא בָּהֶן מְגֻלִּין בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עָשׂוּי לִמְכֹּר אֶת כֵּלָיו הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר לְקוּחִין הֵן בְּיָדִי. שֶׁמָּא נִצְטָרְכוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת וּמָכַר. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ מִדְּבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִים לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר. אֲבָל דְּבָרִים הָעֲשׂוּיִין לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר לְעוֹלָם הֵן בְּחֶזְקַת בַּעֲלֵיהֶן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹצִיאָן מְגֻלִּין וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבַּעַל הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה עָשׂוּי לִמְכֹּר אֶת כֵּלָיו הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ לוֹ עֵדִים שֶׁזֶּה הַכְּלִי עָשׂוּי לְהַשְׁאִיל וּלְהַשְׂכִּיר בִּלְבַד יָדוּעַ הוּא לוֹ מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן מִיַּד זֶה עַל כָּל פָּנִים עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁמְּכָרוֹ לוֹ אוֹ נְתָנוֹ לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה כְּדִין קַרְקָעוֹת:


In the above situation, if the person in whose possession the utensil was found died, we expropriate it from the heir. Moreover, the owner is not required to take an oath. An oath is not required because, since his father is not present to claim that that he purchased it or that it is security for a specific amount, the heir cannot require the owner to take an oath.

If the heir lodges a definite claim, saying: "He gave it to my father - or sold it to him - in my presence," the owner is required to take a sh'vu'at hesset, as required of all those who are obligated to take oaths. We explained that there are opinions that require the owner to take a sh'vu'at hesset in all instances before his utensil is returned by the heir, but I do not accept this approach.


אֲפִלּוּ מֵת זֶה שֶׁהַכְּלִי תַּחַת יָדוֹ מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיַּד הַיּוֹרֵשׁ בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין לְאָבִיו לִטְעֹן שֶׁלְּקָחוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהוּא מַשְׁכּוֹן כָּךְ אֵין זֶה יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעוֹ. וְאִם טָעַן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ טַעֲנַת וַדַּאי וְאָמַר בְּפָנַי נְתָנוֹ לְאָבִי אוֹ מְכָרוֹ לוֹ הֲרֵי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת כִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ מִי שֶׁהוֹרָה שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֶסֵּת וְאַחַר כָּךְ יַחְזִיר כֶּלְיוֹ מִיַּד הַיּוֹרֵשׁ. וְאֵין דַּעְתִּי נוֹטָה לָזֶה:

Mishneh Torah (Moznaim)

Featuring a modern English translation and a commentary that presents a digest of the centuries of Torah scholarship which have been devoted to the study of the Mishneh Torah by Maimonides.


When a person takes an ax and says: "I am going to chop down the palm tree belonging to so-and-so," if he in fact chops down the tree, we presume that it belonged to him. For a person would not be so bold as to cut down a tree that did not belong to him. If the owner claims that he did not sell it, the person who cut down the tree is required to take a sh'vu'at hesset that the tree belonged to him. He is then freed of responsibility. The rationale is that once the tree is cut down, it is like other movable property.

Similar laws apply when a person enters a colleague's field without permission and partakes of its produce for a year or two. If the owner claims that the person entered without permission, that he is a robber, and that he partook of the field's produce, and the owner brings witnesses who confirm that he partook of the produce, and the person claims that the owner gave him permission to partake of the produce, that person's word is accepted.

The rationale is that it is an accepted presumption that a person would not be so bold as to eat produce that does not belong to him. Although the land is presumed to belong to its original owner, the produce is not. For a person does not necessarily sell produce with a bill of sale, so that the purchaser could be told: "Present your bill of sale."

Needless to say, these laws apply if the squatter partook of a field's produce for many years. In such a situation, since he could claim that he had purchased the field, his word is accepted when he says that he has a right only to the produce. He must, however, take a sh'vu'at hesset.


מִי שֶׁלָּקַח קַרְדֹּם וְאָמַר הֲרֵינִי הוֹלֵךְ לִגְזֹר דִּקְלוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁמְּכָרוֹ לִי וְכָרַת הַדֶּקֶל הֲרֵי זֶה בְּחֶזְקָתוֹ. שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מֵעֵז פָּנָיו וְכוֹרֵת אִילָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. וְאִם טְעָנוֹ הַבְּעָלִים שֶׁלֹּא מְכָרוּהוּ נִשְׁבָּע זֶה הַכּוֹרֵת הֶסֵּת שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלּוֹ וְנִפְטָר. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁנִּכְרַת הֲרֵי הוּא כִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין. וְכֵן הַיּוֹרֵד לִשְׂדֵה חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָכַל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ שָׁנָה אוֹ שְׁנָתַיִם וְהַבְּעָלִים טוֹעֲנִין שֶׁזֶּה יָרַד שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת וּגְזָלָן הוּא וְאָכַל וַהֲרֵי הָעֵדִים שֶׁאָכַל וְהַיּוֹרֵד אוֹמֵר בִּרְשׁוּתְךָ יָרַדְתִּי לֶאֱכל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ. הֲרֵי זֶה הָאוֹכֵל נֶאֱמָן וְנִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת עַל כָּךְ חֲזָקָה הִיא שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מֵעֵז פָּנָיו וְאוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן שֶׁלּוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַקַּרְקַע בְּחֶזְקַת בַּעֲלֵיהֶן אֵין הַפֵּרוֹת בְּחֶזְקַת הַבְּעָלִים. שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מוֹכֵר פֵּרוֹת שָׂדֵהוּ בִּשְׁטָר כְּדֵי שֶׁנֹּאמַר לְזֶה שֶׁאָכַל הָבֵא שְׁטָרְךָ. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁאִם אָכַל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ שָׁנִים רַבּוֹת שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר לְפֵרוֹת יָרַדְתִּי וְיִשָּׁבַע הֶסֵּת:


The following laws apply when two people are holding one article, both are riding on one animal, one was riding the animal and one was leading it, or they were sitting next to an ownerless pile of wheat that was located in a lane or in a courtyard belonging to both of them. If each claims that the article belongs to him in its entirety, they should both take an oath holding a sacred article that they own no less than half the article. Afterwards, it should be divided between them.

This oath was ordained by the Sages so that everyone will not grab unto a garment belonging to a colleague and take it without having to take an oath.


שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹחֲזִין בִּכְלִי אֶחָד אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ רוֹכְבִין עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה אַחַת. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד רוֹכֵב וְאֶחָד מַנְהִיג. אוֹ יוֹשְׁבִין בְּצַד עֲרֵמָה שֶׁל חִטִּים וּמֻנָּחוֹת בְּסִמְטָא אוֹ בְּחָצֵר שֶׁל שְׁנֵיהֶם. זֶה אוֹמֵר הַכּל שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר הַכּל שֶׁלִּי. כָּל אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶן נִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בְּזֶה הַדָּבָר פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיוֹ וְיַחְלֹקוּ. וּשְׁבוּעָה זוֹ תַּקָּנַת חֲכָמִים הִיא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה כָּל אֶחָד תּוֹפֵס בְּטַלִּיתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ וְנוֹטֵל בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה:


If one says: "The entire article belongs to me," and the other says: "Half of it belongs to me," the one who claims the entire article must take an oath that he owns no less than three fourths of the article, and the one who claims half the article must take an oath that he owns no less than one fourth. They then divide the article accordingly.

From this, one can learn that all those who take an oath to expropriate property - whether a minor oath or a severe oath - should not take that oath concerning what they claim, but rather what they will receive even though they claim more.


זֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר חֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלִּי הָאוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים. וְהָאוֹמֵר חֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלִּי יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ פָּחוֹת מֵרְבִיעַ. וְזֶה נוֹטֵל שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים וְזֶה נוֹטֵל רְבִיעַ. מִכָּאן אַתָּה לָמֵד לְכָל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין לִטּל בֵּין שְׁבוּעָה קַלָּה בֵּין שְׁבוּעָה חֲמוּרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע עַל מַה שֶּׁטּוֹעֵן אֶלָּא עַל מַה שֶּׁנּוֹטֵל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁטּוֹעֵן יוֹתֵר:


When two people were both clinging to a garment, and each claims that the entire garment belongs to him, each is awarded the portion he is holding. The remainder is divided equally after they take the appropriate oaths. Based on the principle of gilgul sh'vu'ah, each of the litigants can require the other to take an oath that he is legally entitled to everything he collects.


הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם אֲדוּקִין בְּטַלִּית זֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי. זֶה נוֹטֵל עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁיָּדוֹ מַגַּעַת וְזֶה נוֹטֵל עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁיָּדוֹ מַגַּעַת וְהַשְּׁאָר חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּעִין. וְיֵשׁ לְכָל אֶחָד לְגַלְגֵּל עַל חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁכָּל מַה שֶּׁנָּטַל כַּדִּין נָטַל:


If one was holding the strings on one side of the garment, and the other holding the strings on the other side, they should divide the entire garment equally, after they take the required oaths.

When the term "division" is used in this context, it refers to a division of the article's value, not that a utensil itself or a garment should be divided and ruined, or that an animal should be killed.


הָיָה זֶה אוֹחֵז בַּחוּטִין שֶׁבִּשְׂפַת הַטַּלִּית וְזֶה בַּחוּטִין שֶׁבִּשְׂפַת הָאַחֶרֶת חוֹלְקִין כֻּלָּהּ בְּשָׁוֶה אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּעִין. וְכָל חֲלוּקָה הָאֲמוּרָה כָּאן בְּדָמִים לֹא שֶׁיַּפְסִידוּ עַצְמוֹ שֶׁל כְּלִי אוֹ שֶׁל טַלִּית אוֹ שֶׁיָּמִיתוּ הַבְּהֵמָה:


If one person was holding onto the article in its entirety, and the other was struggling with him and clasping it, the article is considered to belong to the person holding it in its entirety.


הָיָה אוֹחֵז הָאֶחָד אֶת כֻּלָּהּ וְזֶה מִתְאַבֵּק עִמּוֹ וְנִתְלֶה בָּהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת הָאוֹחֵז אֶת כֻּלָּהּ:


The following rules apply when two people came to court holding onto the garment, and one pulled it away from the other in our presence. If at first the person from whom the garment was taken remained silent, even though afterwards he protested, we do not expropriate it from the possession of the one who seized it. The rationale is that since he remained silent at the outset, it is as if he acknowledged the other's ownership.

If the second person came and grabbed it from the one who seized it, even though that person protested continuously, the garment should be divided between the two of them.


בָּאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲדוּקִין בָּהּ וּשְׁמָטָהּ הָאֶחָד מִיַּד חֲבֵרוֹ בְּפָנֵינוּ וְשָׁתַק הַשֵּׁנִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר וְצָוַח אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁתַק בַּתְּחִלָּה הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמוֹדֶה לוֹ. חָזַר הַשֵּׁנִי וּתְקָפָהּ מֵרִאשׁוֹן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָרִאשׁוֹן (לֹא) צָוַח מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף חוֹלְקִין:


The following laws apply when two people come to court holding onto a garment, and the court instructs them to go out and divide its value. They depart and return, but the article is now in the possession of only one of them. The person in possession claims: "He acknowledged my claim and withdrew his claim from it," while the other person claims: "I sold it to him," or "He overcame me and seized it from me," we follow the principle: "A person who seeks to expropriate property from a colleague must prove his claim." If he cannot bring proof of his claim, the other litigant may take an oath that the article belongs to him and be released of liability. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.


בָּאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲדוּקִין בְּטַלִּית וְאָמַרְנוּ לָהֶם צְאוּ וְחַלְּקוּ אֶת דָּמֶיהָ יָצְאוּ וְחָזְרוּ וַהֲרֵי הִיא תַּחַת יַד אֶחָד מֵהֶן זֶה טוֹעֵן הוֹדָה וְנִסְתַּלֵּק מִמֶּנָּה וְזֶה טוֹעֵן שֶׁמְּכַרְתִּיו לוֹ אוֹ נִתְגַּבֵּר עָלַי וַחֲטָפָהּ הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה יִשָּׁבַע זֶה שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלּוֹ וְיִפָּטֵר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: