Study Bava Metzia folio 2B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
As had the tanna taught the case of a found item alone, I would say that it is only in the case of a found item that the rabbis imposed an oath upon him, as in that case one can rationalize his actions and say: The other party, the one who in fact found the item, is not losing anything by not keepin
And had the tanna taught the case of buying and selling alone, one might say that it is specifically in this case that the rabbis imposed an oath upon him, because he could rationalize his actions, saying to himself: The other party gave money to the seller and I gave money to the seller; now that I
The Talmud asks: How can the Mishnah be referring to a case of buying and selling? But let us see from whom the seller took the money. Obviously, the one who gave him the money is the one who bought it. The Talmud answers: No, it is necessary in a case where he took money from both of them. He ac
§ The Talmud suggests: Let us say that the Mishnah is not in accordance with the opinion of ben Nannas, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of ben Nannas, doesn’t he say that an oath is not administered to two parties in court when one of them is certainly lying?
As it is stated in a Mishnah (Shevuot 45a): With regard to a case where a man said to his laborer: Go to the storekeeper and he will give you food in lieu of your salary, and sometime later the laborer claimed that the storekeeper did not give him anything while the storekeeper claimed that he did,