Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti): What are the Sefeikos (in the above Beraisa)?

They are Safek Bechoros.

Rejection: "(The tenth) will be Kodesh." If it is already Kodesh, it cannot become Ma'aser!

Answer: Rather, they are animals designated to redeem Safek Bechor donkeys.

(Rav Nachman): If a Yisrael has 10 Safek Bechor donkeys, he sets aside 10 sheep or goats and tithes them. They all belong to him.

Question: What was the conclusion about the bathhouse?

Answer (R. Chiya bar Avin): If one was Makdish property that he cannot obtain through Beis Din, it is not Hekdesh.

Inference: If he can obtain it through Beis Din, he can be Makdish it, even before receiving it.

Question: R. Yochanan taught that if property was stolen and the owner did not despair, neither the owner nor the thief can make it Hekdesh;

The thief cannot, because it is not his. The owner cannot, because it is not in his Reshus (even though he can obtain it through Beis Din)!

Answer: The bathhouse is not movable. Rather, it is land. If one can obtain land through Beis Din, it is as if it is in his Reshus.

(Rav Tachlifa bar Ma'arava - Beraisa): If two are holding a garment, each gets up to where he is holding, and they divide the rest evenly.

R. Avahu gestured to him that they must swear (Tosfos - to receive at all; Rambam - to divide the rest).

Question: The Mishnah says that they divide (equally). It does not say that each gets up to where he is holding (and they divide the rest). What is the case?

Answer (Rav Papa): Each is holding it by the fringes.

Inference (Rav Mesharshiya): If one grabs three fingers by three fingers of a garment (given for Kinyan Chalipin), this fulfills "he gave to his fellowman" (he acquires), for we consider the garment to be cut (and he owns what he is holding).

Question: Why is this different than Rav Chisda's law?

(Rav Chisda): If a man gave a Get to his wife, but he is holding a string attached to it, she is divorced only if he is unable to pull it out of her hands.

Answer: Divorce requires "Kerisus (separation)." If he can retrieve it, he is still clinging;

Chalipin requires giving. This was done.

(Rava): If they hold a golden garment, we divide it.

Question: This is obvious!

Answer: The case is, the gold is in the middle.

Question: Still, this is obvious!

Answer: The case is, it is closer to one than to the other.

One might have thought that we cut the garment widthwise (i.e. along the middle between where they are holding);

Rava teaches that this is not so. The one further from the gold can suggest we cut it lengthwise. (The Gemara at the top of Daf 8a suggests another answer to this question.)

(Beraisa #1 - Rebbi): If a lender and borrower are holding the loan document, and each claims 'I dropped it', we validate the document;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, they divide it.

If it came to the judge, he never gives it back;

R. Yosi says, it remains in its Chazakah.

Rebbi said 'we validate the document.' This implies that the lender collects the full value.

Question: Does Rebbi argue with our Mishnah (which says that they divide it)?

Answer (Rava): If the document was validated, all agree that they divide it;

They argue about a document that was not validated. Rebbi says that if a borrower admits that a document was written for a loan (but claims that he paid it), the lender must validate the document;

(Since they both hold it), after it is validated, he collects half;

Question: Why must he validate it?

Answer: An invalidated document is worthless. If our only source to accredit it is the borrower, he says that it was paid!

R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that if the borrower admits that the document was written properly, the lender need not validate it. (Since both hold it, he collects half.)

Question: The Beraisa says that if it came to the judge, he never gives it back. Why is it different in this case?

Answer (Rava): The Beraisa means that if one finds a document that came to a judge, he never gives it back.

Question: What is the case (in which he knows that it came to a judge)?

Answer: It has been validated;

The Beraisa teaches that 'he never gives it back.' This is not only when it is not validated, for perhaps it was never given;

Rather, even if it was validated (surely it was given), he does not return it, lest the loan was paid.

(Beraisa - R. Yosi): It remains in its Chazakah.

He is not concerned lest it was paid.

Question: R. Yosi is concerned lest a document was paid!

(Beraisa #2): If a Kesuvah was found in the market, if the husband admits (that his wife lost it), we return it to her;

If he does not admit, we do not return it to either of them;

R. Yosi says, if she is still married, we return it to her. If she was widowed or divorced, we do not return to either of them.

Answer #1A: The opinions in Beraisa #1 must be switched. R. Yosi says 'he never gives it back', and Chachamim say 'it remains in its Chazakah.'

Question: If so, Chachamim contradict themselves!

Answer: R. Yosi taught all of Beraisa #2. It is abbreviated, and means as follows: ...if he does not admit, we do not return it to either. This is when she was widowed or divorced;

If she is still married, we return it to her, for R. Yosi says that if she is still married, we return it to her, but if she was widowed or divorced, we do not return it to either.

Answer #2 (Rav Papa): We need not switch the opinions. In Beraisa #2, R. Yosi addresses Chachamim's opinion:

I say that even if she was widowed or divorced, we do not suspect that he paid it. You are concerned for this, but you should admit to me that if she is still married that we return it to her, for the husband would not pay her during the marriage!

Chachamim are concerned lest he gave her money to hold, so that when she is entitled to her Kesuvah, she will not have problems collecting it.

Answer #1B (Ravina): Really, we switch the opinions in Beraisa #1. In Beraisa #2, Chachamim are concerned lest two Kesuvos were written. R. Yosi is not concerned for this.

(R. Elazar): In Beraisa #1, R. Shimon ben Gamliel said that they divide equally. This is only when both are holding the Toref (the vital information particular to this document) or both are holding the Tofes (the standard text that is the same for all loan documents);

If one holds the Toref and the other holds the Tofes; each gets what he is holding.

(R. Yochanan): They always divide equally, even if one holds the Tofes and one the Toref.

Question (Beraisa): Each gets what he is holding.

Answer: The case is, the Toref is in the middle.

Question: If so, obviously gets half. How else could we divide it?

Answer: The case is, the Toref is closer to one than the other. One might have thought that we divide the document widthwise (i.e. the one closer to the Toref gets the Toref);

The Beraisa teaches that this is not so. The one further away can suggest we divide it lengthwise.

Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti): R. Elazar says that one gets the Toref and the other gets the Tofes. What are they good for (by themselves)? Will he use it to cork a bottle?!

Answer (Ravina): (A document with a date is worth more than one without a date, since it can be used to collect from land that the borrower sold after he borrowed.) The one holding the Toref (which includes the date) gets this difference. The rest they split equally (since the other vital information particular to the document appears also in the Tofes).

Support: Also when it says that two holding a garment divide it, this means the value. If they would cut the garment, this would ruin it!

Rejection: No, the halves would be fit for children.