Explanation: Since [the last Mishnah] in Bava Kama (119a) discusses the division of wood shavings between a carpenter and the owner, for it teaches that what comes off a Ma'atzad (plane) belong to the carpenter. Those from a Keshil (big plane) belong to the owner...

[Therefore], also here we teach laws of divisions.

Implied question: In two Masechtos, there is no order (we do not know which comes first), and there is an opinion that all of Nezikin (Bava Kama, Bava Metzia and Bava Basra) are not one Maseches! (If so, there is no source to say that Bava Metzia follows Bava Kama!)

Answer: That refers to Machlokes v'Achar Kach Stam (if there is an argument in a Mishnah, and a later Mishnah is Stam (anonymous), the Halachah follows the Stam), for Rebbi (when he codified the Mishnayos) did not learn in order, rather, according to the desire of the Talmidim;

However, when he compiled [the Mishnayos], he compiled them in order, and there is a reason why each Maseches was taught after the one before it;

At the beginning of Shevu'os, [the Gemara] asks "the Tana finished Makos. [Why did he teach Shevu'os now?], and similarly in [the beginning of] Sotah.

Question: Why is this different than the case of [two arguing about who owns] a boat? It says Kol d'Alim Gavar (whoever overpowers the other keeps it. Beis Din does not rule about it), in Bava Basra (34b)!

Answer: It is different when two hold it, for it is considered that each surely owns half, for we can testify that what this one is holding, is his.

Support #1: Similarly, regarding the third 100 (a Shomer accepted deposits from two people, of 100 and 200, and does not remember which deposited 200), which the Gemara compares to a Talis, it is considered that the Shomer is holding for both of them, as if they are Muchzak in it;

Therefore, we answer that there, it surely belongs to one of them, and division [to give each half] cannot be correct. Therefore, we leave [the disputed 100 until one of them admits, or Eliyahu ha'Navi will tell us whose it is];

However, regarding a Talis, we can say that it belongs to both of them, therefore they divide it.

Support #2: Similarly, when two are holding a document, below (7a) we compare this to our Mishnah, because both are holding it, and the division can be correct. It is possible that he paid to him half [the loan];

Regarding the [deposited] 100, there is no [common] way to be Makneh half to him (the one who deposited 100), since it is in another's hand;

However, regarding a boat, even though it is possible that it belongs to both of them, since they are not Muchzakim in it, the law is Kol d'Alim Gavar.

Distinction: According to Sumchus, even though they are not Muchzakim in it, and the division cannot be true, where there is Drara of money, i.e. [even] without their claims, Beis Din has a Safek, they divide.

Question: He should be believed that half is his, through a Migo! If he wanted, he could have said "it is all mine", like it says in the Gemara (8a) that this very Migo should exempt him from a Shevu'ah, if not that he schemes [to claim only half, in order to be exempt from swearing]!

Answer (Rivam): We do not apply a Migo to take from another. [This is a Migo to take, for] in the other half (the half they argue about), the other is Muchzak, just like this one.

Implied question: In Bava Basra (32b), it says that a claimant bent down and whispered to Rabah "indeed, it is a forged [loan] document. However, I had a proper document, and it was lost ";

Rabah believed him to be Motzi (collect) through a Migo, that if he wanted, he could have said that it is a proper document!

Answer: There, it is because even if he was silent, just he did not admit that it is forged, he would have been believed, because the signature was recognized to those standing there;

Rav Yosef [who disagreed] holds that it is not even a Migo, since the first claim he made with this document was false. We say Migo only when his first claim was true, Migo (since) he could have claimed differently;

Therefore, [Rav Yosef ruled that] it is not even a Migo to keep [what one has already], like the first episode there (of one who was Machazik in land, and showed a purchase document, and said "indeed, it was forged However, I had a proper document, and I lost it.")

Question: We should say that Safek does not take from a Vadai! The one who says "it is all mine" Vadai owns [at least] half, and the one who says "it is half mine", it is a Safek if he owns anything!

This is like we say in Yevamos (38a), that if (Reuven died, and Shimon did Yibum, and a baby was born within nine months of the death, more than six months after Yibum), if the Safek (son - we do not know which was his father) and the Yavam come to divide the property of Yakov (the father of Reuven and Shimon)...

The Safek says "I am Reuven's son. Half is mine", and the Yavam says "you are my son. You do not inherit anything", the Yavam is Vadai, and the Safek is a Safek, and a Safek cannot take from a Vadai!

Answer: There, the Yavam, who is the son of Yakov, he Vadai inherits him [an heir has power to inherit everything]. The Safek cannot take money from him amidst Safek;

However, here there is no reason why being Vadai about half should help him for the other half.

Implied question: A Mishnah below (9a) teaches 'if one saw a Metziah, and told his friend "give it to me"...', [and it is clear] that he did not acquire it through seeing! (Why must our Mishnah teach this also?)

Also, "if one saw a Metziah and fell on it..." (below, 10a) teaches that he did not acquire [through seeing]!

Answer: We could dispel [the proof from those Mishnayos]. Since he said "give it to me", or he fell on it, he revealed his intent that he does not want to acquire until it comes to his hand.

Implied question: It says below (118a) that looking at Hefker acquires it!

Answer: That is when he did [even] a tiny action, e.g. he made a small fence [around it].

Observation: There are places where the Gemara asks like this, and there are places where it does not ask. (See Tosfos Bechoros 31b DH Im Ken. He answers that the Gemara asks this when it is difficult to say that it explains what was taught above.)

Explanation: This is because he rationalizes, and says "my friend does not lose anything." Therefore, he grabs, even though he knows that his friend found it. Rabanan imposed a Shevu'ah on him, so he will refrain;

However, regarding a sale he cannot say so. If he knows that his friend acquired, he would not grab. Since he grabbed, he thinks that it is his, and the seller agreed [to sell] to him, like we conclude below that he took money from both of them;

One might have thought that he does not swear, for he will not refrain due to the Shevu'ah, for he intends to say the truth. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so. Even so, he swears.

Distinction: When surely [one of them] does not intend to say the truth, e.g. each one claims "I wove it", that one of them intentionally claims falsely, or if both of them are holding a document, below (7a)...

There, obviously they divide through a Shevu'ah, for through the Shevu'ah, surely [the liar] will refrain, for one who is suspected about [trying to steal] money is not suspected to swear falsely.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [The Gemara suggests that] we should ask the seller. Even though the seller is not believed when he is not holding the sale item, like it says in Kidushin (73b), this is when he took from both of them;

However, when he took from only one of them, he is believed even if he is not holding the sale item.

After this, the text says "[that he took from both, and] we do not know [from whom he took willingly]."

Rebuttal: There was no need to give this difficult Perush. Here we ask properly. Even though he is not holding the sale item, he is believed like one witness. Why do both of them swear? The one whom the seller supports should be exempt from a Shevu'ah, and the other should take a Shevu'ah mid'Oraisa [to contradict the witness]!

Consequence: The text properly says "he does not know." If [the seller] knew, he would be believed like one witness.

Observation: However, we could have answered that the seller is not here to ask him.

Explanation #2 (Ri): [The Gemara asks that] we should ask them (the litigants) from whom the seller received the money. We do not suspect that they will lie about this, to say "I gave" if he did not give;

[We are thinking that] also they argue only about to whom the seller agreed, but they do not argue about who gave money.

Explanation: We can say that he properly knew that in our Mishnah, it is possible that both of them picked it up together. (Rashba - also regarding a sale, perhaps the seller consented to both of them);

In any case, he asks that they should divide without a Shevu'ah, since it is possible that they will come to a false Shevu'ah;

[The Tartzan] answers that there, there is Vadai a false Shevu'ah. (Here, there is not.)

Explanation: Only one of them [is holding it].

Implied question: Even if it is in the swamp (Reshus ha'Rabim), Rabanan hold that ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah!

Answer: Even so, it is considered that one of them is holding it, due to Chazakah of the original owner.

Alternate text: Some texts say "there, it is of one of them."

Explanation: [Even] without their claims, Beis Din has a Safek, for one has a claim against his friend without their claims, e.g. an ox gored a cow [and we do not know whether or not this caused it to miscarry], or one who swapped a cow for a donkey [and we do not know whether the cow gave birth before or after the sale]. (Maharam - Tosfos' text did not say "Drara d'Memona l'Mar." According to his Perush, this makes no sense.)

Since the Safek arose by itself, it is proper that they divide, even without a Shevu'ah.

Explanation: We ask only if Sumchus holds like Rabanan of Ben Nanas, who are not concerned for a false oath;

According to Ben Nanas, just the contrary, when we can say that [surely] it is all of one person [or all of the other], they divide without a Shevu'ah, for [if both would swear] there is surely a false oath!

Implied question: In Bava Basra (35a) regarding a boat, Rav Nachman said that Kol d'Alim Gavar. The Gemara asks from one who swaps a cow for a donkey [and we do not know when the cow gave birth], that they divide;

It answers that there, there is Drara d'Memona. We do not ask "there, there is Drara d'Memona, and we can say that it is all his, they divide...

Regarding a boat, that we can say that it is both of theirs, and they do not divide, rather, Kol d'Alim Gavar", like it asks here!

Answer: This is because Drara d'Memona is a good reason to divide. Since it is an absolute Safek without their claims, it is proper that they divide;

However, a boat, even though it is possible that it is both of theirs, since there is no Drara d'Memona, and they are not holding it, the law is Kol d'Alim Gavar.

Distinction: However, regarding a Shevu'ah, the reasoning of Drara d'Memona does not help to divide without a Shevu'ah. Since it Vadai belongs to one of them, it is reasonable to divide with a Shevu'ah. Perhaps one of them will admit.