Hello kollel!
I am having a hard time understanding the case where one person says he owns only 1/2 of the Tallis and winds up getting 1/4.
A few basic questions: why would someone ever buy only half a garment? And if we are to say it's because he bought it in partnership with the other guy contesting ownership aren't we back in the same place where the aggregate ownership is fully contested (bc he's saying I own 100pct in a 2 man partnership)?
Also since he could have claimed full ownership of the Tallis rather than just half, shouldn't we give more weight to his claim?
Thank you.
Josh
You have asked some very good questions. In fact, your last question is asked by Tosfos. Let's take them one at a time.
1) "Why would someone ever buy only half a garment?"
We have a principle that "Hoda'as Ba'al Din k'Me'ah Edim Dami" -- "the 3admission of debt by the debtor is as though 100 witnesses have testified." That means that once someone admits in court that he is indebted for a certain amount, that is accepted as an absolute fact. Therefore, even if it "doesn't make sense" how it came about, that's irrelevant to the discussion. (of course, if in an attempt to ferret out the truth Beis Din wants to ask about the various (or perhaps strange in your case) circumstances, they are permitted and perhaps obligated. But that approach of questioning is discussed in a different Gemara and not relevant to your question here.)
2) "... (because he's saying I own 100pct in a 2-man partnership)?"
That's true, but his claim in Beis Din is on 50% of the value of the Talis, and how ever you cut it that is only half.
3) "Shouldn't we give more weight to his claim?"
Absolutely, but .... In other words, yes, he has a "Migu" and should be believed, except there are two possibilities of extenuating circumstances in this case. (1) As the Gemara mentions on Daf 8a, perhaps he is a liar, and he knows that if he claims the whole Talis he will need to swear (and anyway only get half), so he decides to claim half as "proof" he is telling the truth and be exempt from swearing. Since there is a distinct possibility that those are his thoughts, there is no credence added to his claim. (2) Even if he had a "Migu," since the Talis is currently in common possession, it is considered a Migu l'Hotzi (a plaint to access ownership) and not a Migu l'Hachzik (a plaint to maintain ownership), and the principle is Migu l'Hotzi Lo Amrinan (a plaint to access ownership is invalid (lit. "we don't say)).
Take a look in the third Tosfos on the page for a full treatment of the subject.
All the best,
Shimon Brodie
Following on: is migu different than peh she-assur?
Fantastic question! But not with a "yes or no" answer. A Peh She'assur is a specialized form of Migu. Take a look in Kesubos 16a (start from the Mishna on the bottom of 15b)for a famous and central discussion of this point.
All the best,
Shimon Brodie
Rav Brodie, another idea. On daf 8 there's a discussion about a person acquiring on behalf of another. Could this be the scenario where the one thinks he only owns half (bc he thinks acquiring for another makes a partnership) and the other guy thinks it was acquired totally for him?
Although the Gemara entertains many times the concept of "ha'Magbihah Metzi'ah l'Chaveiro Kanah Chaveiro," the possibility of the "Magbihah" thinking that he acquired only half is never suggested; either he picked it up entirely for himself or entirely for the other fellow. So, I don't think that we can incorporate such a circumstance into the straightforward explanation of the Gemara. Of course, we can consider and debate what would be if he explained himself as such, but this is already a separate topic.
All the best,
Shimon Brodie