More Discussions for this daf
1. The Shevu'ah of Shenayim Ochzin 2. Picking up a Metzi'ah 3. Owning all of it
4. Sumchus or the Rabanan 5. Tosfos DH Yachloku 6. Questions in Rashi
7. Case of Mekach U'Memkar 8. Rashi According to Maskanas ha'Gemara 9. Shenayim Ochzin b'Talis
10. Insights to the Daf - Maharam Shif on Rashi 11. "It is all mine" 12. Claim of Ownership of Half of the Talis
13. Arguing over a lost object that was found 14. Causing a Shevu'as Shav in our Mishnah 15. Teaching that Re'iyah is not Koneh
16. Two versions 17. Comparing 3/4 Talis oath with devolved oath 18. Acquiring through seeing
19. Terms of Chazakah and ownership 20. בבא מציעא ב. תד"ה בראיה - הבטה בהפקר
DAF DISCUSSIONS - BAVA METZIA 2

Matthew Polienecki asks:

(a) Why does the Gemarah always go back and forth as to why Sumchus can not be the Tana of our Mishnah? One reason should be sufficient and there should be no reason to do this.

(b) Also, why when it is talking about Sumchus, does the Gemara interrupt and go to questioning the Rabanan, and whether they can or can not be the Tana?

Matthew Polienecki, Syracuse, USA

The Kollel replies:

(a) The Gemara is trying to determine whether Sumchus is or is not the Tana of the Mishnah. Since the Gemara does not, at any point, come to a clear conclusion, it continues the discussion. It does not close the discussion and then open the discussion again.

(b) The purpose of the Gemara is to determine who is (and who is not) the Tana of our Mishnah. Once we reject the possibility that it is Sumchus, it must follow the opinion of the Rabbanan. However, the Gemara then has to ascertain that this is correct. As far as I can see, this discussion is within the topic under discussion in the Gemara.

All the best,

Yaakov Montrose