Study Bava Metzia folio 5A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ולמאן דאמר הילך פטור, אמאי איצטריך קרא למעוטי קרקע משבועה? הא כל קרקע הילך הוא.
The Talmud asks: But according to Rav Sheshet, with regard to the one who says that in a case where the debtor says: Here you are, he is exempt from taking an oath, why was it necessary for the verse to exclude a claim of land ownership from the defendant’s obligation to take an oath when he admits part of the claim? The exclusion of land is derived from the verse: “For any matter of trespass, for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garment, for any lost item about which one should say: This is it, the claims of both of them should come before the judges” (Exodus 22:8). But all cases involving one who admits to part of the claim involving land are cases where the defendant effectively says: Here you are, as land always remains in its location. Therefore, the derivation from the verse appears to be unnecessary.
אמר לך: איצטריך קרא היכא דחפר בה בורות שיחין ומערות.
The Talmud answers that Rav Sheshet could have said to you: The verse was necessary in a case where the defendant dug pits, ditches, and caves in the land that he is returning to the plaintiff. Since the land has been damaged and is no longer in its prior state, the defendant is not effectively saying: Here you are.
אי נמי, היכא דטענו כלים וקרקעות, והודה בכלים וכפר בקרקעות.
Alternatively, there is the case where one claimed that another owed him vessels and land, and the defendant admitted to the claim involving the vessels and denied the claim involving the land. The verse teaches that although the defendant denied part of the claim and did not effectively say: Here you are, he is not obligated to take an oath with regard to the land.