For if

<<it had taught

<<a found object [only],

<<I would have said:

<<with a found object

<<it is

<<that imposed

<<the Rabbis

<<an oath

<<upon him,

<<because

<<he reasons

<<and says:

<<my fellow

<<not

<<anything

<<loses

<<by it —

<<let me go

<<take hold

<<and divide

<<with him;

<<but

<<buying

<<and selling,

<<where there is no

<<to say

<<so —

<<say

<<no.

And if

<<it had taught

<<buying

<<and selling [only],

<<it is

<<that imposed

<<the Rabbis

<<an oath

<<upon him,

<<because

<<he reasons

<<and says:

<<my fellow

<<money

<<is giving

<<and I

<<money

<<am giving;

<<now,

<<since it is needed

<<by me,

<<let me take it

<<myself,

<<and my fellow

<<let him go

<<trouble himself

<<to buy;

<<but

<<a found object,

<<where there is no

<<to say

<<so —

<<say

<<no.

<<So both are necessary.

“Buying

<<and selling” —

<<let us see

<<the money,

<<from whom

<<he took it!

<<It is necessary only

<<where he took

<<from both of them,

<<from one

<<with his consent

<<and from one

<<against his will,

<<and we do not

<<know

<<who

<<it is

<<that consented,

<<and who

<<it is

<<that was against his will.

Shall we say

<<our Mishnah

<<is not

<<like ben Nanas?

<<For if

<<it were ben Nanas,

<<did he not say:

How

<<can these

<<and those

<<come

<<to

<<an oath of

<<falsehood?

You may even say

<<ben Nanas:

<<there

<<certainly

<<there is

<<an oath of

<<falsehood;

<<here

<<there is

<<to say

<<that there is no

<<oath of

<<falsehood —

<<say

<<that both of them

<<together

<<lifted it.

Shall we say

<<our Mishnah

<<is not

<<like Sumchos?

<<For if

<<like Sumchos,

<<did he not say:

<<money

<<that is cast

<<in doubt —

<<they divide

<<without

<<an oath!

But rather

<<what —

<<the Rabbis?

<<But

<<they say:

<<the one who extracts

<<from his fellow

<<upon him is

<<the proof!

What is this?

<<If you say, granted,

<<it is the Rabbis:

<<there,

<<where not

<<are holding

<<both of them,

<<said

<<the Rabbis:

<<the one who extracts

<<from his fellow

<<upon him is

<<the proof;

<<here,

<<where both of them

<<are holding,

<<[they divide]

<<it

<<with an oath.

But

<<if you say

<<it is Sumchos:

<<now,

<<if

<<there,

<<where not

<<are holding

<<both of them,

<<they divide

<<without

<<an oath,

<<here,

<<where both of them

<<are holding

<<it,

<<how much more so!

You may even say

<<Sumchos:

<<when

<<Sumchos said,

<<[it was where each says] perhaps

<<and perhaps;

<<but

<<certain

<<and certain

<<he did not

<<say.

And according to Rabba bar Rav Huna,

<<who said:

<<said

<<Sumchos [it]

<<even

<<certain

<<and certain —

<<what is there to say?

You may even say

<<Sumchos:

<<when

<<Sumchos said,

<<where

<<there is

<<a prior involvement

<<of money;

<<but

<<where

<<there is no

<<prior involvement

<<of money —

<<no.

And is it not

<<an a fortiori

<<it is?

<<If

<<there,

<<where there is

<<a prior involvement

<<of money

<<for this one,

<<and there is

<<a prior involvement

<<of money

<<for that one,