משנה: הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹכְבִין עַל גַּבֵּי בְהֵמָה אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד רוֹכֵב וְאֶחָד מְהַלֵּךְ. זֶה אוֹמֵר כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי. זֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָחוּת מֵחֶצְייָהּ וְזֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָחוּת מֵחֶצְייָהּ וְיַחֲלוֹקוּ. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מוֹדִין אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ להֶן עֵדִים חוֹלְקִין בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. MISHNAH: If two persons were riding on an animal or one was riding and one was walking, each of them says “it wholly belongs to me”26It will be explained in Mishnah 3 that the finder is not the person who first saw the abandoned property but the one who lifted it to acquire. It would be reasonable to expect that if a walker and a rider simultaneously came upon some lost property the walker had a better chance to grab the object first. But in the absence of proof these arguments are irrelevant to the court; both parties must be given equal standing., each of them has to swear that he owns no less than half of it and they shall divide it evenly. If they agree27Even after the court gave its verdict, the parties are free to come to an amicable settlement. or if they have witnesses, they divide without an oath.
הלכה: הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹכְבִין עַל גַּבֵּי בְהֵמָה כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי חוּנָא. תַּנֵּיי תַּמֵּן. אִשָּׁה שֶׁהָֽיְתָה רְכוּבָה עַל גַּבֵּי בְהֵמָה וּשְׁנַיִם מִנְהִיגִין אוֹתָהּ. וְאוֹמֶרֶת. אֵילּוּ עֲבָדַיי וְהַחֲמוֹר וְהַמַּשְּׂאוּי שֶׁלִּי. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. זוֹ אִשְׁתִּי וְזֶה עַבְדִּי וְהַחֲמוֹר וְהַמַּשְּׂאוּי שֶׁלִּי. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. זוֹ אִשְׁתִּי וְזֶה עַבְדִּי וְהַחֲמוֹר וְהַמַּשְּׂאוּי שֶׁלִּי. צְרִיכָה גֵט מִשְּׁנֵיהֶן. וּצְרִיכָה לְשַׁחְרֵר אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶן. וּשְׁנֵיהֶן מְשַׁחְרְרִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. וּבַחֲמוֹר וּבְמַשְּׁאוּי שְׁלָשְׁתָּן שָׁוִין. HALAKHAH: “If two persons were riding on an animal,” etc. Rebbi Ḥuna said: It was stated there28A different, incompatible version is in the Babli, Qiddušin 65b, in the name of Rav Aḥdevoi bar Ammi who lived a generation before R. Ḥuna and was known for his construction of impossible situations.: “A woman comes29From overseas, without identification papers. riding on an animal and two men lead her. She says: these are my slaves; the donkey and the load are mine. Each of them says: this is my wife, the other is my slave, and the donkey and the load are mine30Since the rules of court proceedings state that “once somebody testified (under cross-examination), he cannot testify a second time”, they cannot come back to court and change their statements (cf. Ševi‘it 10:5 Note 96, Bikkurim 3:4 Note 72, Ketubot 3:3 Note 56; Babli Ketubot 18b). In line with the principles of Mishnah 1, the court has to impose a solution compatible with all statements.. She needs a bill of divorce from both of them31Since the woman denies being married and there are no witnesses, she certainly has no claim to ketubah from either of the men. From Mishnah Qiddušin 3:11 it would seem that therefore she can marry another person without a bill of divorce, as stated explicitly in the Babli; but the formulation in the Yerushalmi does not seem to support this statement. and has to manumit both of them. They have to manumit one another. In the donkey and the load they are equal co-owners.