Study Bava Metzia folio 100B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud challenges Shmuel’s interpretation: If the dispute is over which size garment was sold, the seller should not be required to take an oath, as that which the buyer claimed from him, the seller did not admit to at all, and that which the seller admitted to, the buyer had not claimed from
R' Hoshaya found Shmuel’s interpretation difficult: Does the Mishnah teach: A garment? No, it teaches: A slave. How can Shmuel claim the dispute was about a garment?
Rather, R' Hoshaya said: The Mishnah is referring to a case where the buyer claimed a large slave along with his garment, or where he claimed a large field along with its sheaves. Since the seller admits to the part of the claim about the garment or sheaves, he is required to take an oath about th
Rav Sheshet found R' Hoshaya’s interpretation difficult: Does the Mishnah come only to teach us the halakha of binding? But we already learned that halakha in a Mishnah (Kiddushin 26a): Generally, one is not obligated to take an oath concerning the denial of a claim with regard to land. In a legal
Rather, Rav Sheshet said: In accordance with whose opinion is this Mishnah? It is R' Meir, who said: The legal status of a slave is like that of movable property. Even if the dispute is over the slave alone, the seller can be required to take an oath.