If two people are holding a garment that each one claims is his, it is divided. That is the first Mishna in Bava Mezia. The gemara asks on this from the case of one person gives to someone to guard two hundred coins and another gives him to guard a hundred for safekeeping. The person forgot to which person goes the two hundred, and to which the one hundred. The third hundred is not returned to either person. The gemara asks what is the difference, and answers the reason for dividing in our mishna is the dividing could be correct. The Rambam brings both Mishnas with no explanation. the way rav shach explains the rambam is that the Rambam is like R Chananel and the Ri Migash that the difference between the two Mishnas is in our Mishna they are holding the object. So then why did the gemara not answers this? Rav Shach brings from Bava Metzia page 6 that where there is a doubt the court does nothing. So, in our Mishna there is no doubt so they divide. In the mishna about the third hundred there is doubt, so the third hundred stays with the person guarding it, until proof can be brought. [O think Rav Shach means that to divide you need two conditions: one is certainty that what each one holds belongs to him, and the second condition is that thy are both holding.] Rav Shach asks a question on his own answer and does not find an answer. the question is from a person sells an object and receives the money to pay for it from two people ad does not know from whom received the money willingly and from whom he received against his will. Since the object is not being held by the two people that bought it, therefore it should be a case of the object is left in place, but instead it is divided. This seems to contradict everything Rav Shach said beforehand. The answer the case of the guard is like that of a person who finds a lost object. He has a responsibility not to give it until he is sure he is returning it to the right person. That is totally different from the seller who is not a guard and has no such responsibility. I saw that Rav Nachum Partzovitz brings this idea to support his own answer on this same question. --------------------------------------If two people are holding a garment that each one claims is his, it is divided. That is the first משנה in בבא מציעא. The גמרא asks on this from the case of one person gives to someone to guard two hundred coins and another gives him to guard a hundred for safekeeping. The person forgot to which person goes the two hundred, and to which the one hundred. The third hundred is not returned to either person. The גמרא asks what is the difference, and answers the reason for dividing in our משנה is the dividing could be correct. The רמב’’ם brings both משנהs with no explanation. The way רב שך explains the רמב’’ם is that the רמב’’ם is like ר' חננאל and the ר''י מיגש that the difference between the two משניות is in our משנה they are holding the object. So then why did the גמרא not answers this? רב שך brings from בבא מציעא page 6 that where there is a doubt the court does nothing. So, in our משנה there is no doubt so they divide. In the משנה about the third hundred there is doubt, so the third hundred stays with the person guarding it, until proof can be brought. [I think רב שך means that to divide you need two conditions: one is certainty that what each one holds belongs to him, and the second condition is that thEy are both holding.] רב שך asks a question on his own answer, and does not find an answer. The question is from a person sells an object and receives the money tרבo pay for it from two people aNd does not know from whom received the money willingly' and from whom he received against his will. Since the object is not being held by the two people that bought it, therefore it should be a case of the object is left in place, but instead it is divided. This seems to contradict everything רב שך said beforehand. The answer the case of the guard is like that of a person who finds a lost object. He has a responsibility not to give it until he is sure he is returning it to the right person. That is totally different from the seller who is not a guard and has no such responsibility. I saw that רב נחום של ישיבת מיר brings this idea to support his own answer on this same question.