Question

In explaining why, in the case of two people holding an item, the ruling is “they shall divide” rather than “whoever is stronger prevails,” some explain that the division here is certainly because of the presumption that what is in a person’s possession belongs to him. I don’t understand this, because insofar as one can argue that the object belongs to the one holding it, that should not be a reason to divide. The proof from possession does not show that they lifted the object at the same moment. And if we say that the division is based on evidence, then the evidence from the very fact of possession can at most be grounds to rule out “whoever is stronger prevails,” but not grounds for “they shall divide,” since there is no evidence that they lifted the object together. But if we say that the division is not evidence-based, but rather because the religious court does not know to whom the object belongs, then they assign the object new owners; and while they are still holding it, that gives a reason why the new ownership ruled here should go to them. But when they are not holding it, there is no one here showing any reason that he should be the owner, and therefore it becomes “whoever is stronger prevails.” According to this, since the division is not based on evidence, we do not take into account who lifted it first. But if everything is based on evidence, where is the evidence that each one has specifically half? After all, we have no evidence that they lifted it together.