Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 8, 2017 | 讬壮 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Batra 45

Why is one not trusted to testify about liened property he sold to another without guaranteeing the property? 聽If one sold movable property to another and a non Jew claimed rights to it, does the original owner need to compensate or help the buyer prove that it was his? 聽Does it depend on details of how it was taken and whether or not the buyer knew that the item really belonged to the Jew when he bought it (meaning – if it was obvious that the non Jew is falsely claiming rights to it, then the original owner has no responsibility). 聽There is a debate about whether non Jews are always suspected of making a false claim or not. 聽A person who does a service for another does not have rights of ownership to items that one gave them. 聽Raba limits this to a case where one gave it to the laborer with witnesses. 聽Abaye disagrees and claims that it applies also in a case where it was given to the laborer not in the presence of witnesses. 聽Sources are brought to contradict each of the opinions but are resolved.

讗讬 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗专注讗 讗讞专讬转讬 注诇讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讚专 讗讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗专注讗 讗讞专讬转讬 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讛

If this is a case where the seller has other land, that he did not sell, in addition to the field that he sold with regard to which he currently wishes to testify, his creditor will go after it, and collect from that land. In that case, he is not biased in his testimony concerning the field that he sold. If this is a case where the seller does not have other land, what difference does it make to him if the buyer is unable to keep the land? In any event the creditor cannot collect directly from the seller.

诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗专注讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讚讗诪专 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 讚诇讬讛讜讬 诇讜讛 专砖注 讜诇讗 讬砖诇诐

The Gemara answers: Actually, Shmuel is referring to a case where the seller does not have other land, and the reason that he is nevertheless biased in his testimony is that he wants his creditors to be able to collect the debt because he says to himself that it is uncomfortable for him to be in the category of: 鈥淭he wicked borrows, and pays not鈥 (Psalms 37:21).

住讜祝 住讜祝 诇讙讘讬 讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 诇讜讛 专砖注 讜诇讗 讬砖诇诐 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讻讬 讝讘讬谞讬 诇讱 砖诇讗 讘讗讞专讬讜转

The Gemara asks: But ultimately, he is also in the category of: 鈥淭he wicked borrows, and pays not鈥 (Psalms 37:21) with regard to the other one, to whom he sold the land. He took money from the buyer, who did not receive anything in exchange, as the land was seized from him. The Gemara answers: He is not concerned about his behavior toward the buyer, as he can say to him: For this very reason I sold it to you without a guarantee, so that if it would be seized from you I would not be liable.

诪讻专讬讝 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讚住诇拽讬谉 诇注讬诇讗 讜讚谞讞转讬谉 诇转转讗 讛讗讬 讘专 讬砖专讗诇 讚讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 诇讬砖专讗诇 讞讘专讬讛 讜拽讗 讗转讬 讙讜讬 讜讗谞讬住 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚诪驻爪讬 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛

搂 The Gemara relates: Rava announced, and some say it was Rav Pappa who announced: All those who ascend from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael and all those who descend from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia should be aware of the following: In a case of this Jew who sold a donkey to another Jew, and then a gentile came and seized it from him, claiming that it was really his, the halakha is that the seller should rescue [dimfatzei] it from the gentile or reimburse the buyer.

讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讻讬专 讘讛 砖讛讬讗 讘转 讞诪讜专讜 讗讘诇 诪讻讬专 讘讛 砖讛讬讗 讘转 讞诪讜专讜 诇讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讗谞讬住 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讜诇讗讜讻驻讗 讗讘诇 讗谞讬住 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讜诇讗讜讻驻讗 诇讗

The Gemara points out: And we said this halakha only in a case where the buyer does not recognize that this is the offspring of the seller鈥檚 donkey, and it is possible that the gentile鈥檚 claim is true. But if the buyer recognizes that this is the offspring of the seller鈥檚 donkey, then the seller is not liable to reimburse him. It is clear that the gentile鈥檚 claim is false, so the seller bears no responsibility for the buyer鈥檚 loss. And furthermore, we said this halakha only in a case where the gentile did not seize it and the saddle with it. But if he seized it and the saddle with it, it is clear that the gentile is a robber, and it is assumed that there is no validity to his claim with regard to the donkey. Therefore, the seller is not liable to reimburse him.

讗诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬讻讗 讻诇 讛谞讬 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚注 讚住转诐 讙讜讬 讗谞住 讛讜讗 砖谞讗诪专 讗砖专 驻讬讛诐 讚讘专 砖讜讗 讜讬诪讬谞诐 讬诪讬谉 砖拽专

Ameimar said: Even if there are not any of these factors, the seller is not liable to reimburse him. What is the reasoning for this? It is that it is known that an ordinary gentile is an extortionist, so it is assumed that the donkey did indeed belong to the seller, as it is stated: 鈥淲hose mouth speaks falsehood, and their right hand is a right hand of lying鈥 (Psalms 144:8).

讗讜诪谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诪住专 诇讜 讘注讚讬诐 讗讘诇 诪住专 诇讜 砖诇讗 讘注讚讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐 讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 诇拽讜讞讛 讛讬讗 讘讬讚讬 诪讛讬诪谉

搂 The Gemara returns to discuss the statement of Shmuel (42b): A craftsman does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership of the property in his possession, but a partner has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership. Rabba says: They taught this only in a case where the owner transferred the item to the craftsman in the presence of witnesses. But if the owner transferred the item to the craftsman not in the presence of witnesses, then, since the craftsman is able to say to the one who claims to be the owner: These matters never occurred, i.e., you did not give me this item but it was mine to begin with, and he would keep possession of the item with that claim, then even when the craftsman says to him: It is purchased by me from you, and that is why it is in my possession, he is deemed credible.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注讚讬诐 谞诪讬 诪转讜讱 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讛讞讝专转讬讜 诇讱 讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇拽讜讞讛 讛讬讗 讘讬讚讬 诪讛讬诪谉

Abaye said to Rabba: If so, then even if the owner transferred the item to the craftsman in the presence of witnesses as well, he should be deemed credible. Since the craftsman is able to say to the owner: I returned the item to you, and he would be exempt from payment, when the craftsman says to him: It is purchased by me from you, and that is why it is in my possession, he is deemed credible.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 诪讬 住讘专转

Rabba said to Abaye: Do you maintain that

讛诪驻拽讬讚 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘注讚讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讘注讚讬诐 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讛诪驻拽讬讚 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘注讚讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讘注讚讬诐

in the case of one who deposits an item with another in the presence of witnesses the recipient need not return it to him in the presence of witnesses? If that were to be so, the craftsman could claim that he had returned it to the owner, even though there are no witnesses. That possibility should not enter your mind. Rather, in the case of one who deposits an item with another in the presence of witnesses, the recipient must return it to him in the presence of witnesses. Therefore, the craftsman could not have claimed that he returned it to the owner.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讘讬讬 专讗讛 注讘讚讜 讘讬讚 讗讜诪谉 讜讟诇讬转讜 讘讬讚 讻讜讘住 讗讜诪专 诇讜 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 讗爪诇讱 讗转讛 诪讻专转讜 诇讬 讗转讛 谞转转讜 诇讬 讘诪转谞讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讘驻谞讬 讗诪专转 诇讜 诇诪讜讻专讜 讜诇讬转谞讜 诇讜 讘诪转谞讛 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉

Abaye raises an objection to Rabba鈥檚 ruling from a baraita (Tosefta 2:6): There is a case where one saw his slave in the possession of a craftsman, or his cloak in the possession of a launderer, and says to him: What is the nature of its presence in your possession? If the craftsman or launderer replied: You sold me the slave or cloak, or: You gave the slave or cloak to me as a gift, he has not said anything, and must return it, since a craftsman does not establish the presumption of ownership. But if the craftsman or launderer replied: You said in my presence to someone else to sell the slave or cloak to him or to give the slave or cloak to him, i.e., to sell or give the slave or cloak to the craftsman or launderer himself, as a gift, then his statement is valid.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗

Before Abaya raises his objection, he first clarifies the ruling of the baraita. What is different in the first clause that the craftsman is not deemed credible and what is different in the latter clause that he is?

讗诪专 专讘讛 住讬驻讗 讘讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 讗讞专 讜拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讞专 讘驻谞讬 讗诪专转 诇讜 诇诪讜讻专讜 讜诇讬转谞讜 讘诪转谞讛 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讱 讝讘谞转讬讛 讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 讘驻谞讬 讗诪专转 诇讜 诇诪讜讻专讜 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讜诪讛讬诪谉

Rabba said: The latter clause is stated with regard to a case where the slave or cloak emerges from the possession of another, and not from the possession of the craftsman, and this other person is saying to the owner: You said in my presence to the craftsman to sell the slave or cloak or to give the slave or cloak to me as gift. This person is deemed credible despite acknowledging that he received it from the craftsman, since if he had wanted to, he could have said to the owner of the item: I purchased the slave or cloak from you. As this third party is not a craftsman, he is able to establish the presumption of ownership through possession and would be deemed credible. Therefore, when he says to him as well: You said to him in my presence to sell the slave or cloak, his statement is valid, and he is also deemed credible.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 专讬砖讗 专讗讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 专讗讛 谞讬转讬 注讚讬诐 讜谞砖拽讜诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讜讻讬 专讗讛 诪讬讛讗 转驻讬住 诇讬讛

After having clarified the ruling of the baraita, Abaye presents his objection: In any event, the first clause of the baraita teaches that the case where a craftsman is not deemed credible is where the owner saw the slave or cloak in the possession of the craftsman. What are the circumstances? If it is referring to where there are witnesses to the fact that the owner gave the slave or cloak to the craftsman for training or cleaning, respectively, why do I need for the owner to have seen them in the craftsman鈥檚 possession? Let the owner simply bring witnesses and take back his slave or cloak. Rather, is it not referring to a case where there are no witnesses, and nevertheless, when the owner saw the slave or cloak in the craftsman鈥檚 possession, he may seize the slave or cloak in any case? This contradicts Rabba鈥檚 statement that the decisive factor is whether the transfer took place in the presence of witnesses.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讜讛讜讗 讚专讗讛

Rabba answers this objection: No, that is not the case of the baraita. Actually, it is referring to a case where there are witnesses, and nevertheless, that is the halakha, that he may seize the slave or cloak only where he saw it currently in the possession of the craftsman. But if there are no witnesses that it is currently in his possession, he would be deemed credible if he were to claim that he purchased the slave or cloak from the owner, as he could have claimed that he returned the slave or cloak.

讜讛讗 讗转 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专转 讛诪驻拽讬讚 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘注讚讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇驻讜专注讜 讘注讚讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讚专讬 讘讬

Abaye asked him: But you are the one who said: In the case of one who deposits an item with another in the presence of witnesses, the recipient must return it to him in the presence of witnesses. Therefore, if it was given to the craftsman in the presence of witnesses, he would not have the ability to make a more advantageous claim [miggo] that he returned it. Rabba said to Abaye: I retracted that opinion and hold that he may return it even when not in the presence of witnesses.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 诇住讬讜注讬 诇专讘讛 讛谞讜转谉 讟诇讬转讜 诇讗讜诪谉 讗讜诪谉 讗讜诪专 砖转讬诐 拽爪爪转 诇讬 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 拽爪爪转讬 诇讱 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛讟诇讬转 讘讬讚 讗讜诪谉 注诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 谞转谞讛 诇讜 讘讝诪谞讜 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇 注讘专 讝诪谞讜 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛

Rava raises an objection from a baraita to support the opinion of Rabba: With regard to one who gives his cloak to a craftsman, and then the craftsman says: You fixed two dinars as my payment, and that one, the owner, says: I fixed only one dinar as your payment, then, so long as it is so that the cloak is in the possession of the craftsman, it is incumbent upon the owner to bring proof that the fee was one dinar. If the craftsman gave the cloak back to him, then there are two scenarios: If the claim is lodged in its proper time, i.e., on the day of the cloak鈥檚 return, then the craftsman takes an oath and receives the two dinars. But if its proper time passed, then the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, and the craftsman would need to bring proof that the fee was two dinars.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诇讬讞讝讬 注讚讬诐 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专讬

Rava continues with an analysis of this baraita: What are the circumstances of the case discussed in this baraita? If it is a case where there are witnesses who saw the transfer of the item, let us see what the witnesses say about the fee, as they presumably heard the details of the arrangement.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 45

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 45

讗讬 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗专注讗 讗讞专讬转讬 注诇讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讚专 讗讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗专注讗 讗讞专讬转讬 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讛

If this is a case where the seller has other land, that he did not sell, in addition to the field that he sold with regard to which he currently wishes to testify, his creditor will go after it, and collect from that land. In that case, he is not biased in his testimony concerning the field that he sold. If this is a case where the seller does not have other land, what difference does it make to him if the buyer is unable to keep the land? In any event the creditor cannot collect directly from the seller.

诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗专注讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讚讗诪专 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 讚诇讬讛讜讬 诇讜讛 专砖注 讜诇讗 讬砖诇诐

The Gemara answers: Actually, Shmuel is referring to a case where the seller does not have other land, and the reason that he is nevertheless biased in his testimony is that he wants his creditors to be able to collect the debt because he says to himself that it is uncomfortable for him to be in the category of: 鈥淭he wicked borrows, and pays not鈥 (Psalms 37:21).

住讜祝 住讜祝 诇讙讘讬 讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 诇讜讛 专砖注 讜诇讗 讬砖诇诐 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讻讬 讝讘讬谞讬 诇讱 砖诇讗 讘讗讞专讬讜转

The Gemara asks: But ultimately, he is also in the category of: 鈥淭he wicked borrows, and pays not鈥 (Psalms 37:21) with regard to the other one, to whom he sold the land. He took money from the buyer, who did not receive anything in exchange, as the land was seized from him. The Gemara answers: He is not concerned about his behavior toward the buyer, as he can say to him: For this very reason I sold it to you without a guarantee, so that if it would be seized from you I would not be liable.

诪讻专讬讝 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讚住诇拽讬谉 诇注讬诇讗 讜讚谞讞转讬谉 诇转转讗 讛讗讬 讘专 讬砖专讗诇 讚讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 诇讬砖专讗诇 讞讘专讬讛 讜拽讗 讗转讬 讙讜讬 讜讗谞讬住 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚诪驻爪讬 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛

搂 The Gemara relates: Rava announced, and some say it was Rav Pappa who announced: All those who ascend from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael and all those who descend from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia should be aware of the following: In a case of this Jew who sold a donkey to another Jew, and then a gentile came and seized it from him, claiming that it was really his, the halakha is that the seller should rescue [dimfatzei] it from the gentile or reimburse the buyer.

讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讻讬专 讘讛 砖讛讬讗 讘转 讞诪讜专讜 讗讘诇 诪讻讬专 讘讛 砖讛讬讗 讘转 讞诪讜专讜 诇讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讗谞讬住 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讜诇讗讜讻驻讗 讗讘诇 讗谞讬住 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讜诇讗讜讻驻讗 诇讗

The Gemara points out: And we said this halakha only in a case where the buyer does not recognize that this is the offspring of the seller鈥檚 donkey, and it is possible that the gentile鈥檚 claim is true. But if the buyer recognizes that this is the offspring of the seller鈥檚 donkey, then the seller is not liable to reimburse him. It is clear that the gentile鈥檚 claim is false, so the seller bears no responsibility for the buyer鈥檚 loss. And furthermore, we said this halakha only in a case where the gentile did not seize it and the saddle with it. But if he seized it and the saddle with it, it is clear that the gentile is a robber, and it is assumed that there is no validity to his claim with regard to the donkey. Therefore, the seller is not liable to reimburse him.

讗诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬讻讗 讻诇 讛谞讬 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚注 讚住转诐 讙讜讬 讗谞住 讛讜讗 砖谞讗诪专 讗砖专 驻讬讛诐 讚讘专 砖讜讗 讜讬诪讬谞诐 讬诪讬谉 砖拽专

Ameimar said: Even if there are not any of these factors, the seller is not liable to reimburse him. What is the reasoning for this? It is that it is known that an ordinary gentile is an extortionist, so it is assumed that the donkey did indeed belong to the seller, as it is stated: 鈥淲hose mouth speaks falsehood, and their right hand is a right hand of lying鈥 (Psalms 144:8).

讗讜诪谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诪住专 诇讜 讘注讚讬诐 讗讘诇 诪住专 诇讜 砖诇讗 讘注讚讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐 讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 诇拽讜讞讛 讛讬讗 讘讬讚讬 诪讛讬诪谉

搂 The Gemara returns to discuss the statement of Shmuel (42b): A craftsman does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership of the property in his possession, but a partner has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership. Rabba says: They taught this only in a case where the owner transferred the item to the craftsman in the presence of witnesses. But if the owner transferred the item to the craftsman not in the presence of witnesses, then, since the craftsman is able to say to the one who claims to be the owner: These matters never occurred, i.e., you did not give me this item but it was mine to begin with, and he would keep possession of the item with that claim, then even when the craftsman says to him: It is purchased by me from you, and that is why it is in my possession, he is deemed credible.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注讚讬诐 谞诪讬 诪转讜讱 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讛讞讝专转讬讜 诇讱 讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇拽讜讞讛 讛讬讗 讘讬讚讬 诪讛讬诪谉

Abaye said to Rabba: If so, then even if the owner transferred the item to the craftsman in the presence of witnesses as well, he should be deemed credible. Since the craftsman is able to say to the owner: I returned the item to you, and he would be exempt from payment, when the craftsman says to him: It is purchased by me from you, and that is why it is in my possession, he is deemed credible.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 诪讬 住讘专转

Rabba said to Abaye: Do you maintain that

讛诪驻拽讬讚 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘注讚讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讘注讚讬诐 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讛诪驻拽讬讚 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘注讚讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讘注讚讬诐

in the case of one who deposits an item with another in the presence of witnesses the recipient need not return it to him in the presence of witnesses? If that were to be so, the craftsman could claim that he had returned it to the owner, even though there are no witnesses. That possibility should not enter your mind. Rather, in the case of one who deposits an item with another in the presence of witnesses, the recipient must return it to him in the presence of witnesses. Therefore, the craftsman could not have claimed that he returned it to the owner.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讘讬讬 专讗讛 注讘讚讜 讘讬讚 讗讜诪谉 讜讟诇讬转讜 讘讬讚 讻讜讘住 讗讜诪专 诇讜 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 讗爪诇讱 讗转讛 诪讻专转讜 诇讬 讗转讛 谞转转讜 诇讬 讘诪转谞讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讘驻谞讬 讗诪专转 诇讜 诇诪讜讻专讜 讜诇讬转谞讜 诇讜 讘诪转谞讛 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉

Abaye raises an objection to Rabba鈥檚 ruling from a baraita (Tosefta 2:6): There is a case where one saw his slave in the possession of a craftsman, or his cloak in the possession of a launderer, and says to him: What is the nature of its presence in your possession? If the craftsman or launderer replied: You sold me the slave or cloak, or: You gave the slave or cloak to me as a gift, he has not said anything, and must return it, since a craftsman does not establish the presumption of ownership. But if the craftsman or launderer replied: You said in my presence to someone else to sell the slave or cloak to him or to give the slave or cloak to him, i.e., to sell or give the slave or cloak to the craftsman or launderer himself, as a gift, then his statement is valid.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗

Before Abaya raises his objection, he first clarifies the ruling of the baraita. What is different in the first clause that the craftsman is not deemed credible and what is different in the latter clause that he is?

讗诪专 专讘讛 住讬驻讗 讘讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 讗讞专 讜拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讞专 讘驻谞讬 讗诪专转 诇讜 诇诪讜讻专讜 讜诇讬转谞讜 讘诪转谞讛 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讱 讝讘谞转讬讛 讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 讘驻谞讬 讗诪专转 诇讜 诇诪讜讻专讜 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讜诪讛讬诪谉

Rabba said: The latter clause is stated with regard to a case where the slave or cloak emerges from the possession of another, and not from the possession of the craftsman, and this other person is saying to the owner: You said in my presence to the craftsman to sell the slave or cloak or to give the slave or cloak to me as gift. This person is deemed credible despite acknowledging that he received it from the craftsman, since if he had wanted to, he could have said to the owner of the item: I purchased the slave or cloak from you. As this third party is not a craftsman, he is able to establish the presumption of ownership through possession and would be deemed credible. Therefore, when he says to him as well: You said to him in my presence to sell the slave or cloak, his statement is valid, and he is also deemed credible.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 专讬砖讗 专讗讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 专讗讛 谞讬转讬 注讚讬诐 讜谞砖拽讜诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讜讻讬 专讗讛 诪讬讛讗 转驻讬住 诇讬讛

After having clarified the ruling of the baraita, Abaye presents his objection: In any event, the first clause of the baraita teaches that the case where a craftsman is not deemed credible is where the owner saw the slave or cloak in the possession of the craftsman. What are the circumstances? If it is referring to where there are witnesses to the fact that the owner gave the slave or cloak to the craftsman for training or cleaning, respectively, why do I need for the owner to have seen them in the craftsman鈥檚 possession? Let the owner simply bring witnesses and take back his slave or cloak. Rather, is it not referring to a case where there are no witnesses, and nevertheless, when the owner saw the slave or cloak in the craftsman鈥檚 possession, he may seize the slave or cloak in any case? This contradicts Rabba鈥檚 statement that the decisive factor is whether the transfer took place in the presence of witnesses.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讜讛讜讗 讚专讗讛

Rabba answers this objection: No, that is not the case of the baraita. Actually, it is referring to a case where there are witnesses, and nevertheless, that is the halakha, that he may seize the slave or cloak only where he saw it currently in the possession of the craftsman. But if there are no witnesses that it is currently in his possession, he would be deemed credible if he were to claim that he purchased the slave or cloak from the owner, as he could have claimed that he returned the slave or cloak.

讜讛讗 讗转 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专转 讛诪驻拽讬讚 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘注讚讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇驻讜专注讜 讘注讚讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讚专讬 讘讬

Abaye asked him: But you are the one who said: In the case of one who deposits an item with another in the presence of witnesses, the recipient must return it to him in the presence of witnesses. Therefore, if it was given to the craftsman in the presence of witnesses, he would not have the ability to make a more advantageous claim [miggo] that he returned it. Rabba said to Abaye: I retracted that opinion and hold that he may return it even when not in the presence of witnesses.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 诇住讬讜注讬 诇专讘讛 讛谞讜转谉 讟诇讬转讜 诇讗讜诪谉 讗讜诪谉 讗讜诪专 砖转讬诐 拽爪爪转 诇讬 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 拽爪爪转讬 诇讱 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛讟诇讬转 讘讬讚 讗讜诪谉 注诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 谞转谞讛 诇讜 讘讝诪谞讜 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇 注讘专 讝诪谞讜 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛

Rava raises an objection from a baraita to support the opinion of Rabba: With regard to one who gives his cloak to a craftsman, and then the craftsman says: You fixed two dinars as my payment, and that one, the owner, says: I fixed only one dinar as your payment, then, so long as it is so that the cloak is in the possession of the craftsman, it is incumbent upon the owner to bring proof that the fee was one dinar. If the craftsman gave the cloak back to him, then there are two scenarios: If the claim is lodged in its proper time, i.e., on the day of the cloak鈥檚 return, then the craftsman takes an oath and receives the two dinars. But if its proper time passed, then the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, and the craftsman would need to bring proof that the fee was two dinars.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诇讬讞讝讬 注讚讬诐 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专讬

Rava continues with an analysis of this baraita: What are the circumstances of the case discussed in this baraita? If it is a case where there are witnesses who saw the transfer of the item, let us see what the witnesses say about the fee, as they presumably heard the details of the arrangement.

Scroll To Top