Bava Batra
Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z”l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z”l.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Beth Balkany in honor of their granddaughter, Devorah Chana Serach Eichel. “May she grow up to be a lifelong learner.”
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Bava Batra
Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z”l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z”l.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Beth Balkany in honor of their granddaughter, Devorah Chana Serach Eichel. “May she grow up to be a lifelong learner.”
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
Bava Batra 46
אֶלָּא לָאו דְּלֵיכָּא עֵדִים? וְקָתָנֵי: אוּמָּן מְהֵימַן – מִיגּוֹ דְּאִי בָּעֵי אָמַר לֵיהּ ״לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי״, מְהֵימַן נָמֵי אַאַגְרֵיהּ!
Rather, is it not referring to a case where there are no witnesses to the transfer, and it teaches that the craftsman is deemed credible? Since if he had wanted to he could have said to him: It is purchased and that is why it is in my possession, he is deemed credible with regard to his claim about his fee as well. This supports the ruling of Rabba that if there are no witnesses, the craftsman is deemed credible if he says that the item belongs to him.
לָא, לְעוֹלָם דְּלֵיכָּא עֵדִים; וְהוּא דְּלֹא רָאָה.
The Gemara rejects this proof: No, actually, perhaps the baraita is referring to a case where there are no witnesses to the transfer, but it is specifically referring to a case where the owner did not see the cloak in the possession of the craftsman, who could consequently deny ever having received it from the owner. Therefore, it is not a proof in support of the ruling of Rabba that the craftsman would be deemed credible even if there are witnesses that it is currently in his possession.
מֵתִיב רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אוּמָּן אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. אוּמָּן הוּא דְּאֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה – הָא אַחֵר יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak raises an objection to Rabba’s ruling from Shmuel’s paraphrase of the mishna: A craftsman does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership of property in his possession. This indicates that it is specifically a craftsman who does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership, but another person in similar circumstances has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים, אַחֵר – אַמַּאי יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה? אֶלָּא לָאו דְּלֵיכָּא עֵדִים? וְקָתָנֵי: אוּמָּן אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבָּה! תְּיוּבְתָּא.
What are the circumstances in which this would apply? If it is referring to a case where there are witnesses that the person in question received the item from another, why is it that another person has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership, when there are witnesses that he received this item as a deposit? Rather, is it not referring to a case where there are no witnesses, and yet, the mishna teaches: A craftsman does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership. This indicates that a craftsman does not establish the presumption of ownership under any circumstances, contrary to the ruling of Rabba. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rabba is indeed a conclusive refutation, and his ruling is rejected.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נִתְחַלְּפוּ לוֹ כֵּלִים בְּכֵלִים בְּבֵית הָאוּמָּן – הֲרֵי זֶה יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן, עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא הַלָּה וְיִטּוֹל אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ. בְּבֵית הָאֵבֶל אוֹ בְּבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן, עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא הַלָּה וְיִטּוֹל אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ. מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא?
§ The Gemara discusses another halakha pertaining to the giving of an item to a craftsman. The Sages taught: If one’s utensils were mistakenly switched with another’s utensils in the house of a craftsman, this one who received the wrong utensils may use them until the time when that one, whose utensils he received, comes and takes his. But if his utensils and another’s utensils were mistakenly switched in a house of mourning or in a house of a wedding feast, this one who took the wrong utensils may not use them in the interim, i.e., until the time when that one, whose utensils he took, comes and takes his. The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause where he may use the utensils, and what is different in the latter clause where he may not?
אָמַר רַב: הֲוָה יָתֵיבְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּחַבִּיבִי, וַאֲמַר לִי: וְכִי אֵין אָדָם עָשׂוּי לוֹמַר לָאוּמָּן ״מְכוֹר לִי טַלִּיתִי״?!
Rav said: I was sitting before my uncle, Rav Ḥiyya, and he said the explanation to me: And is a person not likely to say to the craftsman: Sell my cloak for me after you finish repairing it? It is possible that the craftsman mistakenly sold the utensils of another client instead, and gave to that other client the utensils that should have been sold. Since the owner of these utensils received the money from the sale of the other client’s utensils, the craftsman has a right to give the remaining utensils to the other client in the interim. This reasoning does not apply in the case of the house of mourning or a wedding feast, where one simply took utensils belonging to another.
אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא הוּא, אֲבָל אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו – לֹא. וְהוּא נָמֵי – לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״טַלִּית״ סְתָם, אֲבָל ״טַלִּיתְךָ״ – לָא, הַאי לָאו טַלִּית דִּידֵיהּ הוּא.
Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Naḥman, said: They taught that it is permitted to use the utensils only if the craftsman himself gave them to his customer, as in that case, the above reasoning applies. But if the craftsman’s wife or children gave them to him, the customer may not use the utensils, as it is likely that they were given to him in error. And even if the craftsman himself gave the utensils to his customer, we said that it is permitted for him to use them only in a case where the craftsman said to him, for example: I am returning a cloak, without specification. But if the craftsman said to him: I am returning your cloak, then he may not use it, as this is not his cloak, and clearly it was given to him in error.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרָבָא: תָּא אַחְוִי לָךְ רַמָּאֵי דְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא, מַאי עָבְדִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״הַב לִי סַרְבָּלַאי״. ״לֹא הָיוּ דְבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם״. ״הָא אִית לִי סָהֲדִי דְּחַזְיוּהּ גַּבָּךְ!״ אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״הָהוּא אַחֲרִינָא הֲוָה״. ״אַפְּקִינֵּיהּ וְנֶחְזִינְהוּ!״ אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״אִיבְרָא לָא מַפֵּיקְנָא לֵיהּ״.
§ The Gemara presents another statement with regard to craftsmen. Abaye said to Rava: Come and I will show you what the swindlers of Pumbedita do. There was a case where the owner of an item said to a craftsman: Give me back my cloak [sarbelai] that I gave you to repair, and the craftsman replied: These matters never occurred. The owner responded: But I have witnesses who saw it in your possession. The craftsman said to the owner: That was a different cloak that they saw. The witnesses are uncertain as to whether it was really his cloak. The owner then said: Bring it out and we will see it, so as to determine whose it is. The craftsman said to the owner: In truth, I will not bring it out, as you have no valid claim to the cloak and I am not willing to show you another’s property. This is the trickery to which Abaye referred, as it is not a sincere response, and the craftsman merely wishes to keep the cloak.
אָמַר רָבָא: שַׁפִּיר קָאָמַר לֵיהּ –
Rava said to Abaye: The craftsman is saying well to the owner, and his claim will be accepted,
״רָאָה״ תַּנְיָא.
as it is taught in the earlier baraita that the owner has a valid claim only when he, and witnesses, saw his cloak in the possession of the launderer and can definitively identify it. He cannot state a claim based on the mere possibility that it is his. This validates the claim of the craftsmen of Pumbedita.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: וְאִי חַכִּים, מְשַׁוֵּי לֵיהּ ״רָאָה״ – דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: אַמַּאי תְּפִיסַתְּ לֵיהּ, לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּאִית לָךְ גַּבַּאי? הַשְׁתָּא אַפְּקִינְהוּ וְשַׁיְּמִינְהוּ – שְׁקוֹל אַתְּ דִּידָך,ְ וְאֶשְׁקוֹל אֲנָא דִּידִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי, מָצֵי אָמַר לֵיהּ: לָא צְרִיכְנָא לְשׁוּמָא דִידָךְ, כְּבָר שָׁמוּהַּ קַמָּאֵי דְקַמָּךְ.
Rav Ashi said: And if the owner is clever, he will render the situation into one of his having seen his cloak, as the owner can say to the craftsman: Why are you holding it? Is it not due to the fact that there is money of yours with me, and you are using the cloak as a means of collecting the debt that I owe you? Now bring out my cloak before the appraisers and they will appraise its value, and then you take what is rightfully yours, and I will take what is rightfully mine. When the craftsman presents the cloak, the ruling will change, as the owner will have seen the cloak. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: If the craftsman is clever, he can say to the owner: I do not need your appraisal, as the earlier ones who preceded you already appraised it and determined that its value does not exceed that of your debt to me.
אָרִיס אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. אַמַּאי? עַד הָאִידָּנָא פַּלְגָא, וְהַשְׁתָּא כּוּלַּהּ! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בַּאֲרִיסֵי בָּתֵּי אָבוֹת.
§ The Gemara discusses a ruling that it paraphrases from the mishna: A sharecropper does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership of property in his possession. Why not? Isn’t it so that until that time, while he was definitely working as a sharecropper, he consumed only half of the produce of the land, and now, for the past three years, he consumed all of its produce? He should be able to establish the presumption of ownership by consuming more produce than a sharecropper does. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to family sharecroppers. This type of sharecropper, who works for a family for many years, gathers all of the produce into his property, and then returns the landowner’s share. Therefore, his collecting all of the produce into his property does not establish the presumption of ownership.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אָרִיס שֶׁהוֹרִיד אֲרִיסִין תַּחְתָּיו – יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּלָא עֲבִיד אִינָשׁ דְּנָחֲתִי אֲרִיסֵי לְאַרְעֵיהּ, וְשָׁתֵיק.
Rav Naḥman says: A sharecropper who installed other sharecroppers in his place has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership. What is the reason? It is that it is not common for a person to see that unknown sharecroppers have been installed in his land and remain silent. If the prior owner did not lodge a protest, it indicates that the sharecropper is the owner of the land.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָרִיס שֶׁחִלֵּק לַאֲרִיסִין – אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? אֵימוֹר הַרְמַנְיָא בְּעָלְמָא שַׁוְּיוּהּ.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A sharecropper who divided among different sharecroppers does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership by that act. What is the reason? It is that one can say that the landowner merely appointed him as an administrator [harmanya], and there is no indication that he is acting as an owner.
שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב, יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּינוּ: אָרִיס מֵעִיד, אוֹ אֵינוֹ מֵעִיד? הֲוָה יָתֵיב רַב יוֹסֵף קַמֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אָרִיס מֵעִיד. וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵינוֹ מֵעִיד!
The Gemara relates: Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda sent this message to Rav Naḥman bar Yaakov: Our teacher, instruct us. Can a sharecropper testify with regard to the ownership of a field of which he is a sharecropper, or can he not testify, as he is biased in his testimony? Rav Yosef was sitting before Rav Naḥman bar Yaakov and said to him: This is what Shmuel said: A sharecropper can testify. Rav Naḥman bar Yaakov said to him: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that a sharecropper cannot testify?
לָא קַשְׁיָא – הָא דְּאִיכָּא פֵּירָא בְּאַרְעָא, וְהָא דְּלֵיכָּא פֵּירָא בְּאַרְעָא.
Rav Yosef answered: It is not difficult. This baraita, which states that he cannot testify, is referring to a case where there is produce on the land. Therefore, he is biased in his testimony, as, if the current owner will lose possession of the land, the sharecropper will lose his right to consume the produce. And that statement of Shmuel that he can testify is referring to a case where there is no produce on the land, and he is not biased in his testimony.
(עֲמָלֵק סִימָן)
§ The Gemara presents the word Amalek as a mnemonic for the cases discussed in the baraita. It stands for: Ayin, guarantor [arev]; mem, creditor [malve]; lamed, buyer [loke’aḥ]; kuf, unconditional guarantor [kablan].
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עָרֵב מֵעִיד לַלֹּוֶה, וְהוּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ אַרְעָא אַחֲרִיתִי. מַלְוֶה מֵעִיד לַלֹּוֶה, וְהוּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ אַרְעָא אַחֲרִיתִי.
The Sages taught: A guarantor can testify for the benefit of the debtor that the latter owns a particular parcel of land, but that is the halakha only if the debtor has other land from which the creditor can collect the debt. Otherwise, he is biased in his testimony, as the creditor could collect from him if the debtor were to lose ownership of this land. A creditor can testify for the benefit of the debtor that the latter owns a particular parcel of land, but that is the halakha only if the debtor has other land from which the creditor can collect. Otherwise, he is biased in his testimony, as this land is the only land available for collection.
לוֹקֵחַ רִאשׁוֹן מֵעִיד לְלוֹקֵחַ שֵׁנִי, וְהוּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ אַרְעָא אַחֲרִיתִי.
Similarly, if two people purchase land from one seller, the first buyer can testify for the benefit of the second buyer if someone else were to claim that the land was his, but that is the halakha only if the second buyer has other land that he purchased from the same seller either concurrent with or subsequent to the first buyer’s purchase of the land in question. A creditor of the seller can collect a debt from the land that the seller sold most recently. Therefore, if the second buyer purchased only the land in question from the seller, the first buyer is biased in his testimony, as the second buyer’s ownership of the land prevents the creditor from collecting a debt from the land from the first buyer.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
Minnesota, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
Los Angeles, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel Aviv, Israel
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
Bava Batra 46
אֶלָּא לָאו דְּלֵיכָּא עֵדִים? וְקָתָנֵי: אוּמָּן מְהֵימַן – מִיגּוֹ דְּאִי בָּעֵי אָמַר לֵיהּ ״לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי״, מְהֵימַן נָמֵי אַאַגְרֵיהּ!
Rather, is it not referring to a case where there are no witnesses to the transfer, and it teaches that the craftsman is deemed credible? Since if he had wanted to he could have said to him: It is purchased and that is why it is in my possession, he is deemed credible with regard to his claim about his fee as well. This supports the ruling of Rabba that if there are no witnesses, the craftsman is deemed credible if he says that the item belongs to him.
לָא, לְעוֹלָם דְּלֵיכָּא עֵדִים; וְהוּא דְּלֹא רָאָה.
The Gemara rejects this proof: No, actually, perhaps the baraita is referring to a case where there are no witnesses to the transfer, but it is specifically referring to a case where the owner did not see the cloak in the possession of the craftsman, who could consequently deny ever having received it from the owner. Therefore, it is not a proof in support of the ruling of Rabba that the craftsman would be deemed credible even if there are witnesses that it is currently in his possession.
מֵתִיב רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אוּמָּן אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. אוּמָּן הוּא דְּאֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה – הָא אַחֵר יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak raises an objection to Rabba’s ruling from Shmuel’s paraphrase of the mishna: A craftsman does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership of property in his possession. This indicates that it is specifically a craftsman who does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership, but another person in similar circumstances has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים, אַחֵר – אַמַּאי יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה? אֶלָּא לָאו דְּלֵיכָּא עֵדִים? וְקָתָנֵי: אוּמָּן אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבָּה! תְּיוּבְתָּא.
What are the circumstances in which this would apply? If it is referring to a case where there are witnesses that the person in question received the item from another, why is it that another person has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership, when there are witnesses that he received this item as a deposit? Rather, is it not referring to a case where there are no witnesses, and yet, the mishna teaches: A craftsman does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership. This indicates that a craftsman does not establish the presumption of ownership under any circumstances, contrary to the ruling of Rabba. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rabba is indeed a conclusive refutation, and his ruling is rejected.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נִתְחַלְּפוּ לוֹ כֵּלִים בְּכֵלִים בְּבֵית הָאוּמָּן – הֲרֵי זֶה יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן, עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא הַלָּה וְיִטּוֹל אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ. בְּבֵית הָאֵבֶל אוֹ בְּבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן, עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא הַלָּה וְיִטּוֹל אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ. מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא?
§ The Gemara discusses another halakha pertaining to the giving of an item to a craftsman. The Sages taught: If one’s utensils were mistakenly switched with another’s utensils in the house of a craftsman, this one who received the wrong utensils may use them until the time when that one, whose utensils he received, comes and takes his. But if his utensils and another’s utensils were mistakenly switched in a house of mourning or in a house of a wedding feast, this one who took the wrong utensils may not use them in the interim, i.e., until the time when that one, whose utensils he took, comes and takes his. The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause where he may use the utensils, and what is different in the latter clause where he may not?
אָמַר רַב: הֲוָה יָתֵיבְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּחַבִּיבִי, וַאֲמַר לִי: וְכִי אֵין אָדָם עָשׂוּי לוֹמַר לָאוּמָּן ״מְכוֹר לִי טַלִּיתִי״?!
Rav said: I was sitting before my uncle, Rav Ḥiyya, and he said the explanation to me: And is a person not likely to say to the craftsman: Sell my cloak for me after you finish repairing it? It is possible that the craftsman mistakenly sold the utensils of another client instead, and gave to that other client the utensils that should have been sold. Since the owner of these utensils received the money from the sale of the other client’s utensils, the craftsman has a right to give the remaining utensils to the other client in the interim. This reasoning does not apply in the case of the house of mourning or a wedding feast, where one simply took utensils belonging to another.
אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא הוּא, אֲבָל אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו – לֹא. וְהוּא נָמֵי – לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״טַלִּית״ סְתָם, אֲבָל ״טַלִּיתְךָ״ – לָא, הַאי לָאו טַלִּית דִּידֵיהּ הוּא.
Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Naḥman, said: They taught that it is permitted to use the utensils only if the craftsman himself gave them to his customer, as in that case, the above reasoning applies. But if the craftsman’s wife or children gave them to him, the customer may not use the utensils, as it is likely that they were given to him in error. And even if the craftsman himself gave the utensils to his customer, we said that it is permitted for him to use them only in a case where the craftsman said to him, for example: I am returning a cloak, without specification. But if the craftsman said to him: I am returning your cloak, then he may not use it, as this is not his cloak, and clearly it was given to him in error.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרָבָא: תָּא אַחְוִי לָךְ רַמָּאֵי דְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא, מַאי עָבְדִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״הַב לִי סַרְבָּלַאי״. ״לֹא הָיוּ דְבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם״. ״הָא אִית לִי סָהֲדִי דְּחַזְיוּהּ גַּבָּךְ!״ אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״הָהוּא אַחֲרִינָא הֲוָה״. ״אַפְּקִינֵּיהּ וְנֶחְזִינְהוּ!״ אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״אִיבְרָא לָא מַפֵּיקְנָא לֵיהּ״.
§ The Gemara presents another statement with regard to craftsmen. Abaye said to Rava: Come and I will show you what the swindlers of Pumbedita do. There was a case where the owner of an item said to a craftsman: Give me back my cloak [sarbelai] that I gave you to repair, and the craftsman replied: These matters never occurred. The owner responded: But I have witnesses who saw it in your possession. The craftsman said to the owner: That was a different cloak that they saw. The witnesses are uncertain as to whether it was really his cloak. The owner then said: Bring it out and we will see it, so as to determine whose it is. The craftsman said to the owner: In truth, I will not bring it out, as you have no valid claim to the cloak and I am not willing to show you another’s property. This is the trickery to which Abaye referred, as it is not a sincere response, and the craftsman merely wishes to keep the cloak.
אָמַר רָבָא: שַׁפִּיר קָאָמַר לֵיהּ –
Rava said to Abaye: The craftsman is saying well to the owner, and his claim will be accepted,
״רָאָה״ תַּנְיָא.
as it is taught in the earlier baraita that the owner has a valid claim only when he, and witnesses, saw his cloak in the possession of the launderer and can definitively identify it. He cannot state a claim based on the mere possibility that it is his. This validates the claim of the craftsmen of Pumbedita.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: וְאִי חַכִּים, מְשַׁוֵּי לֵיהּ ״רָאָה״ – דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: אַמַּאי תְּפִיסַתְּ לֵיהּ, לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּאִית לָךְ גַּבַּאי? הַשְׁתָּא אַפְּקִינְהוּ וְשַׁיְּמִינְהוּ – שְׁקוֹל אַתְּ דִּידָך,ְ וְאֶשְׁקוֹל אֲנָא דִּידִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי, מָצֵי אָמַר לֵיהּ: לָא צְרִיכְנָא לְשׁוּמָא דִידָךְ, כְּבָר שָׁמוּהַּ קַמָּאֵי דְקַמָּךְ.
Rav Ashi said: And if the owner is clever, he will render the situation into one of his having seen his cloak, as the owner can say to the craftsman: Why are you holding it? Is it not due to the fact that there is money of yours with me, and you are using the cloak as a means of collecting the debt that I owe you? Now bring out my cloak before the appraisers and they will appraise its value, and then you take what is rightfully yours, and I will take what is rightfully mine. When the craftsman presents the cloak, the ruling will change, as the owner will have seen the cloak. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: If the craftsman is clever, he can say to the owner: I do not need your appraisal, as the earlier ones who preceded you already appraised it and determined that its value does not exceed that of your debt to me.
אָרִיס אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. אַמַּאי? עַד הָאִידָּנָא פַּלְגָא, וְהַשְׁתָּא כּוּלַּהּ! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בַּאֲרִיסֵי בָּתֵּי אָבוֹת.
§ The Gemara discusses a ruling that it paraphrases from the mishna: A sharecropper does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership of property in his possession. Why not? Isn’t it so that until that time, while he was definitely working as a sharecropper, he consumed only half of the produce of the land, and now, for the past three years, he consumed all of its produce? He should be able to establish the presumption of ownership by consuming more produce than a sharecropper does. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to family sharecroppers. This type of sharecropper, who works for a family for many years, gathers all of the produce into his property, and then returns the landowner’s share. Therefore, his collecting all of the produce into his property does not establish the presumption of ownership.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אָרִיס שֶׁהוֹרִיד אֲרִיסִין תַּחְתָּיו – יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּלָא עֲבִיד אִינָשׁ דְּנָחֲתִי אֲרִיסֵי לְאַרְעֵיהּ, וְשָׁתֵיק.
Rav Naḥman says: A sharecropper who installed other sharecroppers in his place has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership. What is the reason? It is that it is not common for a person to see that unknown sharecroppers have been installed in his land and remain silent. If the prior owner did not lodge a protest, it indicates that the sharecropper is the owner of the land.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָרִיס שֶׁחִלֵּק לַאֲרִיסִין – אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? אֵימוֹר הַרְמַנְיָא בְּעָלְמָא שַׁוְּיוּהּ.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A sharecropper who divided among different sharecroppers does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership by that act. What is the reason? It is that one can say that the landowner merely appointed him as an administrator [harmanya], and there is no indication that he is acting as an owner.
שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב, יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּינוּ: אָרִיס מֵעִיד, אוֹ אֵינוֹ מֵעִיד? הֲוָה יָתֵיב רַב יוֹסֵף קַמֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אָרִיס מֵעִיד. וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵינוֹ מֵעִיד!
The Gemara relates: Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda sent this message to Rav Naḥman bar Yaakov: Our teacher, instruct us. Can a sharecropper testify with regard to the ownership of a field of which he is a sharecropper, or can he not testify, as he is biased in his testimony? Rav Yosef was sitting before Rav Naḥman bar Yaakov and said to him: This is what Shmuel said: A sharecropper can testify. Rav Naḥman bar Yaakov said to him: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that a sharecropper cannot testify?
לָא קַשְׁיָא – הָא דְּאִיכָּא פֵּירָא בְּאַרְעָא, וְהָא דְּלֵיכָּא פֵּירָא בְּאַרְעָא.
Rav Yosef answered: It is not difficult. This baraita, which states that he cannot testify, is referring to a case where there is produce on the land. Therefore, he is biased in his testimony, as, if the current owner will lose possession of the land, the sharecropper will lose his right to consume the produce. And that statement of Shmuel that he can testify is referring to a case where there is no produce on the land, and he is not biased in his testimony.
(עֲמָלֵק סִימָן)
§ The Gemara presents the word Amalek as a mnemonic for the cases discussed in the baraita. It stands for: Ayin, guarantor [arev]; mem, creditor [malve]; lamed, buyer [loke’aḥ]; kuf, unconditional guarantor [kablan].
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עָרֵב מֵעִיד לַלֹּוֶה, וְהוּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ אַרְעָא אַחֲרִיתִי. מַלְוֶה מֵעִיד לַלֹּוֶה, וְהוּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ אַרְעָא אַחֲרִיתִי.
The Sages taught: A guarantor can testify for the benefit of the debtor that the latter owns a particular parcel of land, but that is the halakha only if the debtor has other land from which the creditor can collect the debt. Otherwise, he is biased in his testimony, as the creditor could collect from him if the debtor were to lose ownership of this land. A creditor can testify for the benefit of the debtor that the latter owns a particular parcel of land, but that is the halakha only if the debtor has other land from which the creditor can collect. Otherwise, he is biased in his testimony, as this land is the only land available for collection.
לוֹקֵחַ רִאשׁוֹן מֵעִיד לְלוֹקֵחַ שֵׁנִי, וְהוּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ אַרְעָא אַחֲרִיתִי.
Similarly, if two people purchase land from one seller, the first buyer can testify for the benefit of the second buyer if someone else were to claim that the land was his, but that is the halakha only if the second buyer has other land that he purchased from the same seller either concurrent with or subsequent to the first buyer’s purchase of the land in question. A creditor of the seller can collect a debt from the land that the seller sold most recently. Therefore, if the second buyer purchased only the land in question from the seller, the first buyer is biased in his testimony, as the second buyer’s ownership of the land prevents the creditor from collecting a debt from the land from the first buyer.
