Todays daf is sponsored by Emma Rinberg in loving memory of her parents, Dr. Eric, Yitzchak Nisan ben Yaacov, and Marjorie Glick, Miriam Chana bat Rachel. “My Mum passed away 3 years ago on Av 5, my Dad 34 years ago on 10 Tammuz. Dearly loved and greatly missed by all their family.”
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 Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
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 Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Bava Batra 45
אִי דְּאִית לֵיהּ אַרְעָא אַחֲרִיתִי, עֲלֵיהּ דִּידֵיהּ הָדַר! אִי דְּלֵית לֵיהּ אַרְעָא אַחֲרִיתִי, מַאי נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִינָּה?
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.
לְעוֹלָם דְּלֵית לֵיהּ אַרְעָא אַחֲרִיתִי, דְּאָמַר: לָא נִיחָא דְּלֶיהְוֵי ״לֹוֶה רָשָׁע וְלֹא יְשַׁלֵּם״.
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: “The wicked borrows, and pays not” (Psalms 37:21).
סוֹף סוֹף, לְגַבֵּי אִידַּךְ נָמֵי – ״לֹוֶה רָשָׁע וְלֹא יְשַׁלֵּם״ הוּא! דְּאָמַר: לְהָכִי זַבֵּינִי לָךְ שֶׁלֹּא בְּאַחְרָיוּת.
The Gemara asks: But ultimately, he is also in the category of: “The wicked borrows, and pays not” (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.
מַכְרֵיז רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב פָּפָּא: דְּסָלְקִין לְעֵילָּא וּדְנָחֲתִין לְתַתָּא; הַאי בַּר יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּזָבֵין לֵיהּ חֲמָרָא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל חַבְרֵיהּ, וְקָא אָתֵי גּוֹי וְאָנֵיס לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ, דִּינָא הוּא דִּמְפַצֵּי לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ.
§ 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.
וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכִּיר בָּהּ שֶׁהִיא בַּת חֲמוֹרוֹ, אֲבָל מַכִּיר בָּהּ שֶׁהִיא בַּת חֲמוֹרוֹ – לָא. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא אָנֵיס לֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ וּלְאוּכָּפָא, אֲבָל אָנֵיס לֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ וּלְאוּכָּפָא – לָא.
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’s donkey, and it is possible that the gentile’s claim is true. But if the buyer recognizes that this is the offspring of the seller’s donkey, then the seller is not liable to reimburse him. It is clear that the gentile’s claim is false, so the seller bears no responsibility for the buyer’s 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.
אַמֵּימָר אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ לֵיכָּא כׇּל הָנֵי – לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? מִידָּע יָדַע דִּסְתַם גּוֹי אַנָּס הוּא – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר פִּיהֶם דִּבֶּר שָׁוְא וִימִינָם יְמִין שָׁקֶר״.
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: “Whose mouth speaks falsehood, and their right hand is a right hand of lying” (Psalms 144:8).
אוּמָּן אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבָּה: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁמָּסַר לוֹ בְּעֵדִים, אֲבָל מָסַר לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים – מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ ״לֹא הָיוּ דְבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם״, כִּי אָמַר לֵיהּ נָמֵי ״לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי״ – מְהֵימַן.
§ 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ בְּעֵדִים נָמֵי – מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ: ״הֶחְזַרְתִּיו לְךָ״, כִּי אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי״ – מְהֵימַן!
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה: מִי סָבְרַתְּ
Rabba said to Abaye: Do you maintain that
הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ בְּעֵדִים – אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַחְזִיר לוֹ בְּעֵדִים? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ – אֶלָּא הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ בְּעֵדִים, צָרִיךְ לְהַחֲזִיר לוֹ בְּעֵדִים.
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.
מֵיתִיבִי אַבָּיֵי: רָאָה עַבְדּוֹ בְּיַד אוּמָּן, וְטַלִּיתוֹ בְּיַד כּוֹבֵס, אָמַר לוֹ: ״מַה טִּיבוֹ אֶצְלְךָ?״ ״אַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי״, ״אַתָּה נְתַתּוֹ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. ״בְּפָנַי אָמַרְתָּ לוֹ לְמוֹכְרו וְלִיתְּנוֹ לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה״ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין.
Abaye raises an objection to Rabba’s 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.
מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא?
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?
אָמַר רַבָּה: סֵיפָא – בְּיוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי אַחֵר, וְקָאָמַר לֵיהּ אַחֵר: בְּפָנַי אָמַרְתָּ לוֹ לְמוֹכְרוֹ וְלִיתְּנוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה. מִיגּוֹ דְּאִי בָּעֵי אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״מִינָּךְ זְבַנְתֵּיהּ״, כִּי אָמַר לֵיהּ נָמֵי: ״בְּפָנַי אָמַרְתָּ לוֹ לְמוֹכְרוֹ״ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין, וּמְהֵימַן.
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.
קָתָנֵי מִיהַת רֵישָׁא: ״רָאָה״. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים – לְמָה לִי רָאָה? נַיְתֵי עֵדִים וְנִשְׁקוֹל! אֶלָּא לָאו דְּלֵיכָּא עֵדִים? וְכִי רָאָה מִיהָא תָּפֵיס לֵיהּ!
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’s 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’s possession, he may seize the slave or cloak in any case? This contradicts Rabba’s statement that the decisive factor is whether the transfer took place in the presence of witnesses.
לָא, לְעוֹלָם דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים; וְהוּא דְּרָאָה.
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.
וְהָא אַתְּ הוּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ: הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ בְּעֵדִים, צָרִיךְ לְפוֹרְעוֹ בְּעֵדִים! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲדַרִי בִּי.
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.
מֵתִיב רָבָא לְסַיּוֹעֵי לְרַבָּה: הַנּוֹתֵן טַלִּיתוֹ לְאוּמָּן, אוּמָּן אוֹמֵר: שְׁתַּיִם קָצַצְתָּ לִי, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: לֹא קָצַצְתִּי לְךָ אֶלָּא אַחַת. כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהַטַּלִּית בְּיַד אוּמָּן – עַל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה. נְתָנָהּ לוֹ – בִּזְמַנּוֹ, נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. עָבַר זְמַנּוֹ, הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה.
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’s 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.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים, לִיחְזֵי עֵדִים מַאי קָאָמְרִי!
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.
Follow 
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 graduated college in December 2019 and received a set of shas as a present from my husband. With my long time dream of learning daf yomi, I had no idea that a new cycle was beginning just one month later, in January 2020. I have been learning the daf ever since with Michelle Farber… Through grad school, my first job, my first baby, and all the other incredible journeys over the past few years!
Sigal Spitzer Flamholz
Bronx, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Adina Hagege
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Joanna Rom
Northwest Washington, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Shira Jacobowitz
Jerusalem, Israel
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Rachel Rotenberg
Tekoa, Israel
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Diana Bloom
Tampa, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Pamela Elisheva
Bakersfield, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Phyllis Hecht
Hashmonaim, Israel
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Renee Braha
Brooklyn, NY, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Rookie Billet
Jerusalem, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Beth Kissileff
Pittsburgh, United States
While vacationing in San Diego, Rabbi Leah Herz asked if I’d be interested in being in hevruta with her to learn Daf Yomi through Hadran. Why not? I had loved learning Gemara in college in 1971 but hadn’t returned. With the onset of covid, Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Michelle centered me each day. Thank-you for helping me grow and enter this amazing world of learning.
Meryll Page
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Rochel Cheifetz
Riverdale, NY, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Mona Fishbane
Teaneck NJ, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Susan Handelman
Jerusalem, Israel
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Sandrine Simons
Atlanta, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Adina Hagege
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Bava Batra 45
אִי דְּאִית לֵיהּ אַרְעָא אַחֲרִיתִי, עֲלֵיהּ דִּידֵיהּ הָדַר! אִי דְּלֵית לֵיהּ אַרְעָא אַחֲרִיתִי, מַאי נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִינָּה?
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.
לְעוֹלָם דְּלֵית לֵיהּ אַרְעָא אַחֲרִיתִי, דְּאָמַר: לָא נִיחָא דְּלֶיהְוֵי ״לֹוֶה רָשָׁע וְלֹא יְשַׁלֵּם״.
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: “The wicked borrows, and pays not” (Psalms 37:21).
סוֹף סוֹף, לְגַבֵּי אִידַּךְ נָמֵי – ״לֹוֶה רָשָׁע וְלֹא יְשַׁלֵּם״ הוּא! דְּאָמַר: לְהָכִי זַבֵּינִי לָךְ שֶׁלֹּא בְּאַחְרָיוּת.
The Gemara asks: But ultimately, he is also in the category of: “The wicked borrows, and pays not” (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.
מַכְרֵיז רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב פָּפָּא: דְּסָלְקִין לְעֵילָּא וּדְנָחֲתִין לְתַתָּא; הַאי בַּר יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּזָבֵין לֵיהּ חֲמָרָא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל חַבְרֵיהּ, וְקָא אָתֵי גּוֹי וְאָנֵיס לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ, דִּינָא הוּא דִּמְפַצֵּי לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ.
§ 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.
וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכִּיר בָּהּ שֶׁהִיא בַּת חֲמוֹרוֹ, אֲבָל מַכִּיר בָּהּ שֶׁהִיא בַּת חֲמוֹרוֹ – לָא. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא אָנֵיס לֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ וּלְאוּכָּפָא, אֲבָל אָנֵיס לֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ וּלְאוּכָּפָא – לָא.
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’s donkey, and it is possible that the gentile’s claim is true. But if the buyer recognizes that this is the offspring of the seller’s donkey, then the seller is not liable to reimburse him. It is clear that the gentile’s claim is false, so the seller bears no responsibility for the buyer’s 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.
אַמֵּימָר אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ לֵיכָּא כׇּל הָנֵי – לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? מִידָּע יָדַע דִּסְתַם גּוֹי אַנָּס הוּא – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר פִּיהֶם דִּבֶּר שָׁוְא וִימִינָם יְמִין שָׁקֶר״.
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: “Whose mouth speaks falsehood, and their right hand is a right hand of lying” (Psalms 144:8).
אוּמָּן אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבָּה: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁמָּסַר לוֹ בְּעֵדִים, אֲבָל מָסַר לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים – מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ ״לֹא הָיוּ דְבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם״, כִּי אָמַר לֵיהּ נָמֵי ״לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי״ – מְהֵימַן.
§ 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ בְּעֵדִים נָמֵי – מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ: ״הֶחְזַרְתִּיו לְךָ״, כִּי אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי״ – מְהֵימַן!
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה: מִי סָבְרַתְּ
Rabba said to Abaye: Do you maintain that
הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ בְּעֵדִים – אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַחְזִיר לוֹ בְּעֵדִים? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ – אֶלָּא הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ בְּעֵדִים, צָרִיךְ לְהַחֲזִיר לוֹ בְּעֵדִים.
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.
מֵיתִיבִי אַבָּיֵי: רָאָה עַבְדּוֹ בְּיַד אוּמָּן, וְטַלִּיתוֹ בְּיַד כּוֹבֵס, אָמַר לוֹ: ״מַה טִּיבוֹ אֶצְלְךָ?״ ״אַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי״, ״אַתָּה נְתַתּוֹ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. ״בְּפָנַי אָמַרְתָּ לוֹ לְמוֹכְרו וְלִיתְּנוֹ לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה״ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין.
Abaye raises an objection to Rabba’s 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.
מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא?
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?
אָמַר רַבָּה: סֵיפָא – בְּיוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי אַחֵר, וְקָאָמַר לֵיהּ אַחֵר: בְּפָנַי אָמַרְתָּ לוֹ לְמוֹכְרוֹ וְלִיתְּנוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה. מִיגּוֹ דְּאִי בָּעֵי אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״מִינָּךְ זְבַנְתֵּיהּ״, כִּי אָמַר לֵיהּ נָמֵי: ״בְּפָנַי אָמַרְתָּ לוֹ לְמוֹכְרוֹ״ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין, וּמְהֵימַן.
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.
קָתָנֵי מִיהַת רֵישָׁא: ״רָאָה״. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים – לְמָה לִי רָאָה? נַיְתֵי עֵדִים וְנִשְׁקוֹל! אֶלָּא לָאו דְּלֵיכָּא עֵדִים? וְכִי רָאָה מִיהָא תָּפֵיס לֵיהּ!
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’s 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’s possession, he may seize the slave or cloak in any case? This contradicts Rabba’s statement that the decisive factor is whether the transfer took place in the presence of witnesses.
לָא, לְעוֹלָם דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים; וְהוּא דְּרָאָה.
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.
וְהָא אַתְּ הוּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ: הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ בְּעֵדִים, צָרִיךְ לְפוֹרְעוֹ בְּעֵדִים! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲדַרִי בִּי.
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.
מֵתִיב רָבָא לְסַיּוֹעֵי לְרַבָּה: הַנּוֹתֵן טַלִּיתוֹ לְאוּמָּן, אוּמָּן אוֹמֵר: שְׁתַּיִם קָצַצְתָּ לִי, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: לֹא קָצַצְתִּי לְךָ אֶלָּא אַחַת. כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהַטַּלִּית בְּיַד אוּמָּן – עַל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה. נְתָנָהּ לוֹ – בִּזְמַנּוֹ, נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. עָבַר זְמַנּוֹ, הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה.
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’s 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.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים, לִיחְזֵי עֵדִים מַאי קָאָמְרִי!
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.
Follow
