Bava Batra 45b — the Talmud in English

That does not enter your mind [

do not suppose so ],

rather: one who deposits [an item] with another in the presence of witnesses must return it to him in the presence of witnesses,

and since the craftsman has no witnesses that he returned it to him, it emerges that he cannot claim, “I returned it to you,” and therefore he is not trustworthy to say, “It is purchased and in my possession”!

He raised an objection

further

Abaye

to Rabba, concerning what he holds: even though witnesses see the object in his possession and he cannot claim, “I returned it,” nevertheless he is trustworthy to claim, “It is purchased and in my possession,” by virtue of the migo of “There were never any such things” [if there were no witnesses who gave it to him, contradicting this claim], from that which was taught:

See

the owner of the slave—and he even has witnesses concerning this sighting—

his slave in the possession of a craftsman

who teaches a craft,

and his garment in the possession of a launderer,

or the owner of a garment saw his garment in the possession of the launderer,

he says to him

the owner of the slave or garment to the craftsman:

What is its nature with you!?

And

he said to him: “

”

You sold him to me; you gave him to me as a gift,”

he has said nothing,

because craftsmen have no presumption.

And if he said to him, “

In my presence you told him to sell him to me, and to give him to me

as a gift,”

his words stand,

it explains and proceeds.

And incidentally, since it brings the beraita, the Gemara explains all of it:

It might enter your mind to explain the latter clause: if the craftsman said, “In my presence you told so-and-so to sell him to me, or you told so-and-so to give him to me as a gift,” then the craftsman is trustworthy—and therefore we asked:

What is different in the first clause, and what is different in the latter clause,

for why should the craftsman be trustworthy to claim that another person sold him to him as the agent of the householder, more than to claim that the householder himself sold him to him!?

And

Rabba said

to explain the beraita:

The

latter clause

does not concern a craftsman who makes this claim, but

when

the slave or garment emerges

from the possession of another

who took it from the craftsman—

and the other says [

the purchaser] to the owner of the slave or garment, “

In my presence you told him

to the craftsman

to sell him

to me,

and to give him

to me

as a gift”;

and therefore he is trustworthy:

for

since, had he wished, he could have said to him

the purchaser to the owner of the slave or garment, “

I purchased it from you,”

and it would have been trustworthy, since he is not a craftsman and has a presumption,

when he also says to him

the purchaser

also, “

In my presence you told him”—

to the craftsman—

to sell him,”

his words stand, and he is trustworthy.

And Abaye concludes his difficulty:

In any event, it teaches in the first clause: “

He saw

his slave in the possession of a craftsman,” the craftsman is not trustworthy to claim, “It is purchased and in my possession,” and it is explained that he is not trustworthy to make this claim by virtue of the migo of “There were never any such things,” and therefore

what are the circumstances?

If there are witnesses

who gave him the slave to teach him a craft, and because of this he is not trustworthy by virtue of a migo, since he could not have said, “There were never any such things,” because there are witnesses concerning the giving, this cannot be said, for:

If so,

why do I need “

he saw,”

which implies: specifically because there were witnesses testifying that the object was in his possession, for that reason he is not trustworthy!?

But even if witnesses did not see that the object was in his possession, but witnesses merely testified concerning the giving, why should he be trustworthy!? If it is because of the migo of “There were never any such things,” there are witnesses concerning the giving. Should you say that “he saw” is needed so that he should not be trustworthy by virtue of the migo of “I returned it,” this too cannot be said, for according to your words, since he deposited it with him in the presence of witnesses, he must return it in the presence of witnesses and is not trustworthy to claim, “I returned it,” and if so, because of the migo of “I returned it,” there is no reason to trust him even when he did not “see,” and

let us bring witnesses and take it [

the owner of the object shall bring the witnesses to the giving and take it] even if they did not see the object in his possession!?

Rather, is it not

necessarily that the beraita is dealing with a case

where there are no witnesses

concerning the giving,

and

nevertheless the beraita teaches that

when he saw [

his slave and his garment in the craftsman’s possession]

in any event—

that he could not claim, “I returned it”— -

the householder seizes it from the craftsman immediately, and the craftsman is not trustworthy to claim, “I took it from you,” by virtue of the migo of “There were never any such things,” namely, “You did not give it to me to repair”; rather, even if he made this claim, he would not be trustworthy, and this is a difficulty against Rabba, who holds that he is trustworthy!?

And Rabba answered Abaye:

not

as

you explained the beraita, but

in fact

the beraita is dealing with a case

where there are witnesses

concerning the giving, so that he cannot claim, “There were never any such things,” because the witnesses testified against him; and as for your difficulty, why do I need “he saw,” it is not so, but specifically

when he saw

then the householder is not trustworthy, but if he did not see, he is trustworthy, because of the migo of “I returned it,” and it explains and proceeds.

Abaye was astonished at him:

But you—

Rabba—

are the one who said: One who deposits [an item] with another in the presence of witnesses must pay him in the presence of witnesses!?

And since you explain the beraita in a manner in which he gave it to him in the presence of witnesses, then even if he did not “see,” he cannot claim, “I returned it,” since he has no witnesses; and why do I need “he saw”? Let us bring witnesses and take it!?

He said to him

Rabba to Abaye:

I retract [

I retract what I said: One who deposits [an item] with another in the presence of witnesses must return it to him in the presence of witnesses]!

Rava raised an objection to support Rabba,

that is, Rava said as follows: It was taught in accordance with Rabba, that where there are no witnesses concerning the giving, the craftsman is trustworthy to claim “purchased” by virtue of the migo of “There were never any such things,” and it is a refutation of Abaye:

For it was taught:

One who gives his garment to a craftsman:

The craftsman says, “

You fixed two

for my wages.”

And the other—

the householder—

says, “

I fixed only one for you

for your wages”; the law in this case is divided:

a.

As long as the garment

is still

in the craftsman’s possession, the householder must bring proof

through witnesses that he fixed for him only one as his wage; for as long as the garment is in his possession, he is trustworthy to claim, “There were never any such things,” namely: “You did not give me this object to repair, and it is purchased and in my possession,” in accordance with Rabba, and because of the migo he can claim, “You owe me two for the work.”

b. If

he gave it to him

the craftsman gave the householder his garment

at its appointed time,

that is, if he returns the garment to him at the appointed time and demands his wage for the work at its appointed time:

then the craftsman

swears

that the householder fixed two for him

and takes

two.

c. And if he demands payment when

his time has already passed,

for the sun has already set, then

the one who takes from another—

he is the hired worker—

must bring proof

that he fixed two for him.

And Rava concludes his difficulty: but

what are the circumstances [

in what manner does the beraita deal]?

If there are witnesses

that the householder gave the garment to the craftsman; this cannot be said, for:

If so,

let the judges see

the judges:

What do the witnesses say [

let us ask the witnesses who saw the giving how much he fixed for him at the time of the giving]!? For presumably, if they saw the giving, they also saw the fixing.