Bava Batra 45b (מה:) — the Talmud in English

That does not enter your mind

do not understand it in this manner].

Rather: If one deposits an item with another in the presence of witnesses, he must return it to him in the presence of witnesses.

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

He raised an objection

further,

Abaye

to Rabba, concerning his view that even though witnesses saw the item in his possession and he cannot claim, “I returned it,” he is nevertheless deemed credible to claim, “I purchased it,” by virtue of a migo based on the claim, “These matters never occurred” [if there had been no witnesses who handed it to him, contradicting that claim], from the following, as it was taught:

If

the owner of the slave—and he even has witnesses who saw this—saw

his slave in the possession of a craftsman

who teaches a craft,

and his cloak in the possession of a launderer,

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

he says to him,

the owner of the slave or cloak says to the craftsman:

“What is it doing in your possession!?”

A

nd he says to him: “

”

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

he has said nothing,

because craftsmen do not acquire a presumption.

And if he said to him, “

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

as a gift,”

his words stand,

as it proceeds to explain.

And since the beraita was cited, the Gemara explains all of it:

The initial understanding in explaining the latter clause was that if the craftsman said, “In my presence you told so-and-so to sell it to me, or you told so-and-so to give it to me as a gift,” then the craftsman would be deemed credible—and therefore the Gemara asks:

What is the difference between the first clause and the latter clause?

Why should the craftsman be deemed credible to claim that another person sold it to him as the owner’s agent, more than he is deemed credible to claim that the owner himself sold it to him!?

A

nd Rabba said

to explain the beraita:

The

latter clause

does not concern a craftsman who makes this claim, but rather

when

the slave or cloak emerges

from the possession of another person

who acquired it from the craftsman—

And the other person says

the purchaser says to the owner of the slave or cloak: “

In my presence you told him

the craftsman

to sell it

to me,

and to give it

to me

as a gift”;

and therefore he is deemed credible:

For

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

the purchaser could have said to the owner of the slave or cloak: “

I purchased it from you,”

and he would have been deemed credible, since he is not a craftsman and has a presumption of ownership,

when he also says to him

the purchaser says

as well: “

In my presence you told him”—

to the craftsman—

“to sell it,”

his words stand, and he is deemed credible.

And Abaye concludes his objection:

In any event, the first clause teaches: “

If he saw

his slave in the possession of a craftsman,” the craftsman is not deemed credible to claim, “It is purchased and in my possession.” It is clear that he is not deemed credible to make this claim by virtue of a migo based on “These matters never occurred.” And

what are the circumstances?

If there are witnesses

who handed the slave to him to teach him a craft, and for that reason he is not deemed credible by virtue of a migo, since he could not say, “These matters never occurred,” because there are witnesses concerning the handover, this cannot be said, because:

If so,

why do I need “

if he saw

”—which implies that specifically because there were witnesses testifying that the item was in his possession is he not deemed credible!?

For even if witnesses did not see that the item was in his possession, but witnesses merely testified concerning the handover, why should he be deemed credible!? If it is because of a migo based on “These matters never occurred,” there are witnesses concerning the handover. And if you say that “if he saw” is necessary so that he should not be deemed credible by virtue of a migo based on “I returned it,” this too cannot be said, for according to your words, since he received the deposit in the presence of witnesses, he must return it in the presence of witnesses, and is not deemed credible to claim, “I returned it.” If so, there is no reason to deem him credible by virtue of the migo based on “I returned it” even when he did not see it, and

let him bring witnesses and take it

[let the owner of the item bring the witnesses who saw the handover and take it], even if they did not see the item in his possession!?

Rather, is it not

necessarily the case that the beraita is dealing with a situation

where there are no witnesses

concerning the handover,

and

nevertheless the beraita teaches that

when he saw

his slave and his cloak in the craftsman’s possession

at least—

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

He takes it

the homeowner takes it immediately from the craftsman, and the craftsman is not deemed credible to claim, “I purchased it from you,” by virtue of a migo based on “These matters never occurred,” meaning, “You did not hand it to me to repair.” Rather, even if he were to make that claim, he would not be deemed credible. This is a difficulty for Rabba, who holds that he is deemed credible!?

And Rabba answered Abaye:

No,

not as you explained the beraita; rather,

it always

deals with a situation

where there are witnesses

concerning the handover. Thus, he cannot claim, “These matters never occurred,” because the witnesses testified against him. And as for your difficulty, “Why do I need ‘if he saw’?”—that is not the case. Rather, specifically

when he saw

is the homeowner not deemed credible; but if he did not see it, he is deemed credible, by virtue of the migo based on “I returned it.” And it proceeds to explain this.

Abaye was astonished at him:

But you—

Rabba—

are the one who said: If one deposits an item with another in the presence of witnesses, he must repay him in the presence of witnesses!?

And since you interpret the beraita as dealing with a case in which he handed it to him in the presence of witnesses, even if he did not see it, he cannot claim, “I returned it,” since he has no witnesses. If so, why do I need “if he saw”? Let him bring witnesses and take it!?

He said to him,

Rabba said to Abaye:

I retract

[I retract] what I said: “If one deposits an item with another in the presence of witnesses, he must return it to him in the presence of witnesses”!

Rava raised an objection in support of Rabba,

meaning, Rava said as follows: A beraita was taught in accordance with Rabba, that when there are no witnesses concerning the handover, the craftsman is deemed credible to claim “purchased” by virtue of the migo based on “These matters never occurred”; and this is a refutation of Abaye:

As it was taught:

One who gives his cloak to a craftsman:

The craftsman says: “

You stipulated two

for my wages.”

And the other one

the homeowner

says: “

I stipulated only one

for your wages.” The law in this case varies:

a.

As long as the cloak

is still

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

through witnesses that he stipulated only one for his wages. For as long as the cloak is in his possession, he is deemed credible to claim, “These matters never occurred,” namely: “You did not give me this item to repair, and it is purchased and in my possession,” in accordance with Rabba; and by virtue of the migo, he may claim, “You owe me two for the labor.”

b. If he

gave it to him

the craftsman gave the homeowner his cloak

on time,

meaning, if he returned the cloak to him at the appointed time and claims his wages from him at the appointed time:

then the craftsman

takes an oath

that the homeowner stipulated two for him

and takes

two.

c. And if he claims from him when it has already

passed its time,

for the sun has already set, then

the one who seeks to collect from another

the hired laborer

bears the burden of proof

that he stipulated two for him.

And Rava concludes his objection: But

what are the circumstances

[in what circumstances does the beraita deal]?

If there are witnesses

that the homeowner handed the cloak to the craftsman, this cannot be said, because:

If so,

let the judges see

the judges should ascertain:

What do the witnesses say?

[Let us ask the witnesses who saw the handover how much the homeowner stipulated for him at the time of the handover.] For presumably, if they saw the handover, they also saw the stipulation.