Bava Batra 46a (מו.) — the Talmud in English

Rather, is it not

necessarily

that there are no witnesses

to the delivery? —

And

nevertheless

it teaches

in the beraita that as long as the garment is in the craftsman’s possession,

the craftsman is deemed credible,

and this must necessarily be because of the migo:

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

It is purchased and belongs to me,”

that is, the migo of the claim he could have made: “Nothing of the sort ever happened, because I did not receive it from you for repair; rather, I purchased it from you,”

he is also deemed credible with regard to his wage [he is deemed credible concerning his wage]. Thus, we have learned that he is deemed credible to claim, “It is purchased and belongs to me,” when there are no witnesses to the delivery; and this is in accordance with Rabba and not in accordance with Abaye[!?]

[he is trusted concerning his wage]; therefore we learned that he is trusted to claim "it was bought by me" in a case where there are no witnesses to the delivery; and what is the position of Rabba and not like Abbaye!?

And we answer:

No,

not as you interpreted the beraita, but

it is actually

a case in which there are no witnesses to the delivery. Nevertheless, the craftsman is not deemed credible because he could have said, “Nothing of the sort ever happened.” Rather, what are we dealing with here?

It is a case where he did not see

that there were no witnesses that the garment was in his possession; and because of the migo that he could have said, “I returned it,” he is deemed credible with regard to his wage.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak raised an objection

to Rabba from our Mishna, as we learned:

A craftsman [“craftsmen”]

the workers"]

does not have a presumption of ownership,

and it follows:

It is specifically a craftsman who does not have a presumption of ownership; but another person

who is not a craftsman

does have a presumption of ownership.

But

what are the circumstances

of the case? In what manner does our Mishna, which distinguishes between a craftsman and another person, deal with the matter?

If there are witnesses

to the delivery, as Rabba interpreted the Mishna: “They taught this only when he delivered it to him in the presence of witnesses,” and because if he delivered it to him without witnesses, even the craftsman would be deemed credible by virtue of the migo that he could have said, “Nothing of the sort ever happened”—if so,

another person

for whom there are witnesses that the owner gave it to him as a deposit, in the same manner as the craftsman—

why does he have a presumption of ownership?

After all, since we know how it came into his possession, it is inapplicable to say: Anything in a person’s possession is presumed to belong to him.

Rather, is it not

necessarily that our Mishna deals with a case

in which there are no witnesses

to the delivery,

and

nevertheless

it teaches

in our Mishna:

A craftsman does not have a presumption of ownership;

and

this is a refutation of Rabba,

who maintains that when there are no witnesses, he is deemed credible by virtue of the migo of “Nothing of the sort ever happened.” It is therefore compelled to follow Abaye’s position, that the intent of our Mishna is to teach that anyone who practices a particular craft is not deemed credible, even when it is not known that the item came into his possession in the capacity of a craftsman, because perhaps it did come into his possession in that capacity.

And we conclude: Indeed,

it is a refutation

of Rabba from our Mishna.

The Sages taught: If

the owner

had his utensils exchanged with other utensils in the craftsman’s house,

for example, he gave his garment to a launderer, and the launderer gave him a different garment in place of his own:

This person

—the owner—

may use them

the garment that the craftsman gave him

until the other person comes

—the owner of the garment—

and takes his own

as will be explained in the continuation of the discussion.

But if his utensils were exchanged

at a house of mourning or at a banquet,

where he took his fellow’s utensil instead of his own:

This person may not use them until the other person comes and takes his own.

And we raise a difficulty:

What is different in the first clause,

where his utensils were exchanged in the craftsman’s house, so that he is permitted to use them,

and what is different in the latter clause,

where his utensils were exchanged at a house of mourning or at a banquet, so that he is prohibited from using them!?

He said

—Rabbi Ḥiyya

explained: Is it not common for a person to say to a craftsman,

“Sell me [on my behalf]

for me] the"

my garment

to another person”!?

That is, certainly, as a matter of strict law he may not use an item that does not belong to him, as this constitutes “borrowing without the owner’s knowledge.” Rather, the reason that when his garment was exchanged in the craftsman’s house he is permitted to use it is that one may say: The owner of the garment that he received from the craftsman had told the craftsman to sell his garment on his behalf, but the craftsman mistakenly sold this person’s garment. When the craftsman realized his mistake, he took the garment that he had been told to sell and gave it to this person with his consent, until he returns his own garment to him; therefore, he is permitted to use the garment that the craftsman gave him—

but in a house of mourning or at a banquet, who permitted him to use his fellow’s utensils!?

Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Naḥman, said:

This will be clarified according to the wording of Rashbam who wrote: It is possible to say that the workman sold another talit which he was preparing at the owner's command to sell for him, and the workman erred and sold this one's talit, and he gave this talit to him knowingly, until he returns his own; and since he gave it knowingly he may use it. And plainly it seems from the language of the Gemara and Rashbam's wording that the matter is not his own and he could not have sold it, and that there is only a permission to use it which he received from the workman because they gave it to him knowingly;

They taught this

—that he is permitted to use the garment that the craftsman gave him—

only

when it was the craftsman

himself [the craftsman himself] who gave him the garment,

[the craftsman himself].

but

if

the craftsman’s wife or sons

gave him the garment that was not his—

he may not

use it, because one may say that they mistakenly exchanged his garment for another person’s garment.

And

the craftsman

also was not said

to permit the recipient to use the garment when he gave him a different garment,

except

in a case

where he said to him

at the time he handed over the garment: “Here is a

garment”

without specification; for then one may say that the craftsman knew it was not his, and gave him another garment—which had been given to him to sell—with the owner’s consent.

In that case, one may say that the craftsman knew it was not his and knowingly gave him another garment—the one that had been given to him to sell.

But

if the craftsman said to him at the time he handed over the garment, “Here is

your garment”—

he may not

use it. For

this is not his garment [this is not his garment]! That is, in that case one may say that the craftsman mistakenly thought he was giving him his own garment.

[that is, this is not his garment]. In other words, in that case one may say that the craftsman mistakenly thought he was giving him his own garment.

Abaye said to Rava:

Come, I will show you the swindlers of Pumbedita

what they do,

[Come and I will show you the swindlers of Pumbedita—the craftsmen there—how they deceive]!

He said to him,

the owner, to one of the craftsmen of Pumbedita:

Give me my sarbalai [return my garment]

[that I gave you to repair]!

He said to him,

that same craftsman to the owner:

Nothing of the sort ever happened,

you never gave me a garment to repair!

The owner said to that craftsman:

But I have witnesses who saw it with you

[I have witnesses who saw a garment in your possession]!? However, the witnesses did not identify that garment as the owner’s actual garment.

He said to him,

the craftsman to the owner:

That was something else

[the garment that the witnesses saw in my possession belonged to someone else, not to you]!

The owner said to that craftsman:

Bring it out, and let us see it

[take out the garment, and we will see whether it is mine], so that you can clear yourself of suspicion!

That craftsman justified himself and

said to him

to the owner:

In truth, I will not bring it out,

[I truly will not take it out]. That is, should I go and show you someone else’s property merely because of the nonsensical claims you are making to me!?

Rava said: He has answered Abaye well

the craftsman has answered Abaye! That is, although they are swindlers, the law is on their side, and even the most upright among the Jewish people could make such a claim.

And

for what reason

can the craftsman make such a claim?