Bava Batra 46b — the Talmud in English

Because

see

it was taught in the beraita brought above, on page 46a, and as it was taught: “If he saw his slave in the hands of a craftsman, or his cloak in the hands of a launderer, he says to him: What is its nature with you? You bought it from me? You received it from me as a gift? He has said nothing”—we have thus learned: only when witnesses testify that they saw this person’s cloak in the hands of the craftsman is the craftsman not trustworthy; but in the case before us, the witnesses do not know that this person’s cloak is indeed in the hands of the craftsman.

Rav Ashi said:

And if he is clever,

if the claimant is clever,

he can make it into a case of “see”

[he can employ a stratagem so that it will be “see,”] and consequently the craftsman will not be trustworthy! How?

For he says to him,

the person giving the cloak to the craftsman says to him: “But

why are you holding it? Is it not because you have a claim against me

[surely this is why you are holding my cloak: because I owe you its value], and you are concerned that I will deny my debt!? If so, I am informing you that I am not denying my debt, and

now take it out and have it appraised,

and

take what is yours, and I will take what is mine

[take out the cloak that you seized and have it measured, so that if it is worth more than my debt, you will return the surplus to me], for you are not a thief; rather, you had to seize it so that I would not deny [the debt], and now that I am not denying it, surely you will return the surplus to me!”

And when the craftsman is induced to take out the cloak, he will return and say to him: “I am giving you nothing!”

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi:

If the craftsman is clever, then he will not be induced; rather,

he can say to him,

the craftsman can say to the owner of the cloak:

“I do not need your appraisal; those before you have already appraised it”,

[there is no need to appraise whether it is worth more than the debt, for it has already been clarified with complete certainty by appraisers that it is worth the amount of my debt, and there is no surplus].

We learned in the Mishna:

A sharecropper [“

the sharecroppers”]

has no presumption of ownership:

And we raise an objection:

Why

is the sharecropper not trustworthy, when he has eaten the entire field for three years, to claim that he purchased the field!? After all,

until now—

when he entered the field—

half, and now the whole

[until now he ate only half of it, and now he eats all of it], contrary to the practice of sharecroppers!? And if the sharecropper had not purchased it from the landowner, the latter should have protested that he not eat all of it.

Said

he answered:

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

What are we dealing with here?

With sharecroppers of ancestral families,

they are the sharecroppers of the field owner’s family for generations, and these customarily eat the field for their sharecropping for three or four years, and afterward the owners eat the entire field; therefore they have no presumption of ownership.

Rav Naḥman said: A sharecropper—

even if he is a sharecropper of ancestral families, who ordinarily has no presumption of ownership—

who installed sharecroppers in his place

[he installed other sharecroppers in the field to work it], while he himself does not work in the field at all, and he did this for three years:

he has a presumption of ownership.

And we explain:

What is the reason

that he has a presumption of ownership and is not like the other sharecroppers of ancestral families, who have no presumption of ownership?

Because

a person would not ordinarily install sharecroppers in his land and remain silent

[it is not the way of a field owner to remain silent when he sees that his sharecropper is installing strangers in the field, lest they damage his fields, unless the sharecropper himself works together with them]!

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

A sharecropper

of ancestral families

who divided the field among other sharecroppers,

while he himself also works together with them,

has no presumption of ownership!

That is, although if he installed other sharecroppers and did not work together with them he has a presumption of ownership, nevertheless, if he installed sharecroppers and worked together with them, he has no presumption of ownership, as though he had not installed sharecroppers.

And we explain:

What is the reason,

what distinction is there between this law and Rav Naḥman’s law?

Because

perhaps they appointed him as a supervisor,

perhaps the landowner gave him permission to bring sharecroppers to assist him; for it is not the way of a landowner to object to this when he too works together with them.

Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda sent to Rav Naḥman bar Yaakov: Let our master teach us:

The sharecropper

of Reuben—does he

testify

for Reuben that the field is his, against Simeon, the opposing claimant, who says, “It is mine”—

or does he not testify,

because he has an interest in the testimony, since he benefits from the produce of the field?

Rav Yosef was sitting before him

[Rav Yosef was sitting before Rav Naḥman bar Yaakov when this question came before him]! And

he said to him,

Rav Yosef said to Rav Naḥman bar Yaakov:

This is what Shmuel said:

A sharecropper testifies!

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught:

A sharecropper

does not testify!?

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

This—

that was taught: A sharecropper does not testify—is in a case

where there is

still

produce in the field

[the produce is still in the field]; that is, the sharecropper has not yet taken his share, and there is produce in the field from which to pay him his share. Therefore he is not trustworthy, because if Simeon is victorious in court, he too will take the produce of the field, and the sharecropper will lose; and if so, he has an interest in the testimony.

And this—

that Shmuel said: A sharecropper testifies—is in a case

where there is no produce in the field

[there is no produce in the field], and the sharecropper also did no work in it at all during this year; and he has no interest in this field.

Amalek [guarantor; lender; purchaser; contractor] is the mnemonic: The Sages taught:

guarantor; lender; purchaser; contractor

A guarantor:

A guarantor testifies for the borrower

for whom he guaranteed, concerning land that belongs to him, against an opposing claimant who says that the land belongs to him—

provided that he has other land

[provided that the borrower has other land] from which the lender can collect his debt; for if the borrower has no land from which to repay his debt, the guarantor has an interest in this land remaining in the borrower’s possession, so that the lender will not return to him to have him repay the debt.

A lender: and likewise

a lender testifies for a borrower

against an opposing claimant:

provided that he has the borrower other land

from which the lender can collect his debt; for if he has no other land, the lender wants the land to remain in the borrower’s possession, so that he will be able to collect his debt from it, and he has an interest in the testimony.

A purchaser: and likewise the first purchaser, who first purchased land from Reuben, testifies for the second purchaser,

provided that he has

the borrower

other land

from which the lender can collect his debt. If he has no other land, the lender wants the land to remain in the borrower’s possession so that he can collect his debt from it, and therefore he has a personal interest in the testimony.

who purchased other land from Reuben after him, against an opposing claimant who challenges the second field, saying that it is his and that Reuben did not lawfully sell it to the second purchaser—

provided that he has other land;

provided that the second purchaser has other land that he purchased from Reuben, or that Reuben himself has other land; for if not, the first purchaser has an interest in the testimony, because he wants land to remain in the possession of the second purchaser, so that Reuben’s creditor will take that land and not take his land, because a lender always goes to the last land that the borrower sold.

may testify for a second purchaser

who later purchased other land from Reuven, against a challenger who challenges the second field, claiming that it belongs to him and that Reuven sold it to the second purchaser unlawfully—

provided that he has other land;

provided that the second purchaser has other land that he purchased from Reuven, or that Reuven himself has other land. Otherwise, the first purchaser has a personal interest in the testimony, because he wants the second purchaser to retain land, so that Reuven’s creditor will take that land and not his own. For a creditor always proceeds against the last field sold by the debtor.