Bava Batra 46b (מו:) — the Talmud in English

Because

“See”

“It was taught”

in the beraita cited above, on page 45b, as it was taught: “If he saw his slave in the hands of a craftsman, or his garment in the hands of a launderer, he says to him: What is the nature of this item in your possession? Did you sell it to me? Did you give it to me as a gift? He has said nothing.” We have thus learned: It is only when witnesses testify that they saw this person’s garment in the hands of the craftsman that the craftsman is not deemed credible. But in the case under discussion, the witnesses do not know that the garment in the craftsman’s possession is in fact this person’s garment.

Rav Ashi said:

And if he is clever,

if the claimant is clever,

he can make it a case of “see”

he can employ a stratagem so that it will be considered “see,” and consequently the craftsman will not be deemed credible! How?

He says to him,

the one who gave the garment to the craftsman says to him: “But

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

[surely you are holding my garment 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.

Now take it out and have it appraised,

and

you take yours and I will take mine

[take out the garment you seized and appraise it, so that if it is worth more than my debt, you will return the surplus to me]. After all, you are not a thief; rather, you were forced to seize it so that I would not deny the debt. Now that I am not denying it, you will certainly return the surplus to me!”

And when the craftsman is enticed to take out the garment, he will then say to him again: “I am giving you nothing!”

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

If the craftsman is clever, he will not be enticed. Rather,

he can say to him

the craftsman can say to the owner of the garment:

“I do not need your appraisal; it has already been appraised by those who appraised it before you”,

[there is no need to appraise whether it is worth more than the debt, since appraisers have already established with complete certainty that it is worth exactly the amount of my debt, and there is no surplus].

We learned in the Mishna:

A sharecropper [

“sharecroppers” ]

has no presumption of ownership:

And we raise an objection:

Why

is the sharecropper not deemed credible when, after eating the produce of the entire field for three years, he claims that he purchased the field? After all,

until now—

when he entered the field—he received

half, and now the entire amount

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

He said

he answered:

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

What are we dealing with here?

With sharecroppers whose families have held the position for generations.

They are the sharecroppers of the landowner’s family for generations, and they customarily consume the produce of the field for three or four years as their sharecropping arrangement, after which the owners consume the entire field. Therefore, they have no presumption of ownership.

Rav Naḥman said: A sharecropper—

even if he is one of these hereditary sharecroppers, who generally has no presumption of ownership—

who appointed other sharecroppers in his place

[he brought other sharecroppers into the field to work it], while he himself did not work in the field at all, and did so for three years:

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 hereditary sharecroppers, who have no presumption of ownership?

Because

a person does not ordinarily allow sharecroppers to bring other sharecroppers down onto his land and remain silent

[it is not the way of a landowner to remain silent when he sees his sharecropper bring strangers into the field, lest they damage his fields, unless the sharecropper himself is working together with them]!

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

A sharecropper

of a hereditary sharecropping family

who divided the field among other sharecroppers,

while he himself also worked together with them,

has no presumption of ownership!

That is, although if he brought other sharecroppers into the field and did not work together with them he has a presumption of ownership, nevertheless, if he brought sharecroppers and worked together with them, he has no presumption of ownership, as though he had not brought other 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 authorized him to bring sharecroppers to assist him, since a landowner does not ordinarily object to this when he himself is working together with them.

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

A sharecropper

of Reuven—does he

testify

for Reuven that the field belongs to him, against Shimon, who is contesting it and saying, “It is mine”—

or does he not testify,

because he has a personal interest in the testimony, as 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 may testify!

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught:

A sharecropper

may not testify!?

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

This—

the beraita that teaches that a sharecropper may not testify—is referring to 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 portion, and there is produce in the field from which his portion can be paid. Therefore he is not deemed credible, because if Shimon is victorious in court, he too will take the produce of the field, and the sharecropper will suffer a loss; consequently, he has a personal interest in the testimony.

And this—

what Shmuel said, that a sharecropper may testify—is referring to a case

where there is no produce in the field

[there is no produce in the field], and the sharecropper has not worked it at all this year. He has no personal interest in this field.

Amalek [guarantor; creditor; purchaser; contractor] is the mnemonic:

The Sages taught:

Guarantor: A guarantor may testify for the borrower

The Sages taught:

Regarding the fact that the Gemara gave a mnemonic using the name of Amalek, even though there is a commandment to erase his name [see the explanation of the Vilna Gaon on Orach Chayim 690:17, who cites the Midrash: “Erase the memory of Amalek—even from wood and stones see there], the Ya’avetz wrote in his glosses that preserving a textual version is permitted; see there at greater length.

for whom he guaranteed, concerning land that belongs to him, against a 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 creditor can collect the debt. For if the borrower has no land from which to pay the debt, the guarantor has a personal interest in this testimony establishing that this land remain in the borrower’s possession, so that the creditor will not turn to him to repay the debt.

Creditor: Likewise,

a creditor may testify for the borrower

against a claimant:

provided that he has

the borrower

other land

from which the creditor can collect his debt. For if he has no other land, the creditor 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.

Purchaser: Likewise,

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.

the first purchaser

who initially purchased land from Reuven

may testify for the second purchaser

who purchased other land from Reuven afterward, against a claimant who contests the second field, saying that it is his and that Reuven sold it unlawfully to the second purchaser—

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. For otherwise, the first purchaser has a personal interest in the testimony, because he wants land to remain in the possession of the second purchaser, so that Reuven’s creditor will take that land and not his own, since a creditor always proceeds against the last land that the debtor sold.

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.