Bava Batra 90

המפקיד אצל חבירו בעדים אינו צריך להחזיר לו בעדים לא ס"ד אלא המפקיד אצל חבירו בעדים צריך להחזיר לו בעדים

that if a man entrusts an article to another in the presence of witnesses, the latter need not return it in the presence of witnesses?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because only on this supposition would his plea that he has bought it be valid, this plea itself being only a modified form of the plea 'I returned it to you'. ');">¹</span>

מיתיבי אביי ראה עבדו ביד אומן וטליתו ביד כובס אומר לו מה טיבו אצלך אתה מכרתו לי אתה נתתו לי במתנה לא אמר כלום בפני אמרת לו למוכרו וליתנו לו במתנה דבריו קיימין

This is quite wrong;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'It cannot enter your mind.' ');">²</span>

מאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא

if a man entrusts an article to another in the presence of witnesses, he must return it in the presence of witnesses.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore he cannot plead, 'I returned it to you,' nor, consequently, 'I bought it'. ');">³</span>

אמר רבה סיפא ביוצא מתחת ידי אחר וקאמר ליה אחר בפני אמרת לו למוכרו וליתנו במתנה מיגו דאי בעי א"ל מינך זבנתיה כי א"ל נמי בפני אמרת לו למוכרו דבריו קיימין ומהימן

Abaye raised an objection [to this from the following]: If a man sees his slave in the possession of a craftsman or his garment in the possession of a fuller, and says to him: 'How comes this with you?' [and the other replies:] 'You sold it to me,' or, 'You made a present of it to me,' his plea is of no effect. [If he says], 'In my presence you told him to sell it or to give it to me,' his plea is valid. Why is the ruling here different in the second case and in the first?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This question refers to the meaning of the above dictum; its bearing on the argument comes later. ');">⁴</span>

קתני מיהת רישא ראה היכי דמי אי דאיכא עדים למה לי ראה ניתי עדים ונשקול אלא לאו דליכא עדים וכי ראה מיהא תפיס ליה

— Rabbah explains that the second ruling refers to the case where the slave or the garment is in the hands of a third party who says to the claimant: 'In my presence you told him [the craftsman] to sell it [to me] or to present it as a gift.' In such a case, since if he chose he could plead 'I bought it from you,' when he merely pleads 'In my presence you told him to sell it,' his plea is certainly accepted. Now<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'At all events'. Abaye's objection is now stated. ');">⁵</span>

לא לעולם דאיכא עדים והוא דראה

the first ruling refers to the case where the claimant 'sees' [the article in the craftsman's possession]. What are the circumstances? If there are witnesses [that he entrusted the article to the craftsman], let him bring the witnesses and obtain possession.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since according to you (Rabbah) the craftsman cannot plead that he returned it unless he had witnesses to that effect. ');">⁶</span>

והא את הוא דאמרת המפקיד אצל חבירו בעדים צריך לפורעו בעדים אמר ליה הדרי בי

We must suppose therefore that there are no witnesses, and nevertheless if he sees the article he can seize it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that the 'seeing' is the essential point, and not the delivery in the presence of witnesses. ');">⁷</span>

מתיב רבא לסיועי לרבה הנותן טליתו לאומן אומן אומר שתים קצצת לי והלה אומר לא קצצתי לך אלא אחת כל זמן שהטלית ביד אומן על בעה"ב להביא ראיה נתנה לו בזמנו נשבע ונוטל עבר זמנו המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה

— [Rabbah replies]: No; the case is in fact one where [the article has been entrusted] in the presence of witnesses, but we must suppose also that the claimant sees it [in the possession of the craftsman].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbah now lays down that two conditions must be fulfilled if the craftsman is not to have hazakah — the delivery in the presence of witnesses and the 'seeing'. ');">⁸</span>

היכי דמי אי דאיכא עדים ליחזי עדים מאי קאמרי

But, [said Abaye,] you yourself said that if a man entrusts an article to another in the presence of witnesses he must return it in the presence of witnesses? — Rabbah replied: I retract [this opinion]. Raba sought to confute [Abaye and] to support Rabbah [from the following]: If a man gives his garment to a workman [to repair], if the workman says, You undertook to give me two [zuzim] and the owner says, I only undertook to give you one, then as long as the garment is in possession of the workman, it is for the owner to bring proof; if the workman has returned it, then if the prescribed time has not yet elapsed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the sun has not yet set. V. Deut. XXIV, 15. ');">⁹</span> he can take an oath and recover his claim,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a dispute about wages between an employer and a workman, if there is no evidence on either side, the word of the workman if given on oath is accepted. ');">¹⁰</span> but if the prescribed time has elapsed, then the rule applies that the onus probandi is on the claimant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the workman. V. B.M. 112b; Shebu. 46a. ');">¹¹</span> Now what are the circumstances? If [the owner gave the garment to the workman] in the presence of witnesses, then let us see what the witnesses say.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Presumably the witnesses also were aware of the payment stipulated. ');">¹²</span>