Bava Batra 91

Chapter 91

א אלא לאו דליכא עדים וקתני אומן מהימן מיגו דאי בעי א"ל לקוחה היא בידי מהימן נמי אאגריה
1 We must suppose therefore that there were no witnesses, and the ruling stated is that the word of the workman is to be taken;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the garment has not yet been returned. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב לא לעולם דליכא עדים והוא דלא ראה
2 since he is able to plead that he has bought it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though it has been seen in his possession, as Rabbah ruled in the case above. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג מתיב רב נחמן בר יצחק אומן אין לו חזקה אומן הוא דאין לו חזקה הא אחר יש לו חזקה
3 his word is taken as to his payment. — [To which Abaye answers]: No. The case, in fact, is one in which there were no witnesses [to the original transfer], but we suppose that the owner has not seen it [in the hands of the workman].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore no inference can be drawn from this case to the one above. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד היכי דמי אי דאיכא עדים אחר אמאי יש לו חזקה אלא לאו דליכא עדים וקתני אומן אין לו חזקה תיובתא דרבה תיובתא:
4 R. Nahman b. Isaac raised an objection [against Rabbah's opinion from the following]: A CRAFTSMAN HAS NO <i>HAZAKAH</i>, from which we infer that other persons have <i>hazakah</i> [in such a case]. In what circumstances? If there are witnesses [who saw the article transferred], why have other persons <i>hazakah</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that they cannot plead that they bought it, supposing that it is seen in their possession, for if it is not so seen, then the workman also has hazakah. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה תנו רבנן נתחלפו לו כלים בכלים בבית האומן הרי זה ישתמש בהן עד שיבא הלה ויטול את שלו בבית האבל או בבית המשתה הרי זה לא ישתמש בהן עד שיבא הלה ויטול את שלו מאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא
5 We must suppose therefore [that the rule applies to the case] where there are no witnesses,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that they can plead that they bought it. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו אמר רב הוה יתיבנא קמיה דחביבי ואמר לי וכי אין אדם עשוי לומר לאומן מכור לי טליתי
6 and yet it is laid down that a craftsman has no <i>hazakah</i>! This refutation of Rabbah is decisive.
ז אמר רב חייא בריה דרב נחמן לא שנו אלא הוא אבל אשתו ובניו לא והוא נמי לא אמרן אלא דא"ל טלית סתם אבל טליתך לא האי לאו טלית דידיה הוא
7 Our Rabbis have taught: If a man receives another person's articles [of clothing] instead of his own from the workshop [where they have been sent for repair etc.], he may use them until the other comes and claims them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because we assume that the workman gave them to him purposely. V. infra. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ח א"ל אביי לרבא תא אחוי לך רמאי דפומבדיתא מאי עבדי אמר ליה הב לי סרבלאי לא היו דברים מעולם הא אית לי סהדי דחזיוה גבך אמר ליה ההוא אחרינא הוה אפקיניה ונחזינהו אמר ליה איברא לא מפיקנא ליה
8 If they have become exchanged in the house of a mourner or at a party he must not use them, [but must keep them on one side] until the other comes and claims them. Why should the ruling in these two cases be different?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'Why this difference between the first and latter (clauses)?' ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ט אמר רבא שפיר קאמר ליה
9 — Rab said: I was sitting before my uncle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hiyya. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> and he said to me, It is no unusual thing for a man to say to the workman, Sell my garment for me.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is possible to suppose that the tailor by mistake sold another man's coat and then gave that other man one to go on with until he should recover it, and since the tailor acted knowingly he may use it. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> R. Hiyya the son of R. Nahman said: This rule holds good only where the workman himself [gave him the coat], but not if it was given him by his wife or his sons.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the presumption is that they made a mistake. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> And even so he must not use it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'we do not say'. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> unless the workman says, Here is a garment,' but if he says, 'Here is your garment,' he must not use it, because this is not his garment. Abaye said to Raba: Come and I will show you a trick of the sharpers of Pumbeditha. A man will say [to his tailor], 'Give me back my cloak [that I gave you to repair].' The other will deny all knowledge of the matter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there were no such matters'. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> 'But,' the owner will say, 'I can bring witnesses [to declare] that they saw it in your possession'. 'That was a different one,' he will reply. The owner will then say to him, 'Bring it out and let us see.' To which he will reply. 'To be sure! I don't bring it out.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As if to say, 'I refuse to show you someone else's property.' Herein lay the deceit. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> Raba said to him: That is very clever of him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., to say that he knows nothing about the matter, and not to plead that he has bought it, since then the fact that it or one like it has been seen In his possession would militate against him. V. Tosaf. s.v. [H] ');"><sup>14</sup></span> seeing that