Bava Batra 92

Chapter 92

א ראה תניא
1 the rule laid down<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 45b. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> is that the owner must see it [in the hands of the craftsman].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since he has not seen it (and the witnesses are not sure that the one they saw was the same) he cannot invalidate the other's plea that he knows nothing about it. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב אמר רב אשי ואי חכים משוי ליה ראה דאמר ליה אמאי תפיסת ליה לאו משום דאית לך גבאי השתא אפקינהו ושימינהו שקול את דידך ואשקול אנא דידי א"ל רב אחא בריה דרב אויא לרב אשי מצי א"ל לא צריכנא לשומא דידך כבר שמוה קמאי דקמך:
2 Said R. Ashi: If he [the owner] is clever, he will procure a sight of it by saying to the tailor, The reason why you are keeping back the coat is because I owe you money, is it not? Why not then bring it out and have it valued so that you can take what is yours and I can take what is mine?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., take the coat in payment of the debt and give me the surplus. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> R. Aha b. R. Awia said to R. Ashi: The tailor can say to him, I do not require your valuation, it has already been valued by the people before you.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And I know it is not worth any more than the sum you owe me. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג אריס אין לו חזקה: אמאי עד האידנא פלגא והשתא כולה א"ר יוחנן באריסי בתי אבות
3 A METAYER HAS NO <i>HAZAKAH</i>. Why so, seeing that at first he took only half [the produce]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This being the condition on which the field is transferred to him. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> and now [for three years] he has taken the whole?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore there is a presumption that he purchased the field. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ד אמר רב נחמן אריס שהוריד אריסין תחתיו יש לו חזקה מאי טעמא דלא עביד אינש דנחתי אריסי לארעיה ושתיק
4 — R. Johanan said: We are speaking here of hereditary metayers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who take the whole produce for three or more years and then give the whole to the owners for the same number of years. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> R. Nahman said: A metayer who instals other metayers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And does not himself work with them. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ה א"ר יוחנן אריס שחלק לאריסין אין לו חזקה מאי טעמא אימור הרמניא בעלמא שויוה
5 in his place has <i>hazakah</i>, because a man will not usually allow metayers to be installed in his field and say nothing. R. Johanan said: A metayer who assigns parts of his field to other metayers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And himself works with them. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ו שלח ליה ר"נ בר רב חסדא לר"נ בר יעקב ילמדנו רבינו אריס מעיד או אינו מעיד הוה יתיב רב יוסף קמיה אמר ליה הכי אמר שמואל אריס מעיד והתניא אינו מעיד
6 has no <i>hazakah</i>. Why so? Because we may presume that permission was given him to do so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the owner saw no need to raise a protest. This is the rendering of Rashb. The Aruch renders, 'The owner regards him simply as an overseer,' and therefore saw no need to protest. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> R. Nahman b. R. Hisda sent [an inquiry] to R. Nahman b. Isaac [saying]. Would our teacher [be so good as to] instruct us, whether a metayer can testify [to the title of his employer]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supposing that it is contested by a third party. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ז לא קשיא הא דאיכא פירא בארעא והא דליכא פירא בארעא
7 or not. R. Joseph was sitting before him, and said to him: Samuel has definitely laid down that a metayer may so testify. But it has been taught that he may not testify? — There is no conflict of opinion. In the one case [we suppose] that there is produce on the land, in the other that there is no produce on the land.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If there is produce on the land, then if the land is assigned to the claimant the metayer will lose his share in it; hence he is an interested party and must not give evidence on behalf of his employer. If, however, there is no produce on the land, it is a matter of indifference to him to whom the land is assigned, as he will always be able to find employment. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> (Mnemonic 'AMaLeK)<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A ='Areb (surety); M = Malveh (lender); L = Loveh (borrower); K = Kablan (go-between). ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ח (עמלק סימן)
8 Our Rabbis taught: A surety may testify on behalf of the borrower,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In regard to land claimed from him by a third party. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> provided that the borrower has other land [besides that which is being claimed from him.]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because in that case, even if the land is assigned to the claimant, the borrower will still have land on which the creditor can distrain if he fails to pay his debt, and the surety will not feel himself jeopardised; hence he is not an interested party. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
ט תנו רבנן ערב מעיד ללוה והוא דאית ליה ארעא אחריתי מלוה מעיד ללוה והוא דאית ליה ארעא אחריתי
9 A lender may testify on behalf of a borrower,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In regard to land claimed from him by a third party. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> provided that the borrower has other land [besides that which is being claimed from him].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The same reason applies as to the surety. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
י לוקח ראשון מעיד ללוקח שני והוא דאית ליה ארעא אחריתי
10 A first purchaser may testify on behalf of a second purchaser,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if A has sold land to B and then sold other land to C, and C's title is contested by a third party. then B may testify on behalf of C. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> provided that the latter has other land<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., which he has bought from A. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> [besides that which is being claimed from him].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rule is that if a creditor has a lien upon land which his debtor has sold, he must seize first the land which the debtor has sold last. Hence in this case, if A's creditor is authorised to seize land which he has sold to others, he cannot seize the land sold to B until he has first seized the land sold to C. Hence if more land has been sold to C than that actually claimed from him, B is not an interested party and may give evidence on his behalf. Similarly B may give evidence on behalf of A himself if he possesses other land besides that which is being claimed from him, and the rule might have been stated in the form 'the purchaser may testify on behalf of the seller', etc. ');"><sup>19</sup></span>