Study Bava Batra folio 46A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אלא לאו דליכא עדים? וקתני: אומן מהימן – מיגו דאי בעי אמר ליה ״לקוחה היא בידי״, מהימן נמי אאגריה!
Rather, is it not referring to a case where there are no witnesses to the transfer, and it teaches that the craftsman is deemed credible? Since if he had wanted to he could have said to him: It is purchased and that is why it is in my possession, he is deemed credible with regard to his claim about his fee as well. This supports the ruling of Rabba that if there are no witnesses, the craftsman is deemed credible if he says that the item belongs to him.
לא, לעולם דליכא עדים; והוא דלא ראה.
The Talmud rejects this proof: No, actually, perhaps the baraita is referring to a case where there are no witnesses to the transfer, but it is specifically referring to a case where the owner did not see the cloak in the possession of the craftsman, who could consequently deny ever having received it from the owner. Therefore, it is not a proof in support of the ruling of Rabba that the craftsman would be deemed credible even if there are witnesses that it is currently in his possession.
מתיב רב נחמן בר יצחק: אומן אין לו חזקה. אומן הוא דאין לו חזקה – הא אחר יש לו חזקה.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak raises an objection to Rabba’s ruling from Shmuel’s paraphrase of the Mishnah: A craftsman does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership of property in his possession. This indicates that it is specifically a craftsman who does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership, but another person in similar circumstances has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership.
היכי דמי? אי דאיכא עדים, אחר – אמאי יש לו חזקה? אלא לאו דליכא עדים? וקתני: אומן אין לו חזקה. תיובתא דרבה! תיובתא.
What are the circumstances in which this would apply? If it is referring to a case where there are witnesses that the person in question received the item from another, why is it that another person has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership, when there are witnesses that he received this item as a deposit? Rather, is it not referring to a case where there are no witnesses, and yet, the Mishnah teaches: A craftsman does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership. This indicates that a craftsman does not establish the presumption of ownership under any circumstances, contrary to the ruling of Rabba. The Talmud concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rabba is indeed a conclusive refutation, and his ruling is rejected.