Study Bava Batra folio 47A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
קבלן – אמרי לה מעיד, ואמרי לה אינו מעיד. אמרי לה מעיד – כערב דמי. ואמרי לה אינו מעיד – דניחא ליה דלהוו בידיה תרוייהו, דכי אתי בעל חוב – מאי דבעי שקיל.
With regard to an unconditional guarantor [kablan], from whom the creditor can collect even if the debtor is able to repay the loan, some say that he can testify on behalf of the debtor if the latter owns other land, and some say that he cannot testify even if the debtor owns other land. The Talmud explains: Some say that he can testify because he is like a guarantor, and some say that he cannot testify, as it is preferable for him that both fields be in the debtor’s possession, so that when a creditor comes to collect the debt, he will take what he wants, and not collect from the unconditional guarantor.
אמר רבי יוחנן: אומן אין לו חזקה, בן אומן יש לו חזקה. אריס אין לו חזקה, בן אריס יש לו חזקה. גזלן ובן גזלן אין להן חזקה, בן בנו של גזלן יש לו חזקה.
§ R' Yoḥanan said: A craftsman does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership, but the son of a craftsman has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership. A sharecropper does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership, but the son of a sharecropper has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership. Both a robber and the son of a robber do not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership, but the son of the son of a robber has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership.
היכי דמי? אי אתו בטענתא דאבוהון – אפילו הנך נמי לא. אי דלא אתו בטענתא דאבוהון – אפילו בן גזלן נמי!
The Talmud asks: What are the circumstances under which there is a distinction between the sons of the craftsman and the sharecropper and the son of the robber? If they come to court with the claim that the item in question belonged to their fathers, then even these sons of the craftsman and the sharecropper should not be able to establish the presumption of ownership, since their claims are based on ownership by those who cannot establish the presumption of ownership. If the case is that they do not come to court with the claim that the item in question belonged to their fathers, but that they own the item in their own right, then even the son of a robber should be able to establish the presumption of ownership.