Study Bava Batra folio 46A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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
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
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 est
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
§ The Talmud discusses another halakha pertaining to the giving of an item to a craftsman. A baraita states: If one’s utensils were mistakenly switched with another’s utensils in the house of a craftsman, this one who received the wrong utensils may use them until the time when that one, whose uten