## Bava Batra Daf 46b

###### Bava Batra 46b:1
[Bava Batra 46b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/46b:1)

״רָאָה״ תַּנְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
as it **is taught** in the earlier *baraita* that the owner has a valid claim only when he, and witnesses, **saw** his cloak in the possession of the launderer and can definitively identify it. He cannot state a claim based on the mere possibility that it is his. This validates the claim of the craftsmen of Pumbedita.


###### Bava Batra 46b:2
[Bava Batra 46b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/46b:2)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: וְאִי חַכִּים, מְשַׁוֵּי לֵיהּ ״רָאָה״ – דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: אַמַּאי תְּפִיסַתְּ לֵיהּ, לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּאִית לָךְ גַּבַּאי? הַשְׁתָּא אַפְּקִינְהוּ וְשַׁיְּמִינְהוּ – שְׁקוֹל אַתְּ דִּידָך,ְ וְאֶשְׁקוֹל אֲנָא דִּידִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי, מָצֵי אָמַר לֵיהּ: לָא צְרִיכְנָא לְשׁוּמָא דִידָךְ, כְּבָר שָׁמוּהַּ קַמָּאֵי דְקַמָּךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: And if** the owner **is clever, he will render** the situation into one of his having **seen** his cloak, **as** the owner can **say to** the craftsman: **Why** are you **holding it? Is it not due to** the fact **that there is** money of **yours with me,** and you are using the cloak as a means of collecting the debt that I owe you? **Now bring out** my cloak before the appraisers **and they will appraise its** value, and then **you take** what is rightfully **yours, and I will take** what is rightfully **mine.** When the craftsman presents the cloak, the ruling will change, as the owner will have seen the cloak. **Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi:** If the craftsman is clever, he **can say to** the owner: **I do not need your appraisal,** as the **earlier ones who preceded you already appraised it** and determined that its value does not exceed that of your debt to me.


###### Bava Batra 46b:3
[Bava Batra 46b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/46b:3)

אָרִיס אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. אַמַּאי? עַד הָאִידָּנָא פַּלְגָא, וְהַשְׁתָּא כּוּלַּהּ! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בַּאֲרִיסֵי בָּתֵּי אָבוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses a ruling that it paraphrases from the mishna: **A sharecropper does not have** the ability to establish the **presumption** of ownership of property in his possession. **Why** not? Isn’t it so that **until that time,** while he was definitely working as a sharecropper, he consumed only **half** of the produce of the land, **and now,** for the past three years, he consumed **all of** its produce? He should be able to establish the presumption of ownership by consuming more produce than a sharecropper does. **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The ruling of the mishna is stated **with regard to family sharecroppers.** This type of sharecropper, who works for a family for many years, gathers all of the produce into his property, and then returns the landowner’s share. Therefore, his collecting all of the produce into his property does not establish the presumption of ownership.


###### Bava Batra 46b:4
[Bava Batra 46b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/46b:4)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אָרִיס שֶׁהוֹרִיד אֲרִיסִין תַּחְתָּיו – יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּלָא עֲבִיד אִינָשׁ דְּנָחֲתִי אֲרִיסֵי לְאַרְעֵיהּ, וְשָׁתֵיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman says: A sharecropper who installed** other **sharecroppers in his place has** the ability to establish the **presumption** of ownership. **What is the reason?** It is **that** it is **not common** for **a person** to see **that** unknown **sharecroppers** have been **installed in his land and** remain **silent.** If the prior owner did not lodge a protest, it indicates that the sharecropper is the owner of the land.


###### Bava Batra 46b:5
[Bava Batra 46b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/46b:5)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָרִיס שֶׁחִלֵּק לַאֲרִיסִין – אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? אֵימוֹר הַרְמַנְיָא בְּעָלְמָא שַׁוְּיוּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A sharecropper who divided among** different **sharecroppers does not have** the ability to establish the **presumption** of ownership by that act. **What is the reason?** It is that one can **say** that the landowner **merely appointed him** as **an administrator [*harmanya*],** and there is no indication that he is acting as an owner.


###### Bava Batra 46b:6
[Bava Batra 46b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/46b:6)

שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב, יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּינוּ: אָרִיס מֵעִיד, אוֹ אֵינוֹ מֵעִיד? הֲוָה יָתֵיב רַב יוֹסֵף קַמֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אָרִיס מֵעִיד. וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵינוֹ מֵעִיד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda sent** this message **to Rav Naḥman bar Yaakov: Our teacher, instruct us. Can a sharecropper testify** with regard to the ownership of a field of which he is a sharecropper, **or can he not testify,** as he is biased in his testimony? **Rav Yosef was sitting before** Rav Naḥman bar Yaakov and **said to him: This is what Shmuel said: A sharecropper can testify.** Rav Naḥman bar Yaakov said to him: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that a sharecropper **cannot testify?**


###### Bava Batra 46b:7
[Bava Batra 46b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/46b:7)

לָא קַשְׁיָא – הָא דְּאִיכָּא פֵּירָא בְּאַרְעָא, וְהָא דְּלֵיכָּא פֵּירָא בְּאַרְעָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef answered: It is **not difficult. This** *baraita*, which states that he cannot testify, is referring to a case **where there is produce on the land.** Therefore, he is biased in his testimony, as, if the current owner will lose possession of the land, the sharecropper will lose his right to consume the produce. **And that** statement of Shmuel that he can testify is referring to a case **where there is no produce on the land,** and he is not biased in his testimony.


###### Bava Batra 46b:8
[Bava Batra 46b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/46b:8)

(עֲמָלֵק סִימָן)

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara presents the word *Amalek* as **a mnemonic** for the cases discussed in the *baraita*. It stands for: ***Ayin*,** guarantor [*arev*]; ***mem*,** creditor [*malve*]; ***lamed*,** buyer [*loke’aḥ*]; ***kuf*,** unconditional guarantor [*kablan*].


###### Bava Batra 46b:9
[Bava Batra 46b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/46b:9)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עָרֵב מֵעִיד לַלֹּוֶה, וְהוּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ אַרְעָא אַחֲרִיתִי. מַלְוֶה מֵעִיד לַלֹּוֶה, וְהוּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ אַרְעָא אַחֲרִיתִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught: A guarantor can testify for** the benefit of **the debtor** that the latter owns a particular parcel of land, **but that is** the *halakha* only **if** the debtor **has other land** from which the creditor can collect the debt. Otherwise, he is biased in his testimony, as the creditor could collect from him if the debtor were to lose ownership of this land. **A creditor can testify for** the benefit of **the debtor** that the latter owns a particular parcel of land, **but that is** the *halakha* only **if** the debtor **has other land** from which the creditor can collect. Otherwise, he is biased in his testimony, as this land is the only land available for collection.


###### Bava Batra 46b:10
[Bava Batra 46b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/46b:10)

לוֹקֵחַ רִאשׁוֹן מֵעִיד לְלוֹקֵחַ שֵׁנִי, וְהוּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ אַרְעָא אַחֲרִיתִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, if two people purchase land from one seller, the **first buyer can testify for** the benefit of the **second buyer** if someone else were to claim that the land was his, **but that is** the *halakha* only **if** the second buyer **has other land** that he purchased from the same seller either concurrent with or subsequent to the first buyer’s purchase of the land in question. A creditor of the seller can collect a debt from the land that the seller sold most recently. Therefore, if the second buyer purchased only the land in question from the seller, the first buyer is biased in his testimony, as the second buyer’s ownership of the land prevents the creditor from collecting a debt from the land from the first buyer.