## Bava Batra Daf 47a

###### Bava Batra 47a:1
[Bava Batra 47a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/47a:1)

קַבְּלָן – אָמְרִי לַהּ מֵעִיד, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אֵינוֹ מֵעִיד. אָמְרִי לַהּ מֵעִיד – כְּעָרֵב דָּמֵי. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אֵינוֹ מֵעִיד – דְּנִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּלֶהֱווֹ בִּידֵיהּ תַּרְוַיְיהוּ, דְּכִי אָתֵי בַּעַל חוֹב – מַאי דְּבָעֵי שָׁקֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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 Gemara 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.


###### Bava Batra 47a:2
[Bava Batra 47a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/47a:2)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אוּמָּן אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה, בֶּן אוּמָּן יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה. אָרִיס אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה, בֶּן אָרִיס יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה. גַּזְלָן וּבֶן גַּזְלָן אֵין לָהֶן חֲזָקָה, בֶּן בְּנוֹ שֶׁל גַּזְלָן יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi 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.


###### Bava Batra 47a:3
[Bava Batra 47a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/47a:3)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי אָתוּ בְּטַעְנְתָא דַאֲבוּהוֹן – אֲפִילּוּ הָנָךְ נָמֵי לָא. אִי דְּלָא אָתוּ בְּטַעְנְתָא דַאֲבוּהוֹן – אֲפִילּוּ בֶּן גַּזְלָן נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara 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.


###### Bava Batra 47a:4
[Bava Batra 47a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/47a:4)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּקָא אָמְרִי עֵדִים: ״בְּפָנֵינוּ הוֹדָה לוֹ״. הָנָךְ – אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר קוּשְׁטָא קָא אָמְרִי. הַאי – אַף עַל גַּב דְּאוֹדִי נָמֵי לָא מְהֵימַן, כִּדְרַב כָּהֲנָא – דְּאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: אִי לָאו דְּאוֹדִי לֵיהּ, הֲוָה מַמְטֵי לֵיהּ וּלְחַמְרֵיהּ לְשַׁחְווֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** to state this distinction in a case **where** the **witnesses say:** The prior owner **admitted to** their father **in our presence** that the property was the father’s and not stolen. The Gemara explains: With regard to **these,** the sons of the craftsman and sharecropper, it **can be said** that the sons **are saying the truth,** as their claim is substantiated by the testimony of the admission. But with regard to **that** one, the son of the robber, **even though** the prior owner **admitted** this, the son is **still not deemed credible, in accordance with** the statement **of Rav Kahana, as Rav Kahana said: If** the prior owner would **not** have **admitted** this **to** the robber, the robber **would have brought him and his donkey to** the **taskmaster [*leshaḥvar*],** meaning he would have caused him great difficulties. As a robber is assumed to be a ruffian, it is likely that the prior owner admitted this because he was intimidated, and not because the statement was true, so there is no evidence to support the claim of the robber’s son.


###### Bava Batra 47a:5
[Bava Batra 47a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/47a:5)

אָמַר רָבָא: פְּעָמִים שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ בֶּן בְּנוֹ שֶׁל גַּזְלָן נָמֵי אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? כְּגוֹן דְּקָא אָתֵי בְּטַעְנְתָא דְּאַבָּא דַּאֲבוּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** There are **times when even** the **son of** the **son of** the **robber does not have** the ability to establish the **presumption** of ownership. **What are the circumstances** under which this is so? This is so, for example, **in** a case **where** he **comes** to court **with the claim** that the item in question **belonged to his father’s father.** Since his claim is based on its having belonged to one who did not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership, he too is unable to establish the presumption of ownership.


###### Bava Batra 47a:6
[Bava Batra 47a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/47a:6)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי גַּזְלָן? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוּחְזַק עַל שָׂדֶה זוֹ בְּגַזְלָנוּתָא. וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן דְּבֵית פְּלוֹנִי, שֶׁהוֹרְגִין נְפָשׁוֹת עַל עִסְקֵי מָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** under which one is considered **a robber,** who does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership? **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** In a case **such as where it is established** that he is in possession **of this field through robbery. And Rav Ḥisda says:** Not only in a case where there is knowledge about this specific field, but even in a case **such as** one where he is a member **of** the **household of so-and-so,** a certain known criminal family at the time **who kill people over monetary matters.** Since people would be afraid to lodge a protest against them, members of this family cannot establish the presumption of ownership with regard to any land.


###### Bava Batra 47a:7
[Bava Batra 47a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/47a:7)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אוּמָּן – אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה, יָרַד מֵאוּמָּנוּתוֹ – יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה. אָרִיס – אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה, יָרַד מֵאֲרִיסוּתוֹ – יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה. בֵּן שֶׁחָלַק, וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה – הֲרֵי הֵן כִּשְׁאָר כׇּל אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught: A craftsman does not have** the ability to establish the **presumption** of ownership. If he **descended from his** position of **craftsmanship** and no longer works at that craft, then he **has** the ability to establish the **presumption** of ownership with regard to items related to his former craft. **A sharecropper does not have** the ability to establish the **presumption** of ownership. If he **descended from his** position as **a sharecropper,** then he **has** the ability to establish the **presumption** of ownership with regard to land that he works and from which he profits for three years. A son does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to his father’s property, nor a wife with regard to her husband’s property. But with regard to **a son who separated** himself from his father’s finances, **and a woman who became divorced, they are like other people** with regard to this property, and have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership.


###### Bava Batra 47a:8
[Bava Batra 47a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/47a:8)

בִּשְׁלָמָא בֵּן שֶׁחָלַק – אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: אַחוֹלֵי אַחֵיל גַּבֵּיהּ, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא. אֶלָּא אִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה – פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted, it was necessary** to state that **a son** who **separated** himself establishes the presumption of ownership. If the *baraita* had not stated this, it would **enter your mind to say** that the father **forgave** the unauthorized use of his land **by** his son, and did not lodge a protest despite the fact that the land did not belong to the son. Therefore, the *baraita* **teaches us that** this is **not** so, and that the son does establish the presumption of ownership. **But** in the case of the **woman who became divorced,** it is **obvious** that she has no relationship with her ex-husband, so why is it necessary for the *baraita* to teach that she is able to establish the presumption of ownership? The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** to teach that she does not establish the presumption of ownership