אלא לאו דליכא עדים—Rather, is it not where there are no witnesses

Overview¹ רבא is attempting to prove that [the רישא of] the ברייתא is in a case of ליכא עדים.² Therefore the entire ברייתא is בדליכא עדים even the cases of נתנה לו. Our תוספות explains why there is no contradiction from another גמרא.

תוספות asks: הקשה רבינו יצחק בן מאיר דהיכי מצי לאורויי בדליכא עדים – The ריב"ם had a difficulty; for how is it possible to understand the ברייתא in a case of ליכא עדים (and we say that by נתנה לו בזמנו the אומן is נשבע ונוטל) – אם כן אמאי בזמנו נשבע ונוטל הא אמרינן בריש כל הנשבעין (שבועות דף מה,ב ושם) – For if indeed this is so (that it was given שלא בעדים), why is the ruling that if the אומן claimed his payment בזמנו, the אומן is נשבע ונוטל, but the גמרא taught in the beginning of פרק כל הנשבעין – דאם שכרו שלא בעדים³ מתוך שיכול לומר לא שכרתיך מעולם – That if the בעה"ב hired the אומן without עדים, the rule is that since the בעה"ב can claim, ‘I never hired you’ so I do not owe you anything – יכול לומר לו שכרתיך ונתתי לך שכרך⁴ – The בעה"ב can also tell the אומן, ‘I hired you and I paid you! תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דלא קשה מידי דחדא דפלוגתא היא התם⁵ – And the ר"י says that there is no difficulty at all; firstly that this ruling is in dispute there in שבועות where others (may) disagree – ועוד דהכא⁶ ליכא האי מיגו כיון שמודה במקצת⁷ – And additionally here this מיגו (of לא שכרתיך) does not apply, since the בעה"ב admits partially – ואי אמר לא שכרתיך מעולם הוי כופר בכל וחזקה⁸ דאין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו: And if the בעה"ב would claim, ‘I never hired you’, he would be considered a כופר הכל (a complete denier), and there is the חזקה (presumption) that a person is not brazen (enough to deny completely) in the presence of his creditor.

SUMMARY Not everyone (necessarily) agrees that a בעה"ב has the מיגו of לא שכרתיך, and certainly not in our case where he is a מודה במקצת.

THINKING IT OVER The idea that a מוב"מ has no מיגו of כוה"כ is very well known. What was תוספות question in the first place, and why was it necessary for תוספות to offer another answer [first]?!

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Overview’ to the two previous תוס' on מה,ב ד"ה נתנה וד"ה אי. ² ליכא עדים means that there are no witnesses who saw the בעה"ב give the item to the אומן (to repair). ³ This is in a case where the שכיר demands payment and the בעה"ב claims that he paid him. The rule generally is that the שכיר is נשבע ונוטל (since the בעה"ב is טרוד בפועליו so he is confused). ⁴ Seemingly here too the בעה"ב should be believed that the price was one (not two as the אומן claims), since he has a מיגו that he never hired him and he owes him nothing, ⁵ The גמרא there states, מכלל דפליג ריש לקיש (עיי"ש). See (also) נחלת משה. ⁶ In our case here they are arguing how much was the price, as opposed to the גמרא in שבועות where they are arguing whether the שכיר was paid or not; only there is there this מיגו of להד"ם, but not here as תוספות explains. ⁷ The אומן claims, ‘you owe me two’, and the בעה"ב admits partially that he owes only one. This is the classic case of מודה במקצת where the rule is that the מודה במקצת is חייב a שבועה דאורייתא. ⁸ See ב"מ ג,א. Every מודה במקצת (seemingly) has a מיגו of being a כופר הכל, who is פטור from a שבועה, so why is a מוב"מ obligated to swear; let us believe him with a מיגו that he could have been כופר הכל. The answer is that there is no מיגו, for a person who is a מוב"מ is not brazen enough to be כופר הכל in the presence of his creditor. Here too the בעה"ב is a מוב"מ (see footnote # 7), he does not have the מיגו of claiming I never hired you, for that makes him a כופר הכל, and we just said that every מוב"מ does not have the העזה to be כוה"כ; therefore there is no מיגו! See ‘Thinking it over’. However in מס' שבועות, where the owner claims ‘I paid you’ (meaning he is a כופר הכל), is he believed with the מיגו of לא שכרתיך, for both in his claim and in his מיגו he is a כוה"כ (he is מעיז in either case). It is only a מוב"מ (who is not מעיז כ"כ) that is not believed with a מיגו of כוה"כ (where he is מעיז כ"כ).

אי דאיכא עדים אחר אמאי יש לו חזקה—If there are witnesses why does ‘another’ have a Chazokoh

OVERVIEW The גמרא is attempting to ascertain under which circumstances does the משנה rule that an אומן has no חזקה, however a non-אומן, has a חזקה. It cannot be in a case where there were witnesses who saw that the item was transferred to the recipient (with the intention of returning it to the owner), for in that case why does the ‘other’ (non-אומן) have a חזקה. Our תוספות further clarifies this case.

ונראה דבראה¹ מיירי דאי בלא ראה אומן נמי יש לו חזקה – And it appears to תוספות that this case of איכא עדים which the גמרא rejects (as the case where אומן אין לו חזקה, but אחר יש לו חזקה) is in a situation of ראה, for if it is in a situation where לא ראה, so an אומן would also have a חזקה and be believed with a – מיגו דאי בעי אמר החזרתיו לך דאין צריך להחזיר לו בעדים² אלא ודאי בראה מיירי – מיגו that he could have claimed, ‘I returned it to you’, for it is not necessary to return the item in the presence of עדים, so certainly it is a case of ראה – אם כן אחר אמאי יש לו חזקה כיון דאיכא עדים דבתורת פקדון בא לידו – So therefore the גמרא asks (if there are עדים [and ראה]) why would another (a non-אומן) have a חזקה, since there are עדים that it come into his possession as a פקדון (so he cannot claim that he bought it from him initially) – ולא מצי למיטען נמי החזרתי לך שהרי ראה – And the אחר also cannot claim, ‘I returned it to you’, since it is ראה. Therefore concludes the גמרא it must be in a case where ליכא עדים וראה where an אומן אין לו חזקה, however אחר יש לו חזקה.** ופירוש רבינו תם³ נראה לרבינו יצחק מאד רחוק על כן לא כתבתיו:** And it appears to the ר"י that the sר"ת' explanation is very far-fetched, so therefore תוספות did not write the פר"ת.****

SUMMARY When the גמרא asks אי דאיכא עדים is means איכא עדים וראה.

THINKING IT OVER Did our תוספות add anything to the פי' רשב"ם (in the (ד"ה אי דאיכא?

footnotes: ¹ ראה means that עדים saw the item by the אומן at the time of the די"ת. ² The גמרא concluded previously on מה,ב that even רבה agrees that המפקיד אצל חבירו בעדים אין צריך להחזיר לו בעדים. Therefore he would be exempt from returning it (or its value) if he would have claimed החזרתיו לך. ³ See מהר"ם.

וכי אין אדם עשוי לומר לאומן מכור לי טליתי—And is it then so that it is unusual to tell a craftsman, ‘sell my garment for me’

OVERVIEW The ברייתא rules that if ראובן gave his טלית to an אומן (for repair) and the אומן returned to ראובן the טלית of שמעון, he may use the טלית until his טלית is returned to him. However if ראובן took sשמעון' Talisby mistake in the בית האבל, he may not use it. רב חייא explained the reason he may use it when the אומן mixed them up is because it often happens that someone tells the אומן that he should sell his garment on his behalf. תוספות clarifies this explanation.

וטעה אומן ומכר את של זה – And the אומן made a mistake and sold the טלית of ראובן (who gave it to him to repair), instead of selling the טלית of שמעון (who asked him to sell it for him) – שהיה סבור למכור את של חבירו ונתן לו את של חבירו תחתיו¹ – For the אומן was planning on selling sשמעון' garment and instead he gave the buyer sראובן' garment – אבל אם לא היה עשוי לומר לאומן למכור – However if it were not customary to ask the אומן to sell on your behalf – לא היה מותר מחמת שטעה אומן ונתן את שלו לחבירו² – It would not be permitted for ראובן to use sשמעון' garment because the אומן made a mistake and gave sראובן' garment to שמעון (and sשמעון' garment to ראובן) – דהוי כנתחלפו לו בבית האבל או בבית המשתה – For then it is like the case where his garments got mixed up in a mourner’s house or at a party house – וסופו שיחזיר חבירו את שלו לאומן ויחזור ויתבע³ ממנו טליתו: Where eventually שמעון will return sראובן' garment to the אומן and will come back and demand from the אומן his (sשמעון') garment.

SUMMARY The issue is whether the original owner will be demanding his טלית back.

THINKING IT OVER The rule by an אומן is that ראובן may use sשמעון' garment, since the אומן mistakenly sold sראובן' garment.⁴ However what will happen if the buyer is unhappy with the sale and will return the garment; it will then turn out that ראובן used sשמעון' garment, even though it was not sold (and שמעון will want it back)?!⁵

footnotes: ¹ Therefore since it is customary to have the אומן sell a garment for you, we can assume that שמעון asked the אומן to sell his טלית, so when ראובן is using sשמעון' garment, שמעון does not mind, for he assumes his טלית has been sold (and all he is interested in is getting paid by the אומן). See ‘Thinking it over’. ² The logic of this (rejected) סברא is that in this case also, שמעון would not mind, since he is receiving sראובן' garment in exchange. So it is just like the אומן sold it, and instead of receiving money for the sale, he is receiving sראובן' garment as payment. Presumably the garments are (somewhat) similar (which caused the mix-up in the first place). ³ It seems the criteria whether one may use the other טלית is dependent on whether the owner will want it back or not. In the case of the אומן, the owner does not expect to receive his טלית back, for he assumes it was sold; therefore the other party may use it. However by the בית המשתה, the owner realizes that there was a mix-up and wants his טלית back; therefore it is אסור for the other party to use it. ⁴ See footnote # 1. ⁵ See רא"ש.

הא אית לי סהדי דחזיוה גבך—But I have witnesses who saw it by you

OVERVIEW The גמרא relates about the swindlers of פומבדיתא, that when a customer would approach a tailor and ask him for his garment, the tailor would respond להד"ם. The customer would say, ‘but I have witnesses who saw it by you’, the אומן would respond, ‘that is a different garment’. The אומן would not be willing to present the customer the garment in question for identification. The difficulty with this story is if the עדים positively identified the garment as belonging to the owner, how can the אומן be allowed to retain the garment; there are עדים?!

פירוש¹ טלית שהיו בו סימנים כעין שלי – The explanation of the customer’s statement, הא אית לי סהדי דחזיוה גבך, is that the עדים saw a garment that had identifying marks similar to my garment –

However, the עדים did not have a טביעות עין that they were able to recognize positively that it belongs to him

SUMMARY The עדים could not substantiate beyond a doubt that it belonged to the customer.

THINKING IT OVER Why is it that תוספות begins with discussing סימנים (that there were 'סימנים כעין שלי'), and תוספות concludes with 'טביעות עין'; why did not תוספות conclude with סימנים as well (like ולא שהיו להם סימנים מובהקים or סימנים ברורים, וכיו"ב)?!

footnotes: ¹ The term 'פירש' indicates that the explanation of the גמרא is (somewhat) different than what we may have assumed. Here, ‘הא אית ליה סהדי’, does not mean the עדים have positively identified it. ² טביעות עין means when someone recognizes an object by merely looking at it and knowing with a certainty to whom the object belongs, even though it would be difficult for him to describe what are the specific signs that makes him sure of his observation; it is like recognizing your black hat among many others. See ‘Thinking it over’. ³ Had the witnesses recognized it with a certainty that it belonged to him, the אומן would be obligated to return it to him, since the sאומן' claim of להד"ם has been refuted by the עדים.

שפיר קאמר ליה—He responded to him properly

Overview¹ רבא told אביי that the craftsman שפיר קאמר ליה, he responded effectively to the customer. תוספות explains, which response רבא is referring to.

דלא משוי ראה מאי טעמא דראה תניא² – The אומן responded properly so that he did not make this a situation of ראה; what is the reason that he was שפיר, because the ברייתא states ראה – תוספת asks: תימה לרבינו שמשון בן אברהם דמאי בעי למימר – The רשב"א is astounded, for what did רבא mean to say when he said that the אומן was שפיר קאמר ליה; which statement of the אומן was רבא referring to – אי בעי למימר שפיר קאמר דלא משוי ליה ראה דלא בעי לאפוקי דנחזייה³ – If רבא meant to say that the אומן responded properly in order not to make it a case of ראה, by not agreeing to bring it out so it could be seen; if indeed this is what רבא was referring to – דמה צריך למימר עלה ראה תניא⁴ – So why was it necessary for רבא to comment on this statement of the אומן that he is correct since ראה תניא; it is not necessary to use this proof and comment – פשיטא דאי מפיק ליה ויכירוה שהיא שלו דחייב להחזיר – It is obvious that the אומן was ‘smart’ in not willing to show the item, for if he would bring it out and the עדים would recognize that it belongs to the customer, that the אומן would be obligated to return it to the customer – שהרי כפר ואמר לא היו דברים מעולם⁵ – Since the אומן denied having the item and he claimed להד"ם, so he is completely refuted by the עדים! תוספות offers his explanation: ונראה לו לפרש הכי שפיר קאמר כלומר שטוען טענה זו לא היו דברים מעולם – And the רשב"א prefers to explain it thus; רבא said that the craftsman 'שפיר קאמר', referring to his original response where he claimed להד"ם – דעל ידי כך לא משוי ליה ראה הואיל ולעדים לא היה בה טביעות עין ויכול לומר אחר היה – So that through this claim of להד"ם, he did not allow this case to be considered ראה,⁶ since the עדים did not fully recognize the item, so he could then claim, ‘it was another garment; this is only because he initially claimed להד"ם – אבל אי הוה טעין לקוח הוא בידי לא היה נאמן – However if he would have claimed initially, ‘I bought it’, he would not be believed – דאין לו עוד מיגו דאי בעי אמר החזרתיו לך או לא היו דברים מעולם דירא לומר כן⁷ – For he no longer has the מיגו that he could have said, ‘I returned it to you’, or he could have said להד"ם, these מיגו**** are no longer an option for him, since he is afraid to make any of these two מיגו claims; the reason he is afraid, is – הואיל ויש עדים שראו טלית כאותו שהוא שלו בידו⁸ – Since there are witnesses who saw a טלית, in his possession similar to the customer’s טלית – והשתא אתי שפיר דקאמר מאי טעמא ראה⁹ תניא – And now it is properly understood this which רבא said, ‘what is the reason why שפיר קאמר, it is because ראה תניא – כלומר אף על פי שאינה ראיה גמורה של טביעות עין אלא שהיו בה סימנין כמו שלו – The word ראה in the ברייתא means, even though it is not a perfect seeing of a טביעות עין, but rather it had signs similar to his garment; that is also considered ראה –

For it seems to רבא that the ראה in the ברייתא means that by any type of ראה the אומן is not believed to claim, ‘I bought it’.¹⁰

SUMMARY The שפיר קאמר ליה is referring to his claim of להד"ם, for if he would have claimed לקוח, he would have no מיגו, since he is concerned about the minimal ראיה of the עדים. The meaning of ראה תניא is that a minimal ראיה is sufficient.

THINKING IT OVER What are the relative advantages of פי' רשב"ם,¹¹ and פי' רשב"א?

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Overview’ to the previous תוס' ד"ה הא. ² Others maintain that this is תוספות גירסא in our גמרא and this line דלא...תניא, is part of the heading of this תוספות. ³ This is seemingly the understanding of the רשב"ם בד"ה איברא וד"ה שפיר; that רבא is referring to the response of the אומן that 'איברא לא מפיקנא ליה'; ‘I’m not going to show it’. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ The ברייתא (on מה,ב) of ראה is in a case where the אומן claims ‘I bought it from you’, in which case if it was ראה (we see the item in the possession of the אומן) he is not believed for אומן אין לו חזקה, we assume it was given to him to repair the item; it was not sold to him. ⁵ Presumably this ruling would apply even to a non-אומן who claimed להד"ם, and the item was found by him. Therefore there is no need to refer to the ברייתא of ראה; it is self-understood that the אומן was ‘smart’ by refusing to show the item. ⁶ We cannot deal with him as an אומן (where the rule of ראה applies), since he claims להד"ם, and he is believed like anyone else, unless he is proved wrong. ⁷ A מיגו is effective when the claimant could have claimed the מיגו with the same ease as he is claiming his actual claim. Here however it is easier for him to claim לקוח where the עדים cannot contradict him, than claiming either החזרתי or להד"ם where the עדים contradict him. This is not a valid מיגו. ⁸ It is apparent from תוספות (who states that he cannot claim החזרתיו since there are עדים) that עדים are testifying that they saw the item in the sאומן' possession, very recently (or currently) that it is impossible for him to claim החזרתיו after they saw it. [The רשב"ם may not interpret the case in this manner.] ⁹ The emphasis is on the word ראה, which means, ‘he saw it’, but not necessarily that we completely sure that it is his; he ‘merely’ saw it. ¹⁰ He is not believed to claim לקוח, because he has no מיגו of החזרתי or להד"ם, since he is afraid to claim that since he is concerned that the עדים are contradicting him. ¹¹ See footnote # 3.