Bava Batra 45: Craftspeople and Migo

The rabbis continue to discuss the intricacies of when a seller is responsible for what he sold.  If one sold his field without achrayut, responsibility, he cannot testify about it because this would enable his creditor to collect that land.  Is this only the case when that person holds other land as well?  If that person had no other land, he does not need to worry about having his sold land collected.  In fact, he might want the land to be collected for a number of reasons, one being that he didn't want to be liable to compensate the buyer.

The rabbis discuss another example.  This time they tell of a donkey that was sold and then seized by a Gentile.  Should the buyer take the Gentile to court so that the seller will be compensated - and so that the seller will not be considered to be a borrower who does not repay?   The seller must be sure that the Gentile actually owned the donkey.  If not, the seller is exempt from responsibility.  And if there is an indication that the donkey was stolen - if the Gentile took the donkey's saddle - then the seller is exempt from responsibility.  In fact, the rabbis argue, in all cases the seller is not responsible for liability.  The particular Gentiles discussed are idol-worshippers who are known to lie. Our notes teach us that those Gentiles who live in places governed by laws are not assumed to lie.

The rabbis move on to discuss the Mishna's earlier comment regarding craftspeople having no chazakah.  Is this only when a witness sees an owner pay a craftsperson.  Otherwise the craftsperson benefits from the principle of migo: he could have benefited from denying having received payment.  Then again, migo could be used to explain other possible events.  Rabba says that one who accepts a deposit in front of witnesses must return it in front of witnesses as well.

A question is introduced by Abaye: if one sees his slave with a craftsperson who teaches or his garment with a launderer, and those people claim that he bought or was gifted the slave or the garment, he is not believe.  He is believed if he claims that she saw the original owner tell him to sell the slave or the garment.  The rabbis use the concept of migo to explain why this is the case: a third person witness does not stand to benefit from such testimony and thus he is believed.  The rabbis discuss whether or not an item must be returned in front of witnesses.

Another question is raised, this time against Abaye.  In this case, a person gave his garment to a craftsperson who said that he was hired for two while the person says that the craftsperson was hired for one.  If the craftsperson has the garment, the person must bring proof of his claim or pay for two.  If the garment was given to the person, the craftsperson must swear an oath about their contract and is permitted to collect.  If the craftsperson waits until after the time to collect wages, he must bring proof of their contract.  The question is answered: ask the witnesses!  But if there are no witnesses, the craftsperson is believed.  The rabbis argue that this is a case of migo: if one was bought, he is already receiving that money.  Thus he is believed when he says he was hired for two.