אִי דְּאִית לֵיהּ אַרְעָא אַחֲרִיתִי עֲלֵיהּ דִּידֵיהּ הָדַר אִי דְּלֵית לֵיהּ אַרְעָא אַחֲרִיתִי מַאי נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִינָּה If this is a case where the seller has other land, that he did not sell, in addition to the field that he sold with regard to which he currently wishes to testify, his creditor will go after it, and collect from that land. In that case, he is not biased in his testimony concerning the field that he sold. If this is a case where the seller does not have other land, what difference does it make to him if the buyer is unable to keep the land? In any event the creditor cannot collect directly from the seller.
לְעוֹלָם דְּלֵית לֵיהּ אַרְעָא אַחֲרִיתִי דְּאָמַר לָא נִיחָא דְּלֶיהְוֵי לֹוֶה רָשָׁע וְלֹא יְשַׁלֵּם The Gemara answers: Actually, Shmuel is referring to a case where the seller does not have other land, and the reason that he is nevertheless biased in his testimony is that he wants his creditors to be able to collect the debt because he says to himself that it is uncomfortable for him to be in the category of: “The wicked borrows, and pays not” (Psalms 37:21).
סוֹף סוֹף לְגַבֵּי אִידַּךְ נָמֵי לֹוֶה רָשָׁע וְלֹא יְשַׁלֵּם הוּא דְּאָמַר לְהָכִי זַבֵּינִי לָךְ שֶׁלֹּא בְּאַחְרָיוּת The Gemara asks: But ultimately, he is also in the category of: “The wicked borrows, and pays not” (Psalms 37:21) with regard to the other one, to whom he sold the land. He took money from the buyer, who did not receive anything in exchange, as the land was seized from him. The Gemara answers: He is not concerned about his behavior toward the buyer, as he can say to him: For this very reason I sold it to you without a guarantee, so that if it would be seized from you I would not be liable.
מַכְרֵיז רָבָא וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב פָּפָּא דְּסָלְקִין לְעֵילָּא וּדְנָחֲתִין לְתַתָּא הַאי בַּר יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּזָבֵין לֵיהּ חֲמָרָא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל חַבְרֵיהּ וְקָא אָתֵי גּוֹי וְאָנֵיס לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ דִּינָא הוּא דִּמְפַצֵּי לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ § The Gemara relates: Rava announced, and some say it was Rav Pappa who announced: All those who ascend from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael and all those who descend from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia should be aware of the following: In a case of this Jew who sold a donkey to another Jew, and then a gentile came and seized it from him, claiming that it was really his, the halakha is that the seller should rescue [dimfatzei] it from the gentile or reimburse the buyer.
וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכִּיר בָּהּ שֶׁהִיא בַּת חֲמוֹרוֹ אֲבָל מַכִּיר בָּהּ שֶׁהִיא בַּת חֲמוֹרוֹ לָא וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא אָנֵיס לֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ וּלְאוּכָּפָא אֲבָל אָנֵיס לֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ וּלְאוּכָּפָא לָא The Gemara points out: And we said this halakha only in a case where the buyer does not recognize that this is the offspring of the seller’s donkey, and it is possible that the gentile’s claim is true. But if the buyer recognizes that this is the offspring of the seller’s donkey, then the seller is not liable to reimburse him. It is clear that the gentile’s claim is false, so the seller bears no responsibility for the buyer’s loss. And furthermore, we said this halakha only in a case where the gentile did not seize it and the saddle with it. But if he seized it and the saddle with it, it is clear that the gentile is a robber, and it is assumed that there is no validity to his claim with regard to the donkey. Therefore, the seller is not liable to reimburse him.
אַמֵּימָר אָמַר אֲפִילּוּ לֵיכָּא כׇּל הָנֵי לָא מַאי טַעְמָא מִידָּע יָדַע דִּסְתַם גּוֹי אַנָּס הוּא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אֲשֶׁר פִּיהֶם דִּבֶּר שָׁוְא וִימִינָם יְמִין שָׁקֶר: Ameimar said: Even if there are not any of these factors, the seller is not liable to reimburse him. What is the reasoning for this? It is that it is known that an ordinary gentile is an extortionist, so it is assumed that the donkey did indeed belong to the seller, as it is stated: “Whose mouth speaks falsehood, and their right hand is a right hand of lying” (Psalms 144:8).
אוּמָּן אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה וְכוּ׳ אָמַר רַבָּה לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁמָּסַר לוֹ בְּעֵדִים אֲבָל מָסַר לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ לֹא הָיוּ דְבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם כִּי אָמַר לֵיהּ נָמֵי לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי מְהֵימַן § The Gemara returns to discuss the statement of Shmuel (42b): A craftsman does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership of the property in his possession, but a partner has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership. Rabba says: They taught this only in a case where the owner transferred the item to the craftsman in the presence of witnesses. But if the owner transferred the item to the craftsman not in the presence of witnesses, then, since the craftsman is able to say to the one who claims to be the owner: These matters never occurred, i.e., you did not give me this item but it was mine to begin with, and he would keep possession of the item with that claim, then even when the craftsman says to him: It is purchased by me from you, and that is why it is in my possession, he is deemed credible.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי אִי הָכִי אֲפִילּוּ בְּעֵדִים נָמֵי מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ הֶחְזַרְתִּיו לְךָ כִּי אָמַר לֵיהּ לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי מְהֵימַן Abaye said to Rabba: If so, then even if the owner transferred the item to the craftsman in the presence of witnesses as well, he should be deemed credible. Since the craftsman is able to say to the owner: I returned the item to you, and he would be exempt from payment, when the craftsman says to him: It is purchased by me from you, and that is why it is in my possession, he is deemed credible.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה מִי סָבְרַתְּ Rabba said to Abaye: Do you maintain that