רָאָה תַּנְיָא 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.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי וְאִי חַכִּים מְשַׁוֵּי לֵיהּ רָאָה דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ אַמַּאי תְּפִיסַתְּ לֵיהּ לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּאִית לָךְ גַּבַּאי הַשְׁתָּא אַפְּקִינְהוּ וְשַׁיְּמִינְהוּ שְׁקוֹל אַתְּ דִּידָךְ וְאֶשְׁקוֹל אֲנָא דִּידִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי מָצֵי אָמַר לֵיהּ לָא צְרִיכְנָא לְשׁוּמָא דִידָךְ כְּבָר שָׁמוּהַּ קַמָּאֵי דְקַמָּךְ: 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.
אָרִיס אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה אַמַּאי עַד הָאִידָּנָא פַּלְגָא וְהַשְׁתָּא כּוּלַּהּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בַּאֲרִיסֵי בָּתֵּי אָבוֹת § 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.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָרִיס שֶׁהוֹרִיד אֲרִיסִין תַּחְתָּיו יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה מַאי טַעְמָא דְּלָא עֲבִיד אִינָשׁ דְּנָחֲתִי אֲרִיסֵי לְאַרְעֵיהּ וְשָׁתֵיק 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָרִיס שֶׁחִלֵּק לַאֲרִיסִין אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה מַאי טַעְמָא אֵימוֹר הַרְמַנְיָא בְּעָלְמָא שַׁוְּיוּהּ 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.
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 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?
לָא קַשְׁיָא הָא דְּאִיכָּא פֵּירָא בְּאַרְעָא וְהָא דְּלֵיכָּא פֵּירָא בְּאַרְעָא 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.
(עֲמָלֵק סִימָן) § 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].
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן עָרֵב מֵעִיד לַלֹּוֶה וְהוּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ אַרְעָא אַחֲרִיתִי מַלְוֶה מֵעִיד לַלֹּוֶה וְהוּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ אַרְעָא אַחֲרִיתִי 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.
לוֹקֵחַ רִאשׁוֹן מֵעִיד לְלוֹקֵחַ שֵׁנִי וְהוּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ אַרְעָא אַחֲרִיתִי 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.