Conclusion: Rather, surely we discuss when he saw it. Even so, a craftsman is believed.

He answers that really, there are no witnesses, and he did not see it. The Reisha was not taught for any Chidush;

Rather, because the Seifa needs to teach the law of when he gave it to him, the Reisha taught similarly as long as the Talis is in the craftsman's hand, even though it is obvious.

Question: According to Abaye's answer, why did the Seifa teach the law of when he gave it to him? It should have taught when he saw it in his hand, even though the Talis is in the craftsman's hand!

The Tana did not come to teach anything about the law of when he saw. Therefore, the Seifa taught when he gave it to him, and the same applies when he saw. It is like when he gave it to him, for b'Al Korcho (against his will) he must give it to him.

Question (Rivam): How could we establish it when there are no witnesses? If so, in his time, why does he swear and collect?

We say in Shevuos (45b) that if he was hired without witnesses, since [the employer] could say "I never hired you", he is believed to say "I hired you, and I paid you your wage"!

Answer #1 (Ri): This is not difficult at all. Firstly, this is an argument there. (Our Beraisa could hold like the opinion that disagrees!)

Answer #2 (Ri): Also, here there is no Migo, since he partially admits;

And if he said "I never hired you", he denies everything, and there is a Chazakah that one cannot be brazen [to totally deny] to one whom one owes. (The worker would not swear and collect.)

Assertion: We discuss when he saw. If it is when he did not see, also a craftsman has a Chazakah, Migo (since) if he wanted, he could have said "I returned it to you", since he need not return in front of witnesses! Rather, surely we discuss when he saw.

[Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak asks] if so, why does someone else have a Chazakah, since there are witnesses that he received it for a deposit, and he cannot claim that he returned it, for he saw it [in his hand]!

Remark: The Ri found R. Tam's Perush very difficult. Therefore, I did not write it. (The Ramban brings from R. Tam that even if there are witnesses, and he saw it, he is believed to say that afterwards, he bought it from him.)

Explanation: The craftsman erred and sold this man's [Talis, i.e. Reuven who received another's Talis. The craftsman] intended to sell Ploni's [Talis], and gave Ploni's to Reuven in place of it (Reuven's);

However, if it were not common to tell a craftsman to sell, it would not be permitted because the craftsman erred and gave Reuven's to Ploni, for this is like one whose garment was switched in a mourner's house or a banquet house;

Ultimately, Ploni will return Reuven's to the craftsman, and demand his Talis from the craftsman.

Explanation: [They saw with the craftsman] a Talis that has Simanim like mine.

The witnesses do not have Tevi'as Ayin (recognition) that they know that it is his.

Explanation: [The craftsman answered properly,] lest the law of "he saw" apply. Why [may he do so]? The Beraisa says "he saw"!

Question (Rashba): What does [Rava] want to say [about such swindlers]?

Suggestion: He means that the swindler said properly, lest the law of "he saw" apply. He need not take it out to show it.

Rejection: If so, why did he need to say about this 'the Beraisa says "he saw"!'? Obviously, if he takes it out and [witnesses] will recognize that it is his [the original owner's], he must return it, for he said that nothing ever happened!

Answer (Rashba): "He said properly", i.e. he makes this claim "nothing ever happened." Through this, the law of "he saw" does not apply, since the Edim did not recognize it, and he can say that it was another;

However, if he would have claimed "I bought it", he would not be believed, for he has no Migo anymore, that he could have said "I returned it" or "nothing ever happened";

He fears to she says so, since witnesses saw a Talis like his (the claimant's) in [the craftsman's] hands.

Support: Now it is fine that it says 'what is the reason? The Beraisa says "he saw"!' I.e. even though it is not an absolute seeing of recognition, just there were Simanim like his;

"He saw" that the Beraisa taught connotes to him that in every case of seeing, he is not believed to say "I bought it."

Explanation: Stam Rav Nachman in the entire Gemara is Rav Nachman bar Yakov.

Proof #1: In the entire Gemara, you find Rav Nachman bar Yakov mentioned with his father's name only when another Rav Nachman is mentioned, like here.

Proof #2: In the Yerushalmi, Rav Nachman bar Yakov argues everywhere with Rav Sheshes. This connotes that he is Stam Rav Nachman, who was the [usual] opponent of Rav Sheshes in our Gemara.

This is unlike Rashi connotes in Gitin (31b), that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak was the son-in-law of the Reish Galusa, i.e. Stam Rav Nachman, like is proven in Chulin (124b).

Support #1: Also we say in Gitin (39b) that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said "I say that this is not the Halachah, and Rabanan who come from Mechuza say in the name of Rav Nachman that it is the Halachah";

Inference: Stam Rav Nachman is not Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak.

Support #2: In Eruvin (43b), it says that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak was sitting in back of Rava, and Rava was sitting in front of Rav Nachman.

Support #3: In several places, Rava says [teachings] in the name of Rav Nachman, and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak was Rava's Talmid, like it connotes above (22a). It is not proper to elaborate.

Explanation: [Then] he may not testify, for it affects him, for [the owner] used to give half, a third or a quarter to [the sharecropper];

If the protester will receive the field, the sharecropper descended [to work the field] without permission, and he has the lower hand (he gets his expenditures or the increased value, whichever is smaller).

Distinction: However, if there are no Peros in the land, [he may testify. We do not say that he is partial, for he wants to work for the Machazik,] for if [the protester will receive the field] and dismiss [the sharecropper], he can easily find [people who will hire him] to be a sharecropper on other fields.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): This is because he is concerned lest a creditor take from him, and he will not have what to collect from the seller.

Question (Ri): If so, even if he has other land [he cannot testify]! Just like he is concerned for a small creditor, he should be concerned for a big creditor, whose is owed as much as the total value of both lands [of the second buyer! If so, the first buyer can lose if the protester gets the land.]

Explanation #2 (Ri): Even though above (44a), regarding one who sold a field without Acharayus, we say that he cannot testify about it, because he establishes it in front of his creditor to collect from it...

There, surely we are concerned for a creditor, since a person knows whether or not he has creditors, and when we see that he comes to testify we are concerned that he testifies because he wants to establish it in front of his creditor;

There, even if he has another land, he may not testify, for we are concerned lest he has a big creditor.

Support (Rashba): It connotes above like this. When we ask "even if they acquired from him, how does this help? He establishes it in front of his creditor", and we do not answer that he has another land.

Implied question: It says above (45a) "if [the seller] has another land, he [the creditor] will collect from it" (so the seller may testify about land he sold without Acharayus, for in any case his creditor does not collect from what was sold). Perhaps he has a big creditor [and the other land will not suffice to pay him]!

Answer: It means that if he has other land worth as much as the entire debt against him, the creditor collects from it. If he does not have other land worth as much as the entire debt against him, what difference does it make? (In any case the seller loses all his land, and he caused a loss to his creditor or buyer!)

However, we need not be concerned that the buyer testifies in order that the seller's creditor will have from what to collect, for the buyer does not know whether or not the seller has any debts.

Note: Pnei Shlomo questions this. Normally, one inquires to see if the seller borrowed, before buying land! Rabanan put (or left) Shibud only on loans with a document, for such loans have publicity, and buyers can find out if the seller owes! Pnei Shlomo suggests that since the latter bought, surely he checked that the seller does not owe.

Implied question: What is the reason why the first buyer may not testify for the second buyer, since he is not concerned for a creditor?

Answer: He is concerned lest the field [that he himself bought] was stolen, and now or later the original owner and take it, and [the first buyer] will not have what to collect from the seller, if the seller has no other land.

Question: Why may a lender and guarantor testify for the borrower? Even if he has other land, we should be concerned lest it is stolen, and when the original owner takes it, he (the lender) will not have what to collect from!

Just like we are concerned for one theft regarding a buyer, we should be concerned also regarding a guarantor and lender!

Answer: The lender, guarantor and buyer are never concerned as long as they have Acharayus.

Question (Rashba): Why doesn't it say that a buyer may testify for the seller when he has another land, both according to the Rashbam, and according to the Ri?