Observation: We could have answered that the case is, he made it an Apotiki. Then, [the creditor] cannot collect from another land that he has;

If the protester will receive the field [the creditor cannot collect it, so] he will collect from another land that [the borrower] has, so his testimony affects him.

Question: A Nafka Minah [if the creditor gets the field,] is that the borrower will be exempt [even] if he gets rich!

Answer: Perhaps due to this, we should not disqualify him from testimony, since now he does not profit at all.

Question (Rashba): He should tell him "bring a proof that he took it legally, and then I will pay you!"

Even regarding a Yisrael, he can say so, and all the more so regarding Nochrim!

Answer: We discuss when they judged with him according to the laws of Nochrim, and according to their laws, it belongs to the Nochri. Therefore, he must compensate [the buyer].

Suggestion: [He is believed to say that he returned it] because he could say you never lent to me.

Rejection: We discuss when he [and witnesses] saw [it], like is proven from Abaye's question of one who saw his slave!

Explanation: Rather, "because he could have said nothing ever happened", it did not come to him due to his craft, rather, due to a sale;

Alternatively, you sold it to someone else, and he sold it to me, like Rashi explained.

Question: Why do we say specifically that a craftsman has no Chazakah when he gave to him with witnesses? Even someone else [has no Chazakah], since there are witnesses that it came to him as a deposit!

And even if he did not see it [he has no Chazakah], according to the conclusion that he must return it to him with witnesses! Below we ask this.

However, in any case it is difficult. What was Rabah's Havah Amina?

Answer: The case is, he gave to him with witnesses Stam. He did not specify in front of them if it is a sale or a deposit;

Therefore, only a craftsman has no Chazakah, for presumably he gave it to him to fix it, since he did not specify;

However, someone else, since he did not specify that it is a deposit, presumably it is a sale or gift.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, who asked at the end of the Sugya "a craftsman has no Chazakah, but someone else has a Chazakah", he holds that it is unreasonable to establish it to discuss seeing without understanding, which is not common;

This is like [the Gemara] asked above, if there are witnesses, we should see what the witnesses say! It is not common to give over in front of them and they do not know the stipulation;

Also here, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak asks only due to this reasoning. He asks as follows. If there are witnesses, why does another (not a craftsman) have a Chazakah?

You are forced to say that the witnesses know that he received it as a deposit. It is unreasonable to establish it in a case that they do not know. This is not common at all.

Question (Rashbam): Why does a craftsman have a Chazakah? Why is this different than matters normally lent or rented?

Answer #1 (Rashbam): Things normally lent or rented, they apply to all people. However, here the craftsman can say "you do not regularly ask me to fix [things for you].

Answer #2 (Ri): Even if he regularly fixes for him, we can distinguish. Things normally lent or rented, they apply both regarding a person that he recognizes that he is trustworthy, and one who he recognizes that he is not trustworthy;

He cannot always arrange witnesses when he wants to lend or rent, lest he get a bad reputation among his neighbors.

However, regarding a craftsman, if [an owner] needs to fix something, he can give it to a craftsman that he recognizes that he is trustworthy, or bring witnesses for this. Therefore, he has a Chazakah in a case that there were no witnesses.

Explanation #1: It is fine for me. I do not distinguish between when there are witnesses and there are no witnesses. Rather, I distinguish based on whether or not he [and witnesses] saw [the item with the craftsman];

When he saw, even if there are no witnesses [who saw him deposit it with the craftsman], he (the craftsman) is not believed, like Abaye says below;

When he did not see, even if there are witnesses, he (the craftsman) is believed, through a Migo that he could have said "I returned it to you."

However, according to you, when there are witnesses [of the deposit], even if he did not see [it with him now, the craftsman] is not believed through a Migo that he could have said "I returned it to you."

Objection: The words "if so, even with witnesses" do not connote like this!

Explanation #2: Rather, they connote "if so, that without witnesses he is believed through a Migo, also with witnesses you should say [that he is believed through] a Migo!"

This is fine for me. I hold that there is no Migo when there are no witnesses. Also when there are witnesses, there is no Migo! However, for you it is difficult.

Remark: R. Tam struggled to explain. (Rabah held that if he gave to him with witnesses, he must return with witnesses, even regarding a deposit, when there is a Migo of Ones. Abaye refuted him from the Beraisa of one who saw.) The Ri totally disagreed.

Question: Still, we should believe him [to say that he returned it] through a Migo. If he wanted, he could have said that Ones occurred, like we say below (70a) regarding one who deposited with his friend with a document;

Even the one who argues there, this is because he can say "[if you returned it], why is your document [still] in my hand?!"

Answer (R. Tam): Surely, Abaye could have asked him "if so, also [when he deposited] with witnesses, we should believe him through a Migo, that he could have claimed Ones";

Rather, he did not think to ask this, and asked from a Beraisa. Rabah agreed that our Mishnah discusses one who saw, and then one cannot ask at all from Ones.

Alternative explanation: Some explain that "he must return to him with witnesses" means if he wants to be exempt from a Shevu'ah, but with a Shevu'ah he is believed through a Migo of Ones, and even if he does not return to him with witnesses;

Above, it means as follows. We learned that a craftsman has no Chazakah without a Shevu'ah only when he gave to him with witnesses;

However, if he gave to him without witnesses, he is believed without a Shevu'ah, through a Migo that if he wanted, he could have said "nothing ever happened."

Possibility #1: We discuss before Shevu'as Heses was enacted. Therefore, when he says "nothing ever happened", he need not swear.

Possibility #2: It is after [Shevu'as Heses] was enacted, according to the version that requires, for the Shevu'ah, Drara d'Mamona (grounds to say that he owes, e.g. he initially admitted that he owed).

Here, it is not considered Drara d'Mamona, for he says that he did not get it due to his craft, and he does not admit that he was ever liable;

It is considered Drara d'Mamona only when David says "you owe to me 100", and Ploni says "yes", and afterwards David says "give it to me", and Ploni says "I gave it to you", for he admits that he [once] owed.

Objection (R. Chananel): According to Explanation #2, what is the question below from one who saw his slave with a craftsman "if there are witnesses, why do we need that he saw it? He should bring witnesses and take!"?

It helps that he saw it, for now [the craftsman] is not believed [to say that he returned it] even through a Shevu'ah, for he has no Migo!

If he did not see it, [the craftsman] is believed through a Shevu'ah, through a Migo [that he could have said] Ones.

The Beraisa connotes "his words have no effect", that even with a Shevu'ah he is not believed!

Answer (R. Chananel): Here it is not considered a Migo, for the reason that the one who requires returning with witnesses is because he did not believe him through a Shevu'ah, like it says in Shevuos (41b);

It is as if he said explicitly "return it to me only with witnesses." Therefore, he is not believed through a Migo, for he caused a loss to himself [through returning without witnesses];

However, there (below, 70a, we conclude like Rav Chisda, who) holds that he need not return it with witnesses, and it is not considered as if he said "return it to me only with witnesses." Therefore, he is believed through a Migo.

Objection: Even the one who holds that he must return it with witnesses, when there is a Migo, he is believed.

Proof: If not, it is difficult, what was Abaye's question from [the Beraisa of] one who saw his slave with a craftsman, which holds that he need not return with witnesses?

There is a Tana in Shevuos who holds that one who lends to his friend with witnesses must return with witnesses. Rabah can hold like him!

Rather, it is because even that Tana in Shevuos agrees about a deposit. [It is unlike a loan, for] there is a Migo of Ones, so he need not return with witnesses. Therefore, it seems that R. Tam's Perush is correct.

Question: It says in Bava Metzi'a (112b) that if the craftsman says "you agreed to pay me two", and [the owner] says "I agreed to pay you only one", ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah, for the wage is known. (Chachamim enacted to believe a worker who says that he was not paid, for the employer is distracted with his workers, and forgets whom he paid. However, he does not forget the wage!)

Answer: In Shevuos (46a) it asks this, and answers that [the Beraisa] here is like R. Yehudah, who holds that also the wage he (the employer) does not remember, for he is distracted with his workers.

Question: If so, also after the time, why does he say ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah? We should say that he swears and receives!

Why do we say in general that after the time, he does not swear and receive, like it explains in Shevuos (45b), that the Chazakah is that a worker does not delay [demanding] his wage, and an employer does not transgress Bal Talin (keeping a worker's wages overnight)?

Here, the worker (craftsman) delayed, and the employer transgressed, for he agrees that he agreed to pay him one, and he still owes him!

Suggestion: The case is, [the owner] says "I agreed to pay you only one, and I paid you!"

Rejection: If so, in the time, why does [the craftsman] swear and receive? We establish this like R. Yehudah, and he requires partial admission!

Suggestion: The case is, [the owner] says "the one that I agreed to pay you, you authorized me to delay paying you." In such a case, he does not transgress Bal Talin.

Rejection: The Chazakah that a worker does not delay his wage is not fulfilled, for he delayed one [Zuz that he was owed]!

Poor answer: What we see that he delayed, he delayed. What we do not see that he delayed, [we assume that] he did not delay.

Explanation: Surely, they know the wage, for this is the normal case.

Question (Ri): He should have asked better! If there are witnesses, and he saw - for he did not yet think to establish it when he did not see - if so, why is the craftsman believed when the Talis is in his hand?

He should have said "this is fine for Rabah. He establishes it when there are no witnesses. According to Rabah, he is believed through a Migo";

However, how does Abaye establish it? Whether there are witnesses, or there are no witnesses, he is not believed through a Migo!

Answer: He means as follows. If there are witnesses, and it comes to teach that even though there are witnesses, a craftsman is believed, e.g. when he did not see it, let us see what the witnesses say!

Rather, there are no witnesses. Now you cannot establish it when he did not see it, for if so, what is the Chidush?!

Obviously, when there are no witnesses, and he did not see it, he is believed. This is no Chidush!