The Gemara has been discussing the ways a craftsperson can make a legitimate claim of ownership over items in their possession. On today’s daf, we learn a different law about craftspeople and their customers:
The sages taught: If utensils were switched with utensils in the house of a craftsman, this one (who received the wrong utensils) may use them until the time when that one (whose utensils he received) comes and takes his. But in a house of mourning or in a house of a wedding feast, this one (who took the wrong utensils) may not use them until that one (whose utensils he took) comes and takes his.
The case described is one in which a person leaves an object in the possession of another who mistakenly switches it for a similar object in their possession. The concerns balanced here are on the one hand a desire to prevent the unlawful use of someone else’s property, and on the other worry for a person being left indefinitely without the ability to use their own tools. In one instance, the rabbis allow the use of the utensils until the matter is sorted out, and in another instance they do not. Naturally, the Gemara wants to know why the ruling is different in each of these cases.
Rav, one of the first amoraim, brings an answer from his uncle Rav Hiyya:
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world.
Your donation to My Jewish Learning fuels endless journeys of Jewish discovery. With your help, My Jewish Learning can continue to provide nonstop opportunities for learning, connection and growth.
Rav said: I was sitting before my uncle, and he said to me: And is a person not likely to say to the craftsman: Sell my cloak for me?
Rav Hiyya is making a distinction between the role of a craftsperson as a party to this mix-up and an unmediated mix-up at a wedding feast or house of mourning, but it’s not immediately clear how this answers our question. Why is it okay to use a person’s tools when received from a craftsperson and not when mistakenly taken from a social space?
Rashbam, who comments on the majority of Bava Batra in place of his grandfather Rashi, helpfully expands upon this answer. This, he says, is the envisioned scenario: Reuven gives Sarah, a craftswoman, his cloak and asks her to repair it, sell it and then give him the proceeds. Shimon, meanwhile, simply gives Sarah his cloak for repair. Sarah accidentally sells Shimon’s cloak and gives Reuven the proceeds. Recognizing her mistake, she purposefully gives Shimon Reuven’s cloak until she’s able to recover Shimon’s and swap the two.
In this scenario, since Reuven has received money — the only thing he desired — Sarah has fulfilled her obligation to him and has every right to give Shimon Reuven’s cloak in the interim. Because Shimon is not using an item that he acquired without permission or an item whose owner is waiting on its return, it’s acceptable to use the mistakenly swapped item. In contrast, if Shimon merely took home a cloak from a wedding feast and later realized it was not his, he has no right to use it because he had no right to take the item in the first place and the owner is waiting on its return.
Some limitations are then placed on this ruling:
Rav Hiyya, son of Rav Nahman, said: They taught (that it is permitted to use the utensils) only if the craftsman himself gave them. But if the craftsman’s wife or children gave them, no.
The above reasoning only applies when the item in question is given by the craftsperson. If it’s a family member who doesn’t run the business, the assumption is that Shimon has simply been given the object in error.
Another limitation is mentioned:
And even if (the craftsman gave it), we said only where he said to him, I am returning a cloak, without specification. But if he said: your cloak, then he may not use it, as this is not his cloak.
If Sarah told Shimon she is returning “a” cloak, we can assume the logic described above — that she is knowingly giving him Reuven’s cloak after having accidentally sold Shimon’s, which is a permitted transaction. However, if she tells Shimon she is returning “his” cloak, this is clearly just an error, and this cloak likely belongs to someone who is awaiting its return. In this instance, where one has possession of another’s item non-permissibly, albeit through no fault of their own, they’re not allowed to make use of it. Despite the inconvenience to each party, the rabbis prefer to maintain the norm of not benefiting from items which still belong to another person that you have no right to possess.
Read all of Bava Batra 46 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on August 10, 2024. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
