Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/134

Paragraph 1- There is no presumption for a craftsman on items in his possession that he is a craftsman on, whether they are items that are generally lent or rented out or other items. How so? If one saw his vessels in the craftsman’s possession and brought witnesses that know the items belong to him and he claims he gave it to the craftsman to repair and the craftsman said he purchased it or received it as a gift or that he sold or gave it to him as a gift after the plaintiff gave it to him to repair, the owner of the item would be believed and we would remove the item from the craftsman, even if the plaintiff did not give it over with witnesses and even if it was in the craftsman’s possession for many years. The owner of the vessel would take a heses oath on his claim. If they did not see the vessel in the craftsman’s possession, but the plaintiff says I gave such and such vessel to the craftsman for repairs and the craftsman said he gave it back or that the plaintiff sold it or gave it as a gift to him or that he purchased it from someone else, the craftsman would take a heses oath and be exempt because he could have said the engagement never occurred.

Paragraph 2- Even if the owner gave the item to the craftsman with witnesses, the craftsman would be believed because he could have said he returned the item. Therefore, the craftsman would take a heses oath and be exempt. We would not require the craftsman to produce the item. If he did produce the item, because we can now see the item the owner may bring witnesses that it is his and he can take it back, even if he did not have witnesses when he gave it to the craftsman.

Paragraph 3- Even if the owner gave the item with witnesses, if the witnesses that see the item in the craftsman’s possession do not recognize with certainty that it belongs to the owner but it seems that way to them based on some of the identifying marks and the craftsman says you never gave it to me, he would be believed. If he says you gave it to me to repair and I subsequently purchased it from you, however, he would not be believed because there is no bona-fide migu since the witnesses saw this similar item in his possession.

Paragraph 4- If a third party produces an item of clothing and says that, in his presence, the owner told the craftsman to sell it to him and he purchased it, the third party would be believed with a migu that he could have said the owner himself sold it to him, If he claims the craftsman sold it to him and told him that the owner sold it to him, however, he would not be believed.

Paragraph 5- If the craftsman leaves his profession, he has the status of any other person and would be believed even on a vessel that came into his possession while he was still a craftsman. There are those that say that this is only where the item remained in his possession following his departure from the profession for a long enough time that would not be the typical time to leave vessels in a craftsman’s possession once it is known he has left the profession.

Paragraph 6- If the son of a craftsman, who himself is not a craftsman, comes with his own claim and says he purchased the item from the owner, he is like any other person. If he says he inherited the item from his father, he has the status of his father. If he says the owner confessed to his father in his presence, he would have the presumption of ownership. There are those that say that this is only where the item was in his father’s possession following his death longer than the standard time one would leave an item in the craftsman’s house following his death. It seems to me that only after his father died do we say he may have inherited the item from his father and therefore will not be believed if the item did not remain in his possession for the aforementioned time-frame, even if he claims he purchased it, because he is like a craftsman who left the profession. While the craftsman is alive, however, if the son claims he purchased it, he would be believed in all circumstances because he is considered a completely distinct person unless he is supported by his father, as will be explained later in Siman 149.