Siman 134

A craftsman, regarding an item for which he is a craftsman, does not have a chazakah in vessels that are in his possession, whether they are vessels made for lending and renting or other vessels. How so? Witnesses saw a vessel in the hand of the craftsman before he was summoned to beit din, such that he cannot say "I returned it to you," and the claimant brought witnesses who know that this vessel or this object is his, and the claimant says "I gave it to him to repair," while the craftsman says "It only came into my possession through sale or gift," or he claims "You gave it to me" or "You sold it to me after it came into my possession for repair"—even if he delivered it to him not in the presence of witnesses, and even if it remained in the hand of the craftsman for several years, we remove it from him and deliver it to the claimant after he swears a shevuat hesset that it is as he says. For a craftsman's legal status is like vessels made for lending and renting, and is even stronger than them according to the first opinion in siman 133, section 10. And if the claimant claims "I lent it" or "I rented it" and the vessel is not of those made for lending and renting, the law is with the craftsman, and the owner of the vessel is not believed with a migo that he could have said "I gave it to you to repair," for that would be a migo to extract [Sma]. However, according to what was written there in section 9, the vessel always remains in the domain of the original owners and he is believed with a migo [it appears to me, see Urim VeTummim].

And if they did not see the vessel in the hand of the artisan, but rather he claimed, "I gave such-and-such a vessel to him to repair and he did not return it to me," and the artisan says, "I returned it," even if they see the vessel now when they come to the beit din, nevertheless the artisan is believed to say that he returned it to him and sold it or gave it to another, and he purchased it from the other, or that he himself purchased it from him, such that it did not come into his hand for the purpose of repair. And the artisan swears a shevuat hesset and is exempt, because he has a migo of "the matter never occurred," for the fact that they saw the vessel upon their coming to the beit din is not called "seen," as was written there, and he did not lose his migo thereby. Furthermore, even if he delivered it to him to repair in the presence of witnesses, the artisan is believed with a migo that he could say, "I returned it to you," for he did not stipulate with him that he should return it in the presence of witnesses; and the artisan swears a shevuat hesset and is exempt. And if the owner of the vessel comes to the artisan to request that he show him the vessel in the presence of witnesses, he is not obligated to show it to him, for when he shows it to him he will no longer have a migo. Therefore, if he showed it in the presence of witnesses before they went to the beit din, he has lost his migo, and when the claimant brings witnesses that it is his, he takes it from him even if he delivered it to him without witnesses; and the claimant swears a shevuat hesset, for the artisan cannot plead a claim of "purchased."

If the witnesses who saw the object in his hand do not recognize clearly that this belongs to the claimant, but rather it appears to them by signs to be like his: if he claims "you never gave it to me," he is believed. However, if he claims "you gave it to me to repair it and I subsequently took it from you" or "I took it previously," he is not believed via a migo of "the matter never occurred," for there is no good migo here, as he is afraid to say "the matter never occurred" since the witnesses saw something similar to this in his hand. And he is not believed even when he delivered it without witnesses, for in that case he is only believed with a claim of "the matter never occurred" or "I returned it to you" [Tur].

If the object leaves the possession of another and he says, "In my presence you told the craftsman to sell it to me and I purchased it from him," he is believed with a migo that he could have said, "You sold it to me." But when he claims that the craftsman told him that he sold it to him, he is not believed, since he himself does not know; it is like a chazakah that is not accompanied by a claim, for behold, the craftsman himself is not believed, and how can he hold it based on the words of the craftsman? For even though the craftsman told him so, behold, he is not believed. And this is specifically when witnesses saw the object in his hand before he came down to beit din, for if not so, even the craftsman would be believed, as the [Sma] wrote. And in such a case, even if the challenger has no witnesses that the object was his, we remove it from the hand of the possessor and hand it over to the challenger. For since this possessor knows that it belonged to the challenger, and if the object were in the hand of the craftsman, this would be one witness that it belonged to the challenger, and the craftsman would be obligated in an oath to contradict the witness, and this oath he is unable to swear, for behold, he also admits that it belonged to the challenger, and his oath is that he purchased it from him, and this oath the witness does not obligate him in. And consequently, his law is "since he is unable to swear, he must pay," as written in siman 75 [Shach]. And nevertheless, eyewitnesses are required, for the possessor is not like a witness regarding the seeing, for he is an interested party in what he said that he purchased it from the craftsman, for if he did not say so but rather said that he purchased it from the challenger, he would be obligated in an oath, and a witness who requires an oath is not a witness, as written there [Netivot HaMishpat]. But regarding what he knows that the object belonged to the challenger, he is not an interested party [and what the Taz wrote, we have answered in siman 133, section 10, see there].

If the craftsman retired from his craft, he is like any other person and is believed even regarding a vessel that came into his hand while he was still a craftsman, by way of a migo that he could have said that he bought it after he retired from his craft. Therefore, some say that this is specifically when it remained in his hand after he retired from his craft for a duration of time that it is not customary to leave vessels for so long in the house of a craftsman after it became known that he retired from his craft; for if not so, he would not be believed even if he said that he bought it afterwards, since regarding this matter he is considered as if he is still a craftsman, because it is customary that vessels from his craft would still be with him.

The son of a craftsman who is not himself a craftsman, if he comes with his own claim, saying that he purchased it from its owner, he is like any other person if he is not supported at his father's table. If he said that he inherited it from his father, he is like his father. If he said, "He admitted in my presence to my father that he sold it to him," or if he said, "I know that he sold it to my father," he has a chazakah through a migo that he could have said that he himself purchased it. However, some say that this is specifically when he delayed after the death of his father for a duration of time during which it is not customary to leave vessels for so long in the house of a craftsman after his father died; for since his father died, we say that he inherited it from him, and he is not believed to say even "it is purchased in my hand," for there is a presumption that everything found with him he inherited from his father. And if it remained in his hand for the aforementioned time, then his law is like a craftsman who retired from his craft, and he has a chazakah in every case; even if he said that his father told him that he purchased it, we do not remove it from his hand [Taz]. And even if he said nothing but says that he inherited it from his father, for according to this opinion there is no difference in his statement, and the primary matter depends on whether he delayed or did not delay. And when there are witnesses that this claimant delivered it to his father, even according to the first opinion we do not establish it in the chazakah of the heir even if he claims that he himself purchased it, unless he delayed [Urim VeTumim]. All this is when his father died, but during the lifetime of his father the craftsman, if the son claims that he himself purchased it, he is believed in every case and his law is like another man when he is not supported at his father's table, as I wrote in siman 149. And the law of a craftsman who pawned vessels that were given to him to repair will be explained in siman 356 with the help of Heaven.