Explanation: Since it came to his hand, we can say that he found a Metzi'ah. Therefore, it is the minor's, and he makes a Segulah for him;

However, in any case l'Chatchilah we do not accept [from a minor, lest it is his father's].

Suggestion: This is because we claim for the orphans, that if their father was alive, he would have brought a proof.

Rejection #1 (Rashba): Above (47a), we ask that if he came with a claim of their father, even the others [who do not get a Chazakah, their children should not get Chazakah. Why did we say so only about a Gazlan's son?]

Inference: It is obvious [to the Makshan] that if the son of a craftsman or sharecropper came with a claim of their father, he does not get a Chazakah.

Question: Why is this obvious to him? Rav holds that a sharecropper's son has a Chazakah, even though the sharecropper himself does not get a Chazakah!

Defense (and Answer to Question): We could say that there, we ask from a Gazlan's son. I.e. even the others are like a Gazlan's son. (According to Rav, also a Gazlan's son should have a Chazakah!)

Rejection #2: In any case, the suggestion is wrong, for a Mishnah (above, 41a) says that one who comes with a claim of inheritance does not need a claim [how his father received the property];

Inference: He needs a Chazakah. What is the reason? Perhaps if his father was alive, he would have brought witnesses that he bought it!

Conclusion: Rather, it seems that only here, Rav said that the brothers must bring if [the brother who was doing business in the house] died, because documents of loan and sale are in his name. This proves that shows that they are his;

Rather, in his lifetime Rav said that he must bring a proof, for we do not rely on this that documents are in his name, for if he truly inherited from his mother's father, he would have witnesses about this;

However, we cannot say so about his son, so we rely on this that documents are in his name.

Assertion: Rav agrees to Rava, who took combers' scissors from orphans;

Rav Papa, who challenged (Shmuel's assertion that Rav admits that the brother dies, his brothers must bring proof) from [Rava's teaching], compares this (matters normally lent) to documents in his name. (The latter is no greater proof that the property was his, than possession of matters normally lent.)

Question: In Shevuos (26a), R. Yehudah said that if [witnesses] saw Ploni hide Kelim under his garment and leave [Reuven's] house, and he says "I bought them", he is not believed;

Citation (26b): This is only if Reuven does not normally sell his Kelim, and only regarding matters not normally hidden, and only regarding matters not normally lent or rented.

Inference: Even regarding matters normally lent or rented, [Ploni] is believed if all these factors are not fulfilled, i.e. that Reuven does not normally sell his Kelim, and they are Kelim that are not normally hidden!

Answer (R. Tam): The text there says "and even if all of these [conditions] are not fulfilled, we say (that Ploni is believed) only regarding matters not normally lent or rented;

However, regarding matters normally lent or rented, even if all of these [conditions] are not fulfilled, Ploni is not believed.

Support: This is the text of Rav Hai Gaon (Sha'ar 40) and R. Chananel, and so is proven in Bava Metzi'a (116a).

Question - Citation (Bava Kama 114b - Beraisa): If Shimon recognized his Kelim and Seforim with Ploni, and it is known in the city that someone stole from Shimon, [Ploni] swears how much he paid [the one who sold them to him], and collects [from Shimon, and returns them to him].

Even if it is not known in the city that someone stole from Shimon, he should be believed to say that they were stolen from him, for if he wanted, he could have said "I lent them to you", for Seforim are commonly lent!

Even a Sefer of Agadata, it says here that they are commonly lent, and all the more so other Seforim, like it says in Kesuvos (50a) "v'Tzidkaso Omedes La'ad" refers to one who writes Seforim and lends them to another!

Note: The verse cannot discuss Seforim of oral Torah, which was forbidden to write. If people lend Sifrei Agadata, all the more so they lend Seforim of Tanach, for a verse lauds one who does so.

Suggestion: He is not believed through a Migo to say that they were stolen, because we do not establish people to be thieves, like it says in Shevuos (46b).

Rejection: These are different. There, he is not believed to establish that person [holding the Kelim] to be a thief, even through a Migo;

However, here he does not say that Ploni stole them, just that they were stolen. He should be properly believed, for there are many thieves in the world!

Suggestion: This is not a Migo, for [Shimon] does not want to claim "I lent it to you", for Ploni knows that he is lying.

Rejection #1: Above (31a), it says that he is believed to say "it was my fathers', who bought it from your fathers", Migo that if he wanted, he could have said "I bought it from you", even though his opponent knows that he did not buy it from him!

Rejection #2: In Kesuvos (15b), a Mishnah says that one is believed to say "this field was your fathers', and I bought it from him", Migo that he could have said "it was never your father's", even though the son knows that it was his father's!

Suggestion: We can prove this also from the case of goats that ate peeled barley in Neharde'a (36a)! (Shmuel's father said that he can claim up to the goats' value, for he could have said that he bought them, even though the owner knows that he did not!)

Rejection: There is no proof from there. We can say that the case is, [the owner] contradicts him and says "[I know that] they did not eat so much", so it is a good Migo (for if the owner is correct, also with this claim, he knows that he lies).

Answer (R. Tam): There, we discuss a man (Shimon) who does not normally lend or rent to Ploni, who bought them, e.g. he is not familiar with him.

Consequence: If he normally does lend to Ploni, even if it is not known in the city that someone stole from Shimon, Shimon is believed to say that they are stolen, through a Migo.

Rebuttal (Tosfos' uncle and Rebbi): He is not believed through a Migo, for this is a Migo to take, even though Ploni receives the money that he paid.

Implied question: He does not claim this. He says that he inherited from his mother's father!

Answer: In any case, he is believed through a Migo. If he wanted, he could have said that he economized on his food (and acquired the property through his savings).

Question (Rashba): Just the contrary! For this reason that she toiled for the orphans, she is [more prone to] steal from the orphans!

Citation (Gitin 35a): Due to the benefit [that she gave to the orphans,] that she toiled for the orphans, she comes to rationalize (swearing that she did not receive anything from her Kesuvah, for she feels that she deserves what she received for her toil)!

Answer (Rashba): This is what we say here! The Chidush is that we do not say that she did not steal. Rather, just the contrary, she comes to rationalize, like it says in Gitin.

Remark: In the Gemara, the Rashbam explained that "Na'al" means that he fixed a lock in the door, which is building;

However, if he closed the door and locked it with a key, in property of a convert [who died without heirs], when there is no one to do Mesirah to him, this is not a Chazakah. This is merely like Mavri'ach Ari from another's property (preventing a loss);

Implied question: In Pesachim (4a) it says that from when [the owner] gave the key to the tenant, the house is in the Chazakah of the tenant to check it [for Chametz]! (This Dibur continues on the coming Daf.)