Dear Rav Kornfeld:

Right near Daf 42 in Bava Basra is the discussion of the two types of boreach, with the concluding halacha, that one can make a chazaka against a boreach mamon, but one cannot make a chazaka against a boreach mardin.

Earlier in the 3rd perek we have the discussion about a businessman who was too busy in the market place to be able to concern himself with checking into a rumor of a squatter in his house which he heard about while away.

And in general we have a principle (such as in Bava Kama by the falling broken vessel) that all life is more valuable than anymaterial item... as just a minor point...

It was my understanding of pshat by the boreach that the reason why we don't expect a boreach mardin to make a machaw is that he would in fact be putting his life in danger, and no mamon can be worth losing his life for. But for the boreach mamon, he has the choice of for example saving his house or paying his debt, and his silence is proof of his business decision to forego the house in order to avoid having to deal with his debt from which he is running away.

And based upon that understanding I questioned why we don't consider the business person in the marketplace to be expressing a business decision that selling his wares in the marketplace was in fact worth more to him than checking on his house.

Beis Din would thus rule that either he's not acting like an owner - that his silence is a proof that the machzik is the owner -- or that if he was the owner, he is choosing to not defend himself, and thus relinquishes his rights. Simiarly, that if his priorities were such that he allowed himself to forget about the house while conducting business in the marketplace that this is an indication of his actual priorities, as if he subconciously or conciously made the business decision.

But when I expressed this sentiment I was told that my understanding is not the way we actually learn the case of the boreach mamon!

That either as the Rashbam explains pshat that the boreach mamon has nothing to lose by coming forward to defend his house since he has no money with which to pay his debt, and they are not going to go after him; or that he was driven out of town for having so much unpaid debt, that he is unwelcome in town -- these are how to understand pshat.

Yet that my reasoning does have some logical appeal, but I would need to find support for it in commentary.

And thus I seek the kollel's help.

I've done a medium-depth search, with others, for any commentary on that sugya arguing with Rashbam, and have not come up with anything.

Is there any place where anything close to how I want to say pshat in the boreach mamon comes up?

Thank you.

Chaim Chesler