If he has other land, he will go after it - אי דאית ליה ארעא אחריתי עליה הדר
Summary:
We can justify s'שמואל ruling in the case of an אפותיקי. One may collect מנכסים משעובדים if it is an אפותיקי, even though there are בני חורין.
However if he transferred it to him without witnesses, since he could say, etc. - אבל מסר לו שלא בעדים מתוך שיכול לומר כולי
Summary:
The מגו of להד"ם is that it was never given to me for repairs, rather I bought it initially. The distinction between אומן ואחר where there are עדים is in a case where they were not explicit as to the nature of the transaction. The difference between דברים העשויין להשאיל and אומן is that the former applies to all people while the אומן can claim you are not my customer.
If so even with witnesses also, since he can say, I returned it to you, etc. - אי הכי אפילו בעדים נמי מתוך שיכול לומר החזרתיו לך כולי
Summary:
Seemingly the question of אביי is if רבה distinguishes only between יש עדים ואין עדים, but not whether ראה or not, there should be a מיגו by יש עדים just like אין עדים.
