Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain
Can I sell fruit that WILL grow in my orchard, or only fruit that has ALREADY grown?
אין אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם
Bava Batra 140, 141, 142
Bava Batra 142a discusses an expectant father’s decision to transfer ownership over some of his possessions to his unborn child. This opens up a question that shows up throughout Shas, namely whether one can actually transfer ownership over items that do not yet exist (e.g., the fruit that WILL grow from a tree that haven’t grown yet) or transfer ownership to people who do not yet fully exist (e.g., a baby in utero)!
Dr. Elana Stein Hain – dinanddaf@hadran.org.il
Listen here:
Watch here:
Sources:
- בבא בתרא קמב. The acquirer does not fully exist
דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הַמְזַכֶּה לְעוּבָּר – לֹא קָנָה. לִכְשֶׁתֵּלֵד – קָנָה. וְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר: אַף לִכְשֶׁתֵּלֵד – לֹא קָנָה. וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה קָנָה.
The Gemara clarifies: As Rav Naḥman says: With regard to one who transfers ownership of an item to a fetus, the fetus does not acquire it. But if he says that the transfer of ownership of the item should take effect when she gives birth, the fetus acquires it. And Rav Huna says: Even if he says that the transfer of ownership of the item should take effect when she gives birth, the fetus does not acquire it, because the fetus did not exist in the world when he transferred ownership. And Rav Sheshet says: In both this case and that case, the fetus acquires the item.
- יבמות צג. The items do not yet exist
דְּאִיתְּמַר: הַמּוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת דֶּקֶל לַחֲבֵרוֹ, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָּאוּ לָעוֹלָם — יָכוֹל לַחְזוֹר בּוֹ. מִשֶּׁבָּאוּ לָעוֹלָם — אֵין יָכוֹל לַחְזוֹר בּוֹ.
As it was stated: With regard to one who sells the fruit of a palm tree to another before the fruit has grown, Rav Huna said: Until the fruit has come into the world, he can retract the sale, as it has yet to take effect. However, after the fruit has come into the world, he can no longer retract, despite the fact the fruit had not yet sprouted when he made the acquisition.
וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: אַף מִשֶּׁבָּאוּ לָעוֹלָם — יָכוֹל לַחְזוֹר בּוֹ. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מוֹדֵינָא דְּאִי שָׁמֵיט וְאָכֵיל — לָא מַפְּקִינַן מִינֵּיהּ.
And Rav Naḥman said: Even after they have come into the world he can retract, as the acquisition was defective from the outset. He maintains that one cannot transfer ownership of an entity that does not yet exist. Rav Naḥman said: Even so, I concede that if the buyer seizes the fruit and consumes it, the court does not remove them from him, because despite the faulty acquisition he was promised a sale of fruit.
- משנה קידושין ג:ה The situation does not yet exist
…הָאוֹמֵר לָאִשָּׁה: ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי לְאַחַר שֶׁאֶתְגַּיֵּיר״, אוֹ ״לְאַחַר שֶׁתִּתְגַּיְּירִי״, ״לְאַחַר שֶׁאֶשְׁתַּחְרֵר״, אוֹ ״לְאַחַר שֶׁתִּשְׁתַּחְרְרִי״, ״לְאַחַר שֶׁיָּמוּת בַּעְלִיךְ״, אוֹ ״לְאַחַר שֶׁתָּמוּת אֲחוֹתִיךְ״, ״לְאַחַר שֶׁיַּחְלוֹץ לִיךְ יְבָמִיךְ״ – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת…
With regard to one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me after I convert, or: After you convert, or if he was a Canaanite slave and says: After I am emancipated, or if she was a Canaanite maidservant and he says: After you are emancipated, or if he says to a married woman: After your husband dies, or to his wife’s sister: After your sister dies, or if he says to a woman awaiting levirate marriage or ḥalitza from a brother-in-law [yavam], who in the opinion of this tanna cannot be betrothed by another man: After your yavam performs ḥalitza for you, in all these cases she is not betrothed. Since he cannot betroth her at the present time, his attempt at betrothal is ineffective.
And similarly, with regard to one who says to another: If your wife gives birth to a female the child is hereby betrothed to me, even if she becomes pregnant, or is pregnant but her pregnancy is not known, if she gives birth to a girl, that child is not betrothed to him. But if he said this when the wife of the other man was pregnant and her fetus was discernible at the time, i.e., her pregnancy was known, his statement is upheld, and therefore if she gives birth to a girl, the child is betrothed to him.
- קידושין סב:-סג.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, וְרַבִּי, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר כּוּלְּהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ – אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לְעוֹלָם…
Abaye says: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Meir all hold the following principle: A person can transfer an entity that has not yet come into the world. That is, one can perform an act of acquisition for an item that is not yet in existence…
רַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּתַנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשָּׁה: ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי לְאַחַר שֶׁאֶתְגַּיֵּיר״, ״לְאַחַר שֶׁתִּתְגַּיְּירִי״, ״לְאַחַר שֶׁאֶשְׁתַּחְרֵר״, ״לְאַחַר שֶׁתִּשְׁתַּחְרְרִי״, ״לְאַחַר שֶׁיָּמוּת בַּעְלִיךְ״, ״לְאַחַר שֶׁתָּמוּת אֲחוֹתִיךְ״, ״לְאַחַר שֶׁיַּחְלוֹץ לָךְ יְבָמִיךְ״ – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת…
Rabbi Meir also holds that one can transfer an entity that has not yet come into the world, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me after I convert, or: After you convert, or: After I am emancipated, or: After you are emancipated, or: After your husband dies, or: After your sister dies, or: After your yavam performs ḥalitza for you, she is not betrothed. Rabbi Meir disagrees and says: She is betrothed…
- רמב”ם הלכות מכירה כב:א
אֵין אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם. בֵּין בְּמֶכֶר בֵּין בְּמַתָּנָה בֵּין בְּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מֵרַע. כֵּיצַד. מַה שֶּׁתּוֹצִיא שָׂדֶה זוֹ מָכוּר לְךָ. מַה שֶּׁיּוֹצִיא אִילָן זֶה נָתוּן לְךָ. תְּנוּ מַה שֶּׁתֵּלֵד בְּהֵמָה זוֹ לִפְלוֹנִי. לֹא קָנָה כְּלוּם. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
A person cannot transfer ownership over an article that has not yet come into existence. This applies with regard to a sale, with regard to a present or with regard to the disposition of an oral will.
What is implied? If a person states: “What my field will produce is sold to you,” “What this tree will grow is given to you,” “Give so and so the offspring that this animal bears,” the recipient does not acquire anything. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
Why?
אין סמיכות דעת
- נמוקי יוסף (רב יוסף חביבא) בבא מציעא סו:
לא מהני משום דלא סמכא דעתיה
This is ineffective because the (recipient) does not rely on this transaction actually happening
- בראשית כה:לג
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יַעֲקֹ֗ב הִשָּׁ֤בְעה לִּי֙ כַּיּ֔וֹם וַיִּשָּׁבַ֖ע ל֑וֹ וַיִּמְכֹּ֥ר אֶת־בְּכֹרָת֖וֹ לְיַעֲקֹֽב׃
But Jacob said, “Swear to me first.” So he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob.
- נציב (רב נפתלי צבי יהודה ברלין) העמק דבר בראשית כה:לג
השבעה לי כיום. באשר בכורה הוא באמת דבר שלא בא לעולם. וא״א למכור ע״כ הוסיף לו שישבע שלא יחזור במכירה :
Swear to me today: given that the firstborn right is something that does not yet exist and therefore cannot be sold, hence he added that Esav should take an oath not to renege on the sale.
אין בעלות It isn’t mine yet…
- רמב”ם הלכות מכירה כב:ה
דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ שֶׁל מַקְנֶה אֵינוֹ נִקְנֶה. וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּדָבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם. כֵּיצַד. מַה שֶּׁאִירַשׁ מֵאַבָּא מָכוּר לְךָ. מַה שֶּׁתַּעֲלֶה מְצוּדָתִי מִן הַיָּם נָתוּן לְךָ. שָׂדֶה זוֹ לִכְשֶׁאֶקָּחֶנָּה קְנוּיָה לְךָ. לֹא קָנָה כְּלוּם. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
An entity that is not in the possession of the seller cannot be acquired; it is like an entity that has not come into existence.
What is implied? When a seller says: “What I will inherit from my father is sold to you,” “What my net will bring up from the sea is sold to you,” or “When I purchase this field, it is sold to you,” the purchaser does not acquire anything. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
אין על מה שיחול הקנין
- ספר עיר שושן מאת הלבוש (ר’ מרדכי יפה) חושן משפט רט:ד
שאין כאן דבר שיחול עליו קנין…
ובפירות נמי דוקא כשקנה אותם קודם שחנטו אבל לאחר שחנטו מיקרו בא’ לעולם וקנה…
אבל אם מכר האילן לפירותיו…קנה מיד גוף האילן לפירותיו…ואין אחד מהם יכול לחזור בו
- ר”ן נדרים כט. (ד”ה וכתב הרשב”א – מתחיל בנדרים כח:)
ואף הרשב”א ז”ל היה חוכך בדינו לומר דאין דין זה אלא במקדיש בלבד משום דהקדש חל בקדושת פה ובאמירה בלחוד וה”ה לאומר יהא קרקע זה לעניים עד שאעלה לירושלים דאמירה כמסירה אבל במקנה לחבירו בעלמא לא דבמאי קני הא אפילו א”ל מעכשיו אי אפשר לו לקנות אלא בכסף בשטר ובחזקה וכסף או שטר או חזקה שנעשה על מכר זה או מתנה זו ראשונה כשחזר זה וקנה כבר כלתה קנייתן של אלו ולבסוף במה יקנה:
And though the Rashba disagreed saying that this ruling only applies to one who is consecrating an item only because hekdesh (=consecration) takes effect via speech only; the same would be the case if one said: “This land should belong to the poor until I ascend to Jerusalem,” because in that case speech is like an actual handoff. But one who transfers ownership to another person generally, this (=i.e., saying, this is yours until I ascend to Jerusalem) does not work, because with what does the second party actually acquire the land? After all, even if the owner said “from now,” the second party must acquire it through money, a contractor use of the land. And when money, contact, or use was done on this sale or on this gift originally, when someone went back and bought the land (from the second party), the original acquisition of the land through money, contract or use is gone. So with what will this second party (re-)acquire the land?
Hadran’s Beyond the Daf shiurim are also available by podcast on
Beyond the Daf is where you will discover enlightening shiurim led by remarkable women, delving deep into the intricacies of Talmudic teachings, and exploring relevant and thought-provoking topics that arise from the Daf.
