Today's Daf Yomi
June 28, 2017 | 讚壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讝
Bava Batra 157
If a father and a son die at around the same time and it is unclear who died first and there is not enough money to pay the ketuba and one who is owed money by the son, the creditors and the inheritors debate: the creditors claim the father died first and the son inherited the money and the inheritors claim the son died first and didn’t inherit the money to pay them back. 聽Beit Shamai said they split it 50/50 and Beit Hillel said the money remains in the hands of the inheritors. 聽The gemara raises a question about one who borrows money and subsequently possesses land and sells it. 聽If the creditor had included land that will be acquired by the borrower in the future, would that work to have a lien on the land that was acquired later and then sold or bequeathed. 聽This question is not asked according to Rabbi Meir who says one can acquire something not in existence at the time (because obviously this would work). 聽The question is according to the rabbis who think one can’t acquire something not in existence at the time – would it be different in this case? 聽Several sources are brought to attempt to answer the question but each is rejected as they can each be attributed to Rabbi Meir.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
讗讜诪专 讘讞讜诇 讗诪专讜 讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇砖讘转 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讝讻讬谉 诇讙讚讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讝讻讬谉 诇拽讟谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讘讙讚讜诇 讗诪专讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇拽讟谉
says: With regard to weekdays the Sages stated that the verbal instruction of person on his deathbed is valid, even though it is permitted to write. And one may infer a fortiori that the same applies with regard to Shabbat, when writing is prohibited. Similarly, one can acquire property on behalf of an adult, as he is able to effect acquisition himself, but one cannot acquire property on behalf of a minor; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: The Sages stated this halakha with regard to an adult, even though he can effect acquisition himself. One may infer a fortiori that this also applies with regard to a minor, who cannot effect acquisition himself.
专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘砖讘转 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讻转讜讘 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讞讜诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讘砖讘转 讗诪专讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讘讞讜诇 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讝讻讬谉 诇拽讟谉 讜讗讬谉 讝讻讬谉 诇讙讚讜诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇拽讟谉 讗诪专讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讙讚讜诇:
Rabbi Yehuda says that Rabbi Eliezer says: On Shabbat, the verbal statement of a person on his deathbed stands due to the fact that he cannot write. But a verbal instruction does not stand on a weekday. Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to Shabbat the Sages stated that his verbal instruction stands, even though writing is prohibited. One may infer a fortiori that the same applies with regard to a weekday, when writing is permitted. Similarly, one can acquire property on behalf of a minor, but one cannot acquire property on behalf of an adult, since he can effect the acquisition himself; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: The Sages stated this halakha with regard to a minor, and one may infer a fortiori that this also applies with regard to an adult.
诪转谞讬壮 谞驻诇 讛讘讬转 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讗讘讬讜 讗讜 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 诪讜专讬砖讬讜 讜讛讬转讛 注诇讬讜 讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗讘 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讘谉 诪转 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讛讗讘 讜讘注诇讬 讛讞讜讘 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讗讘 诪转 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讛讘谉
MISHNA: A house collapsed on a son and upon his father, or upon a certain person and upon those from whom he stands to inherit, and it is unknown who died first. If the son bore the responsibility to pay the marriage contract of his wife and to pay a creditor, and the son had no money with which to pay them except that which he might inherit from his father, and the father鈥檚 heirs say: The son died first and afterward the father died, and therefore the son did not inherit property from his father, and the creditors say: The father died first and afterward the son died, resulting in the son鈥檚 inheriting his father鈥檚 property, enabling the creditors to collect payment from the property even after the son鈥檚 death, there is a dispute with regard to how to rule.
讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讻住讬诐 讘讞讝拽转谉:
Since it cannot be determined who died first, Beit Shammai say: They divide the property between them so that the father鈥檚 heirs receive half of his property and the son鈥檚 creditors receive the other half. And Beit Hillel say: The property retains its previous ownership status. Since the last known owner of the property was the father, the property is given to the father鈥檚 heirs.
讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讘砖讟专 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 注诇 讬讚讬 注讚讬诐 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉
GEMARA: We learned in a mishna elsewhere (175a): One who lends money to another with a promissory note can collect the debt even from liened property that has been sold. If one lends money only with witnesses, he can collect the debt only from unsold property.
讘注讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗讬拽谞讬 讜拽谞讛 诪讛讜 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讜讚讗讬 拽谞讛 讗诇讗 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐
Shmuel raises a dilemma: If the borrower wrote in the promissory note: The property that I will acquire in the future shall be liened to this debt, and he subsequently acquired property, what is the halakha? Is the property liened or not? The Gemara clarifies the dilemma: According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: A person can transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world, you should not raise the dilemma, as the lender certainly acquires, i.e., places a lien, on the property. Rather, when should you raise the dilemma? Raise it according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: A person cannot transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world.
讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讗 砖诪注 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讛 讛讬讛 驻讬拽讞 砖诪讻专 诇讜 讗转 讛拽专拽注 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讬讻讜诇 诇诪砖讻谞讜 注诇讬讜
Rav Yosef said: Come and hear proof from a mishna (Ketubot 110a): If one produces a promissory note against another, and the borrower produced a bill of sale dated after the promissory note that states that the lender sold him a field of his, Admon says that the borrower can say: Were I really indebted to you, you should have collected the loan when you sold me the field. And the Rabbis say: This does not prove anything. It is possible that this lender was perspicacious, as he sold the borrower the land for a good reason, because now he can take the field as collateral from him in lieu of the outstanding loan. This mishna indicates that even property acquired by the borrower after the promissory note is written is liened.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讬谞讬讛 拽讗诪专 诪讬谞讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讙诇讬诪讗 讚注诇 讻转驻讬讛 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讚讗讬拽谞讬 拽谞讛 讜诪讻专 讚讗讬拽谞讬 拽谞讛 讜讛讜专讬砖 诪讗讬
Rava said to Rav Yosef: Do you speak of a case where the debt is collected from the debtor? With regard to collecting the debt from him, the debt is collected from any property currently in his possession, even from the cloak that is upon his shoulders. When the dilemma was raised to us, it was with regard to a case where the borrower wrote: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he subsequently acquired property and sold it to others. The dilemma also pertains to a case where the borrower wrote: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he subsequently acquired property and bequeathed it to his heirs. In these cases, what is the halakha? Can the lender repossess the property from the buyer or heir?
讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讗 转讗 砖诪注 谞驻诇 讛讘讬转 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讗讘讬讜 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 诪讜专讬砖讬讜 讜讛讬转讛 注诇讬讜 讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗讘 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讘谉 诪转 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讛讗讘 讜讘注诇讬 讞讜讘讜转 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讗讘 诪转 专讗砖讜谉 讻讜壮
Rav 岣na said: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: In a case where the house collapsed on a son and upon his father, or upon a certain person and upon those from whom he stands to inherit, and it is unknown who died first, the halakha depends on the circumstances. If the son bore the responsibility to pay the marriage contract of his wife and to pay a creditor, and the son had no money with which to pay them except that which he might inherit from his father, and the father鈥檚 heirs say: The son died first and afterward the father died, and therefore the son did not inherit property from his father, and the creditors say: The father died first and afterward the son died, there is a dispute with regard to how to rule. In this case, the creditors claim that the son inherited his father鈥檚 property, and therefore they have a lien upon the property.
讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讬拽谞讬 拽谞讛 讜诪讻专 讚讗讬拽谞讬 拽谞讛 讜讛讜专讬砖 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚 谞讛讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讘 诪讬转 讘专讬砖讗 讚讗讬拽谞讬 讛讜讗
The Gemara explains: And if it enters your mind to say that when the borrower writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he acquires property and sells it to others, it is not liened, and that when he writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he acquires property and bequeaths it to his heirs, it is not liened, then the mishna is difficult. Although the father indeed died first, this case is comparable to one where the borrower writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, as the son acquired the property after receiving the loan. This indicates that a lien can be placed upon property that one will acquire in the future.
讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讝注讬专讗 讞讘专讬谉 转专讙诪讛 诪爪讜讛 注诇 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诇驻专讜注 讞讜讘转 讗讘讬讛谉 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讛讜讗 讜专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诇讗 诪谉 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛诇拽讜讞讜转
Rav Na岣an said to the Sages: Rabbi Zeira, our colleague, interpreted the mishna as follows: In this case, the creditors do not claim the property because it is liened. Rather, they claim it because it is a mitzva incumbent upon the orphans to repay their father鈥檚 debt. Rav Ashi objects to this: If the promissory note does not place a lien on the property, this is considered a loan by oral agreement, and Rav and Shmuel both say: A loan by oral agreement cannot be collected, neither from the heirs nor from the buyers.
讗诇讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐
Rather, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: A person can transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world. Similarly, Rabbi Meir maintains that one can place a lien on property that the borrower will subsequently acquire.
讗诪专 专讘 讬注拽讘 诪谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 转讗 砖诪注 砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 讛诪讜拽讚诪讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讛诪讗讜讞专讬谉 讻砖专讬谉
Rav Yaakov from Nehar Pekod says in the name of Ravina: Come and hear proof from a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 10:5): Promissory notes that are antedated, i.e., that are dated prior to the date on which the loan actually was given, are invalid. This is because the promissory note places a lien on the borrower鈥檚 property. By dating the document earlier than the loan itself, the lender appears to have a lien on property that the borrower sold prior to taking out the loan, enabling the lender to fraudulently repossess it from the buyer. But promissory notes that are postdated are valid, as this does not enable the lender to defraud a buyer.
讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讬拽谞讬 拽谞讛 讜诪讻专 讚讗讬拽谞讬 拽谞讛 讜讛讜专讬砖 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚 诪讗讜讞专讬谉 讗诪讗讬 讻砖专讬谉 讚讗讬拽谞讬 讛讜讗
The Gemara explains: And if it enters your mind to say that property that the borrower acquires after receiving the loan is not liened even when he writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he acquires property and sells it to others, or when he writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he acquires property and bequeaths it to his heirs, why, then, are postdated promissory notes valid? They should be invalid, as in some instances they enable the creditor to fraudulently repossess property that is not liened, e.g., if the borrower acquires property after receiving the loan but before the date on the promissory note, and he sells it after that date. This case is comparable to one where the borrower writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened.
讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐
The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: A person can transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world.
讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 诇砖讘讞 拽专拽注讜转 讻讬爪讚 讛专讬 砖诪讻专 砖讚讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讛砖讘讬讞讛 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜讟专驻讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 诪谞讻住讬谉 诪砖讜注讘讚讬谉 讜讗转 讛砖讘讞 诪谞讻住讬谉 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉
Rav Mesharshiyya says in the name of Rava: Come and hear proof from a baraita: With regard to collecting a debt in a case of enhancement of land, how does it happen that the debt cannot be collected from liened property that has been sold? This question arises in a case where a debtor sold a field to another and the buyer enhanced it, and a creditor came and repossessed it from the buyer. When the buyer collects the value of the land from the seller, he collects the principal even from liened property that was sold to others, but he collects the value of the enhancement only from unsold property.
讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讬拽谞讬 拽谞讛 讜诪讻专 讚讗讬拽谞讬 拽谞讛 讜讛讜专讬砖 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗诪讗讬 讙讜讘讛 砖讘讞讗
And if it enters your mind to say that property that the borrower acquires after receiving the loan is not liened even when he writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he acquires property and sells it to others, or when he writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he acquires property and bequeaths it to his heirs, why does the creditor collect his debt by repossessing the enhancement from the buyer? Since the enhancement was not extant at the time of the loan, it is not liened.
讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐
The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: A person can transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world. The dilemma of Shmuel is raised according to the opinion of the Rabbis.
讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讚讗讬拽谞讬 拽谞讛 讜诪讻专 讚讗讬拽谞讬 拽谞讛 讜讛讜专讬砖 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚 讛讗 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚 讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 诪砖转注讘讚 诇讜讛 讜诇讜讛 讜讞讝专 讜拽谞讛 诪讛讜 诇拽诪讗 诪砖转注讘讚 讗讜 诇讘转专讗 诪砖转注讘讚
The Gemara comments: If you say that when the borrower writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he acquires property and sells it to others, it is not liened, and that when he writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he acquires property and bequeaths it to his heirs, it is not liened, then it is not liened and the following question will not arise. If you say that it is liened, what is the halakha with regard to one who borrowed money from one lender and then borrowed money from another lender, stating in both cases that the property that he will acquire shall be liened, and he then acquired land? Does the first lender have a lien upon the property or does the last lender have a lien upon the property?
讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讜砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 专讗砖讜谉 拽谞讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讜讻谉 转谞讬 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪讛讚讜专讗 拽诪讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇谉 专讗砖讜谉 拽谞讛 诪讛讚讜专讗 讘转专讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇谉 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讜讛诇讻转讗 讬讞诇讜拽讜
Rav Na岣an said: This matter was raised before us, and the Sages sent a response from there, from Eretz Yisrael: The first lender acquires the property, since his lien came first. Rav Huna says: The lenders divide the property between them. And so teaches Rabba bar Avuh: The lenders divide the property between them. Ravina said: The first time Rav Ashi taught this matter he said to us: The first lender acquires the property. The last time Rav Ashi taught this matter he said to us: The lenders divide the property between them. And the halakha is that they divide the property between them.
诪讬转讬讘讬 诇砖讘讞 拽专拽注讜转 讻讬爪讚 讛专讬 砖诪讻专 砖讚讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讛砖讘讬讞讛 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜讟专驻讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 诪谞讻住讬谉 诪砖讜注讘讚讬谉 讜讗转 讛砖讘讞 诪谞讻住讬谉 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讞爪讬 砖讘讞 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛
The Gemara raises an objection from the aforementioned baraita: With regard to collecting a debt in a case of enhancement of land, how does it occur that the debt cannot be collected from liened property that has been sold? This question arises in a case where one sold a field to another, and the buyer enhanced it, and a creditor came and repossessed it from the buyer. When the buyer collects the value of the land from the seller, he collects the principal even from liened property that was sold to others, but he collects the value of the enhancement only from unsold property. And if it is so that in general, the property is divided between the creditors, then, since both the creditor and the buyer have a lien upon the enhancement of the property, the buyer should collect only half of the value of the enhancement.
诪讗讬 讙讜讘讛 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讞爪讬 砖讘讞:
The Gemara answers: What does the baraita mean, as well, when it teaches that the buyer collects the enhancement? The baraita means that he collects half of the value of the enhancement.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!
Bava Batra 157
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
讗讜诪专 讘讞讜诇 讗诪专讜 讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇砖讘转 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讝讻讬谉 诇讙讚讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讝讻讬谉 诇拽讟谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讘讙讚讜诇 讗诪专讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇拽讟谉
says: With regard to weekdays the Sages stated that the verbal instruction of person on his deathbed is valid, even though it is permitted to write. And one may infer a fortiori that the same applies with regard to Shabbat, when writing is prohibited. Similarly, one can acquire property on behalf of an adult, as he is able to effect acquisition himself, but one cannot acquire property on behalf of a minor; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: The Sages stated this halakha with regard to an adult, even though he can effect acquisition himself. One may infer a fortiori that this also applies with regard to a minor, who cannot effect acquisition himself.
专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘砖讘转 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讻转讜讘 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讞讜诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讘砖讘转 讗诪专讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讘讞讜诇 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讝讻讬谉 诇拽讟谉 讜讗讬谉 讝讻讬谉 诇讙讚讜诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇拽讟谉 讗诪专讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讙讚讜诇:
Rabbi Yehuda says that Rabbi Eliezer says: On Shabbat, the verbal statement of a person on his deathbed stands due to the fact that he cannot write. But a verbal instruction does not stand on a weekday. Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to Shabbat the Sages stated that his verbal instruction stands, even though writing is prohibited. One may infer a fortiori that the same applies with regard to a weekday, when writing is permitted. Similarly, one can acquire property on behalf of a minor, but one cannot acquire property on behalf of an adult, since he can effect the acquisition himself; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: The Sages stated this halakha with regard to a minor, and one may infer a fortiori that this also applies with regard to an adult.
诪转谞讬壮 谞驻诇 讛讘讬转 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讗讘讬讜 讗讜 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 诪讜专讬砖讬讜 讜讛讬转讛 注诇讬讜 讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗讘 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讘谉 诪转 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讛讗讘 讜讘注诇讬 讛讞讜讘 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讗讘 诪转 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讛讘谉
MISHNA: A house collapsed on a son and upon his father, or upon a certain person and upon those from whom he stands to inherit, and it is unknown who died first. If the son bore the responsibility to pay the marriage contract of his wife and to pay a creditor, and the son had no money with which to pay them except that which he might inherit from his father, and the father鈥檚 heirs say: The son died first and afterward the father died, and therefore the son did not inherit property from his father, and the creditors say: The father died first and afterward the son died, resulting in the son鈥檚 inheriting his father鈥檚 property, enabling the creditors to collect payment from the property even after the son鈥檚 death, there is a dispute with regard to how to rule.
讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讻住讬诐 讘讞讝拽转谉:
Since it cannot be determined who died first, Beit Shammai say: They divide the property between them so that the father鈥檚 heirs receive half of his property and the son鈥檚 creditors receive the other half. And Beit Hillel say: The property retains its previous ownership status. Since the last known owner of the property was the father, the property is given to the father鈥檚 heirs.
讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讘砖讟专 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 注诇 讬讚讬 注讚讬诐 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉
GEMARA: We learned in a mishna elsewhere (175a): One who lends money to another with a promissory note can collect the debt even from liened property that has been sold. If one lends money only with witnesses, he can collect the debt only from unsold property.
讘注讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗讬拽谞讬 讜拽谞讛 诪讛讜 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讜讚讗讬 拽谞讛 讗诇讗 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐
Shmuel raises a dilemma: If the borrower wrote in the promissory note: The property that I will acquire in the future shall be liened to this debt, and he subsequently acquired property, what is the halakha? Is the property liened or not? The Gemara clarifies the dilemma: According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: A person can transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world, you should not raise the dilemma, as the lender certainly acquires, i.e., places a lien, on the property. Rather, when should you raise the dilemma? Raise it according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: A person cannot transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world.
讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讗 砖诪注 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讛 讛讬讛 驻讬拽讞 砖诪讻专 诇讜 讗转 讛拽专拽注 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讬讻讜诇 诇诪砖讻谞讜 注诇讬讜
Rav Yosef said: Come and hear proof from a mishna (Ketubot 110a): If one produces a promissory note against another, and the borrower produced a bill of sale dated after the promissory note that states that the lender sold him a field of his, Admon says that the borrower can say: Were I really indebted to you, you should have collected the loan when you sold me the field. And the Rabbis say: This does not prove anything. It is possible that this lender was perspicacious, as he sold the borrower the land for a good reason, because now he can take the field as collateral from him in lieu of the outstanding loan. This mishna indicates that even property acquired by the borrower after the promissory note is written is liened.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讬谞讬讛 拽讗诪专 诪讬谞讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讙诇讬诪讗 讚注诇 讻转驻讬讛 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讚讗讬拽谞讬 拽谞讛 讜诪讻专 讚讗讬拽谞讬 拽谞讛 讜讛讜专讬砖 诪讗讬
Rava said to Rav Yosef: Do you speak of a case where the debt is collected from the debtor? With regard to collecting the debt from him, the debt is collected from any property currently in his possession, even from the cloak that is upon his shoulders. When the dilemma was raised to us, it was with regard to a case where the borrower wrote: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he subsequently acquired property and sold it to others. The dilemma also pertains to a case where the borrower wrote: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he subsequently acquired property and bequeathed it to his heirs. In these cases, what is the halakha? Can the lender repossess the property from the buyer or heir?
讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讗 转讗 砖诪注 谞驻诇 讛讘讬转 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讗讘讬讜 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 诪讜专讬砖讬讜 讜讛讬转讛 注诇讬讜 讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗讘 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讘谉 诪转 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讛讗讘 讜讘注诇讬 讞讜讘讜转 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讗讘 诪转 专讗砖讜谉 讻讜壮
Rav 岣na said: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: In a case where the house collapsed on a son and upon his father, or upon a certain person and upon those from whom he stands to inherit, and it is unknown who died first, the halakha depends on the circumstances. If the son bore the responsibility to pay the marriage contract of his wife and to pay a creditor, and the son had no money with which to pay them except that which he might inherit from his father, and the father鈥檚 heirs say: The son died first and afterward the father died, and therefore the son did not inherit property from his father, and the creditors say: The father died first and afterward the son died, there is a dispute with regard to how to rule. In this case, the creditors claim that the son inherited his father鈥檚 property, and therefore they have a lien upon the property.
讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讬拽谞讬 拽谞讛 讜诪讻专 讚讗讬拽谞讬 拽谞讛 讜讛讜专讬砖 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚 谞讛讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讘 诪讬转 讘专讬砖讗 讚讗讬拽谞讬 讛讜讗
The Gemara explains: And if it enters your mind to say that when the borrower writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he acquires property and sells it to others, it is not liened, and that when he writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he acquires property and bequeaths it to his heirs, it is not liened, then the mishna is difficult. Although the father indeed died first, this case is comparable to one where the borrower writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, as the son acquired the property after receiving the loan. This indicates that a lien can be placed upon property that one will acquire in the future.
讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讝注讬专讗 讞讘专讬谉 转专讙诪讛 诪爪讜讛 注诇 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 诇驻专讜注 讞讜讘转 讗讘讬讛谉 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讛讜讗 讜专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诇讗 诪谉 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛诇拽讜讞讜转
Rav Na岣an said to the Sages: Rabbi Zeira, our colleague, interpreted the mishna as follows: In this case, the creditors do not claim the property because it is liened. Rather, they claim it because it is a mitzva incumbent upon the orphans to repay their father鈥檚 debt. Rav Ashi objects to this: If the promissory note does not place a lien on the property, this is considered a loan by oral agreement, and Rav and Shmuel both say: A loan by oral agreement cannot be collected, neither from the heirs nor from the buyers.
讗诇讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐
Rather, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: A person can transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world. Similarly, Rabbi Meir maintains that one can place a lien on property that the borrower will subsequently acquire.
讗诪专 专讘 讬注拽讘 诪谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 转讗 砖诪注 砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 讛诪讜拽讚诪讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讛诪讗讜讞专讬谉 讻砖专讬谉
Rav Yaakov from Nehar Pekod says in the name of Ravina: Come and hear proof from a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 10:5): Promissory notes that are antedated, i.e., that are dated prior to the date on which the loan actually was given, are invalid. This is because the promissory note places a lien on the borrower鈥檚 property. By dating the document earlier than the loan itself, the lender appears to have a lien on property that the borrower sold prior to taking out the loan, enabling the lender to fraudulently repossess it from the buyer. But promissory notes that are postdated are valid, as this does not enable the lender to defraud a buyer.
讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讬拽谞讬 拽谞讛 讜诪讻专 讚讗讬拽谞讬 拽谞讛 讜讛讜专讬砖 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚 诪讗讜讞专讬谉 讗诪讗讬 讻砖专讬谉 讚讗讬拽谞讬 讛讜讗
The Gemara explains: And if it enters your mind to say that property that the borrower acquires after receiving the loan is not liened even when he writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he acquires property and sells it to others, or when he writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he acquires property and bequeaths it to his heirs, why, then, are postdated promissory notes valid? They should be invalid, as in some instances they enable the creditor to fraudulently repossess property that is not liened, e.g., if the borrower acquires property after receiving the loan but before the date on the promissory note, and he sells it after that date. This case is comparable to one where the borrower writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened.
讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐
The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: A person can transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world.
讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 诇砖讘讞 拽专拽注讜转 讻讬爪讚 讛专讬 砖诪讻专 砖讚讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讛砖讘讬讞讛 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜讟专驻讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 诪谞讻住讬谉 诪砖讜注讘讚讬谉 讜讗转 讛砖讘讞 诪谞讻住讬谉 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉
Rav Mesharshiyya says in the name of Rava: Come and hear proof from a baraita: With regard to collecting a debt in a case of enhancement of land, how does it happen that the debt cannot be collected from liened property that has been sold? This question arises in a case where a debtor sold a field to another and the buyer enhanced it, and a creditor came and repossessed it from the buyer. When the buyer collects the value of the land from the seller, he collects the principal even from liened property that was sold to others, but he collects the value of the enhancement only from unsold property.
讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讬拽谞讬 拽谞讛 讜诪讻专 讚讗讬拽谞讬 拽谞讛 讜讛讜专讬砖 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗诪讗讬 讙讜讘讛 砖讘讞讗
And if it enters your mind to say that property that the borrower acquires after receiving the loan is not liened even when he writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he acquires property and sells it to others, or when he writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he acquires property and bequeaths it to his heirs, why does the creditor collect his debt by repossessing the enhancement from the buyer? Since the enhancement was not extant at the time of the loan, it is not liened.
讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐
The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: A person can transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world. The dilemma of Shmuel is raised according to the opinion of the Rabbis.
讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讚讗讬拽谞讬 拽谞讛 讜诪讻专 讚讗讬拽谞讬 拽谞讛 讜讛讜专讬砖 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚 讛讗 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚 讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 诪砖转注讘讚 诇讜讛 讜诇讜讛 讜讞讝专 讜拽谞讛 诪讛讜 诇拽诪讗 诪砖转注讘讚 讗讜 诇讘转专讗 诪砖转注讘讚
The Gemara comments: If you say that when the borrower writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he acquires property and sells it to others, it is not liened, and that when he writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he acquires property and bequeaths it to his heirs, it is not liened, then it is not liened and the following question will not arise. If you say that it is liened, what is the halakha with regard to one who borrowed money from one lender and then borrowed money from another lender, stating in both cases that the property that he will acquire shall be liened, and he then acquired land? Does the first lender have a lien upon the property or does the last lender have a lien upon the property?
讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讜砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 专讗砖讜谉 拽谞讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讜讻谉 转谞讬 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪讛讚讜专讗 拽诪讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇谉 专讗砖讜谉 拽谞讛 诪讛讚讜专讗 讘转专讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇谉 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讜讛诇讻转讗 讬讞诇讜拽讜
Rav Na岣an said: This matter was raised before us, and the Sages sent a response from there, from Eretz Yisrael: The first lender acquires the property, since his lien came first. Rav Huna says: The lenders divide the property between them. And so teaches Rabba bar Avuh: The lenders divide the property between them. Ravina said: The first time Rav Ashi taught this matter he said to us: The first lender acquires the property. The last time Rav Ashi taught this matter he said to us: The lenders divide the property between them. And the halakha is that they divide the property between them.
诪讬转讬讘讬 诇砖讘讞 拽专拽注讜转 讻讬爪讚 讛专讬 砖诪讻专 砖讚讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讛砖讘讬讞讛 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜讟专驻讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 诪谞讻住讬谉 诪砖讜注讘讚讬谉 讜讗转 讛砖讘讞 诪谞讻住讬谉 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讞爪讬 砖讘讞 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛
The Gemara raises an objection from the aforementioned baraita: With regard to collecting a debt in a case of enhancement of land, how does it occur that the debt cannot be collected from liened property that has been sold? This question arises in a case where one sold a field to another, and the buyer enhanced it, and a creditor came and repossessed it from the buyer. When the buyer collects the value of the land from the seller, he collects the principal even from liened property that was sold to others, but he collects the value of the enhancement only from unsold property. And if it is so that in general, the property is divided between the creditors, then, since both the creditor and the buyer have a lien upon the enhancement of the property, the buyer should collect only half of the value of the enhancement.
诪讗讬 讙讜讘讛 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讞爪讬 砖讘讞:
The Gemara answers: What does the baraita mean, as well, when it teaches that the buyer collects the enhancement? The baraita means that he collects half of the value of the enhancement.
