Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 10, 2017 | 讟状讝 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Batra 169

In a聽case of a lost document, can one write up a new document to replace the old one? 聽In which cases is this ok? 聽And in which cases are we worried one may pull out the old document at a later time and claim land that doesn’t belong to him/her? 聽Two very basic disagreements are discussed – is a guarantee a basic part of any sale – meaning that if it isn’t written in the document does one assume that it was sold with a guarantee? 聽And does passing on a shtar (deed of sale) to another affect a kinyan聽– is the item acquired by the receiver, even though the name on the deed is the one who gave it to him/her?

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 砖讟专讬 诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛谞讜转谉 诪转谞讛 诇讞讘专讜 讜讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讟专 讞讝专讛 诪转谞转讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪转谞转讜 拽讬讬诪转

The baraita continues: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The court may not write a replacement document even for deeds of buying and selling land. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says as well: With regard to one who gives a gift of land to another, and the recipient returned the deed to him, his gift of land returns to him as well. But the Rabbis say: His gift of land remains in the possession of the recipient.

讗诪专 诪专 讞讜抓 诪讗讞专讬讜转 砖讘讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master says in the baraita: With regard to deeds of buying and selling land, the court may write a replacement document, excluding the guarantee that was in the first document. What is the reason that the guarantee may not be written?

讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 注诇 砖讚讛 讗讞转 讚诇诪讗 讗讝讬诇 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讟专讬祝 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 讜讗讝讬诇 讛讗讬 讜诪驻讬拽 讞讚 讜讟专讬祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖讜祝 诇讬 讚讗讬拽讜诐 讘讛 讜讛讚专 转讗 讟讬专驻谉 讜诪驻讬拽 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讛讚专 讗讝讬诇 讟专讬祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 讗讞专讬谞讬

Rav Safra says: It is because the court may not write two deeds of sale for the same sale of one field, lest a creditor of the seller go and repossess the field sold to this purchaser, and that purchaser go and take out one deed, and in accordance with the guarantee clause of the sale, repossess land from other purchasers who purchased land from the same seller at a later date, and say to the creditor: Remain quiet [shof ] about this matter for a few years, while I become established in the property I repossessed. And then, come and claim your loan again, and then you will repossess this property from me. And then, after it is taken from him a second time, the purchaser will then take out the other document of sale, the replacement that the court had written for him, and then go and repossess land from other purchasers who purchased land from the same seller. In short, a replacement document with a guarantee will enable double collection on that guarantee.

讜讻讬讜谉 讚拽专注谞讬讛 诇砖讟专讗 讚诪诇讜讛 讘诪讗讬 讛讚专 讟专讬祝 诇讛

The Gemara asks with regard to Rav Safra鈥檚 scenario: How would it be possible for this to occur? But once the creditor repossessed the land the first time as payment of the debt, we, the court, tore the promissory note of the seller鈥檚 creditor; with what document could the creditor repossess the purchaser鈥檚 land again?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚诇讗 拽专注谞讬讛 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻诇 讟讬专驻讗 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 拽专注谞讬讛 诇砖讟专讗 讚诪诇讜讛 诇讗讜 讟讬专驻讗 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 讗讚专讻转讗 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛 拽专注谞讬讛 诇讟讬专驻讗 诇讗讜 讗讚专讻转讗 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 砖讜诪讗 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 拽专注谞讬讛 诇讗讚专讻转讗 诇讗讜 砖讜诪讗 讛讬讗

And if you would say that we did not tear the creditor鈥檚 promissory note in the course of the first collection, that cannot be. But doesn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that any document of authorization to repossess liened property from its purchaser in which it is not written: We have torn the creditor鈥檚 promissory note, is not a valid document of authorization to repossess liened property; and any document of authorization used to seize a debtor鈥檚 property in which it is not written: We have torn the creditor鈥檚 document of authorization to repossess liened property, is not a valid document of authorization; and any document of appraisal of an article鈥檚 value in which it is not written: We have torn the creditor鈥檚 document of authorization, is not a valid document of appraisal.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讗转讬 诪讻讞 讗讘讛转讬讛

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to explain Rav Safra鈥檚 case as follows: The concern is not that a creditor will repossess the field, but that someone will come to repossess it based on his claim to the land as the property of his ancestors. That is, he proved that the field had belonged to his ancestors, and by extension belongs to himself as their heir, and the one who sold the field was in fact a thief. It was for this reason that he repossessed the field from the purchaser, and the concern is that the purchaser will seek reimbursement, as stipulated in the guarantee, from other property sold subsequently by the seller. If the purchaser has two deeds of sale with guarantees, he can collect payment twice.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬讛 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖讜祝 诇讬 讘讛讗讬 讗专注讗 讜讗讬拽讜诐 讘讛 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讻讬讜谉 讚谞拽讬讟 转专讬 砖讟专讬 讟专讬祝 讜讛讚专 讟专讬祝

The Gemara presents another question pertaining to Rav Safra鈥檚 case. Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: And why did Rav Safra have to include in his case that the purchaser will say to the creditor: Remain quiet about this matter for a few years while I become established in this land I repossessed, and then come and claim your loan again? Why did he devise a case in which the seller鈥檚 creditor collects payment twice? Let the problem derive from the fact that since the purchaser holds two deeds he will be able to repossess land based on his guarantee once and then repossess land again, even if the creditor does not collect his debt twice.

讗诐 讻谉 谞驻讬砖讬 注诇讬讛 讘注诇讬 讚讬谞讬谉

Ravina answered: If so, if the purchaser attempts to repossess land twice based on a single repossession of the creditor, he will have too many litigants to deal with at once, and his dishonest dealings will be discovered.

讜诇讻转讜讘 诇讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 诪注诇讬讗 讜诇讻转讜讘 转讘专讗 诇诪讜讻专 讻诇 砖讟专讬 讚讬驻拽讜谉 注诇 讗专注讗 讚讗 驻住讜诇讬谉 诇讘专 诪谉 讚讬驻讜拽 讘讝诪谞讗 讚讗

The Gemara asks further: But let the court write a proper bill of sale, one that includes a guarantee, for this purchaser, and then let the court write a receipt for the seller, stating: All documents that are issued with regard to the purchase of this field are not valid, except for the one issued on this date, referring to the replacement document written by the court. This will prevent double collection, as if the purchaser attempts to collect on his guarantee with a second document, the seller will foil this attempt by showing this receipt.

讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专

The Rabbis said before Rav Pappa in response to this question, and some say it was said before Rav Ashi: Is that to say that the tanna of the baraita holds that in general the court does not write a receipt in such cases?

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘注诇诪讗 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讚诇诪讗 讗讝讬诇 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜讟专讬祝 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诇讜拽讞 讜讗讝讬诇 讗讬讛讜 讜讟专讬祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 讜砖讜讘专 讙讘讬 诇拽讜讞讜转 诇讬讻讗

Rav Pappa or Rav Ashi said to them: Do not draw this conclusion. It is possible that the tanna of the baraita holds that generally the court writes a receipt when a creditor has lost his promissory note. And here, this is the reason that it does not write a receipt: As, perhaps the creditor, i.e., the one from whom the property was stolen, will go and repossess property from the purchaser who bought the stolen land, and the purchaser, seeking reimbursement in accordance with the guarantee, will go and repossess property from other purchasers who had later bought property from the same seller. And the receipt will not help, because it is not with the purchasers who bought property from the seller, but is in the possession of the seller himself. The purchasers, who are the ones who will suffer from the double collection, have no protection; they will in fact not even be aware that they are the victims of a double collection.

住讜祝 住讜祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 诇讗讜 讗诪专讬 讚讗专注讗 讛讚专讬

The Gemara asks: Ultimately, don鈥檛 these purchasers go back to the owner, i.e., the seller, of the land to demand reimbursement? At that point the seller will produce the receipt, exposing the double collection, and the entire process will be reversed, so that ultimately the purchaser who suffered from the unjust collection will obtain possession of his property.

讗讚讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 砖诪讬讟 讜讗讻讬诇 驻讬专讬

The Gemara answers: While it is true that ultimately the deception will be discovered, in the interim, between the time the land was unjustly repossessed from the purchaser and the time when the injustice is reversed, the one who repossessed the land seizes the land and consumes its produce, i.e., he enjoys the profits produced by the land, and it will be difficult to receive full reimbursement for this stolen produce.

讗讬 谞诪讬 诇诇讜拽讞 砖诇讗 讘讗讞专讬讜转

Alternatively, the reason the option of writing a receipt for the seller of the land is not pursued here is that there is a concern about one who purchases land without a guarantee. As such a purchaser knows that he has no recourse to be reimbursed from the seller if the land he bought is repossessed, he will never contact the seller and discover that the seller has a receipt and that he has been the victim of an unjust double collection.

讗讬 讛讻讬 砖讟专讬 讛诇讜讗讛 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: If so, the same concern should be taken into consideration in the case of promissory notes as well. And yet Rav Pappa, or Rav Ashi, said that the tanna of the baraita concedes that a receipt may be written for the debtor to enable the collection of a debt in the event of the loss of the promissory note. Why are the aforementioned concerns not applicable to the case of debt collection?

讛转诐 讚讝讜讝讬 诪住讬拽 讗诪专讬 驻讬讬住讬讛 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讘讝讜讝讬 讛讻讗 讚讗专注讗 诪住讬拽 诪讬讚注 讬讚注讬 讚诪讗谉 讚诪住讬拽 讗专注讗 讘讝讜讝讬 诇讗 诪驻讬讬住

The Gemara answers: There, where the debtor owes money, when the creditor seeks to repossess sold land, the purchaser of that land will say to himself: There is a possibility that the debtor appeased the creditor by paying him money, since debts are usually settled with money. I will therefore investigate the matter with the debtor before allowing the creditor to repossess my land. At that point the receipt, held by the debtor, will be discovered, and double collection will be prevented. Here, where he owes land, as the issue is that the claim is based on reimbursement for having bought stolen land, the purchaser knows that it is not common for one who is owed land to be appeased with money in such cases. The purchaser will therefore allow his land to be repossessed and will seek reimbursement at a later time.

讗诪专 诪专 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讗讞专讬讜转 砖讘讜 讛讬讻讬 讻转讘讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讻转讘讬 讛讻讬 砖讟专讗 讚谞谉 讚诇讗 诇诪讬讙讘讬 讘讬讛 诇讗 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 讜诇讗 诪讘谞讬 讞专讬 讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚转讬拽讜诐 讗专注讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讚诇讜拽讞

搂 The Gemara returns to the baraita and analyzes one of its statements. The Master says in the baraita: With regard to deeds of buying and selling land, the court may write a replacement document, excluding the guarantee that was in the first document that if the field is repossessed the seller will compensate the purchaser for his loss. How do we write a bill of sale in such a way that it does not include this guarantee? Rav Na岣an said that the case is one in which the court writes as follows: Our deed is not intended to enable the collection of reimbursement in event of repossession, neither collection from liened property that has been sold nor collection from unsold property; rather, it is intended merely to ensure that the land is established in the possession of the purchaser.

讗诪专 专驻专诐 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讗讞专讬讜转 讟注讜转 住讜驻专 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讛讗 诇讗 讻转讘 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讙讘讬

Rafram says: This statement of Rav Na岣an serves to say that the omission of the guarantee of the sale from a document is a scribal error. That is, it is assumed that when one purchases land he expects to have his purchase guaranteed, and that if such a clause is not stated in the document it is presumed to be a mere scribal oversight, and a guarantee is in effect. Rav Na岣an said, in explaining the baraita, that the only reason a land purchase would not have a guarantee is that the scribe wrote this for him, i.e., he wrote that there is no guarantee, explicitly in the deed; this indicates that if the scribe did not write this explicitly for the purchaser, but left out the subject of the guarantee altogether, the purchaser would nevertheless have the guarantee and would be able to collect reimbursement from the seller in the event of repossession.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗讞专讬讜转 诇讗讜 讟注讜转 住讜驻专 讛讜讗 讜诪讗讬 讞讜抓 诪讗讞专讬讜转 砖讘讜 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗讞专讬讜转

Rav Ashi disagrees and says: The omission of the guarantee of the sale from a document is not a scribal error. Accordingly, if mention of a guarantee is omitted from a bill of sale, there is in fact no guarantee. And what does the baraita mean when it says: Excluding the guarantee that was in the first document? It means simply that in this case there was no clause about a guarantee written in it at all.

讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚讬讛讘讛 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 诇诪讬讝讘谉 诇讛 讗专注讗 讗讝诇 讝讘谉 诇讛 砖诇讗 讘讗讞专讬讜转 讗转讬讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉

The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who gave money to a certain man to act as her agent and purchase land for her. The agent went and purchased land for her, but he conducted the purchase in such a way that it was without a guarantee. The woman wanted to take action against the agent and came before Rav Na岣an to ask what recourse she had.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇转拽讜谞讬 砖讚专转讬讱 讜诇讗 诇注讜讜转讬 讝讬诇 讝讘谞讛 诪讬谞讬讛 砖诇讗 讘讗讞专讬讜转 讜讛讚专 讝讘谞讛 谞讬讛诇讛 讘讗讞专讬讜转

Rav Na岣an said to the agent: The principle with regard to an agent is that if he acts to the detriment of the one who appointed him, the one who appointed him can say: I sent you to act for my benefit and not to my detriment. Therefore, the entire agency is null and void, thereby negating the purchase. Nevertheless, you agreed to purchase the land without a guarantee. Therefore, go yourself and purchase the land from him without a guarantee, and then sell it to this woman with a guarantee that you will reimburse her in the event the land is repossessed.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛谞讜转谉 诪转谞讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讟专 讞讝专讛 诪转谞转讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪转谞转讜 拽讬讬诪转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 谞注砖讛 讻讗讜诪专 诇讜 砖讚讛 讝讜 谞转讜谞讛 诇讱 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛砖讟专 讘讬讚讱

搂 The baraita teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In the case of one who gives a gift of land to another, and the recipient returned the deed to him, his gift of land returns to him as well. But the Rabbis say: His gift of land remains in the possession of the recipient. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? Rav Asi says: It becomes as if the giver said to the recipient: This field is given to you only as long as the deed remains in your possession. Therefore, by returning the deed to the giver, the recipient is canceling the gift.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讙谞讘 讗讜 讗讘讚 谞诪讬

Rabba objects to this: If that is so that these are the conditions of the gift, then when the deed is stolen from or lost by the recipient, the gift should also be canceled.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘讗讜转讬讜转 谞拽谞讜转 讘诪住讬专讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讗讜转讬讜转 谞拽谞讜转 讘诪住讬专讛 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讗讜转讬讜转 谞拽谞讜转 讘诪住讬专讛

Rather, Rabba said a different explanation: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis disagree about whether or not the letters, i.e., the contents of a promissory note, are acquired by merely transferring the document from one holder of the document to another. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the letters are acquired by transferring the document. Therefore, if the recipient returns the bill of sale to the giver, the land returns to the giver as well. And the Rabbis hold that the letters are not acquired by transferring the document.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讘讗 诇讬讚讜谉 讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛 谞讬讚讜谉 讘砖讟专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讘讞讝拽讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to one who comes to court to be judged over a claim that land that is in his possession belongs to another, if he claims ownership based on a deed, i.e., a bill of sale, and claims further that he is the owner based on presumptive ownership of the land, as it was in his uncontested possession for three years, and he therefore does not need the deed as proof, his claim is judged based on the deed. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: His claim is judged based on his presumptive ownership.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讘讗讜转讬讜转 谞拽谞讜转 讘诪住讬专讛 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: With regard to what do Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagree? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: They disagree about whether or not letters are acquired by transferring the document from one holder of the document to another.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 169

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 169

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 砖讟专讬 诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛谞讜转谉 诪转谞讛 诇讞讘专讜 讜讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讟专 讞讝专讛 诪转谞转讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪转谞转讜 拽讬讬诪转

The baraita continues: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The court may not write a replacement document even for deeds of buying and selling land. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says as well: With regard to one who gives a gift of land to another, and the recipient returned the deed to him, his gift of land returns to him as well. But the Rabbis say: His gift of land remains in the possession of the recipient.

讗诪专 诪专 讞讜抓 诪讗讞专讬讜转 砖讘讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master says in the baraita: With regard to deeds of buying and selling land, the court may write a replacement document, excluding the guarantee that was in the first document. What is the reason that the guarantee may not be written?

讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 注诇 砖讚讛 讗讞转 讚诇诪讗 讗讝讬诇 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讟专讬祝 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 讜讗讝讬诇 讛讗讬 讜诪驻讬拽 讞讚 讜讟专讬祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖讜祝 诇讬 讚讗讬拽讜诐 讘讛 讜讛讚专 转讗 讟讬专驻谉 讜诪驻讬拽 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讛讚专 讗讝讬诇 讟专讬祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 讗讞专讬谞讬

Rav Safra says: It is because the court may not write two deeds of sale for the same sale of one field, lest a creditor of the seller go and repossess the field sold to this purchaser, and that purchaser go and take out one deed, and in accordance with the guarantee clause of the sale, repossess land from other purchasers who purchased land from the same seller at a later date, and say to the creditor: Remain quiet [shof ] about this matter for a few years, while I become established in the property I repossessed. And then, come and claim your loan again, and then you will repossess this property from me. And then, after it is taken from him a second time, the purchaser will then take out the other document of sale, the replacement that the court had written for him, and then go and repossess land from other purchasers who purchased land from the same seller. In short, a replacement document with a guarantee will enable double collection on that guarantee.

讜讻讬讜谉 讚拽专注谞讬讛 诇砖讟专讗 讚诪诇讜讛 讘诪讗讬 讛讚专 讟专讬祝 诇讛

The Gemara asks with regard to Rav Safra鈥檚 scenario: How would it be possible for this to occur? But once the creditor repossessed the land the first time as payment of the debt, we, the court, tore the promissory note of the seller鈥檚 creditor; with what document could the creditor repossess the purchaser鈥檚 land again?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚诇讗 拽专注谞讬讛 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻诇 讟讬专驻讗 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 拽专注谞讬讛 诇砖讟专讗 讚诪诇讜讛 诇讗讜 讟讬专驻讗 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 讗讚专讻转讗 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛 拽专注谞讬讛 诇讟讬专驻讗 诇讗讜 讗讚专讻转讗 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 砖讜诪讗 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 拽专注谞讬讛 诇讗讚专讻转讗 诇讗讜 砖讜诪讗 讛讬讗

And if you would say that we did not tear the creditor鈥檚 promissory note in the course of the first collection, that cannot be. But doesn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that any document of authorization to repossess liened property from its purchaser in which it is not written: We have torn the creditor鈥檚 promissory note, is not a valid document of authorization to repossess liened property; and any document of authorization used to seize a debtor鈥檚 property in which it is not written: We have torn the creditor鈥檚 document of authorization to repossess liened property, is not a valid document of authorization; and any document of appraisal of an article鈥檚 value in which it is not written: We have torn the creditor鈥檚 document of authorization, is not a valid document of appraisal.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讗转讬 诪讻讞 讗讘讛转讬讛

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to explain Rav Safra鈥檚 case as follows: The concern is not that a creditor will repossess the field, but that someone will come to repossess it based on his claim to the land as the property of his ancestors. That is, he proved that the field had belonged to his ancestors, and by extension belongs to himself as their heir, and the one who sold the field was in fact a thief. It was for this reason that he repossessed the field from the purchaser, and the concern is that the purchaser will seek reimbursement, as stipulated in the guarantee, from other property sold subsequently by the seller. If the purchaser has two deeds of sale with guarantees, he can collect payment twice.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬讛 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖讜祝 诇讬 讘讛讗讬 讗专注讗 讜讗讬拽讜诐 讘讛 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讻讬讜谉 讚谞拽讬讟 转专讬 砖讟专讬 讟专讬祝 讜讛讚专 讟专讬祝

The Gemara presents another question pertaining to Rav Safra鈥檚 case. Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: And why did Rav Safra have to include in his case that the purchaser will say to the creditor: Remain quiet about this matter for a few years while I become established in this land I repossessed, and then come and claim your loan again? Why did he devise a case in which the seller鈥檚 creditor collects payment twice? Let the problem derive from the fact that since the purchaser holds two deeds he will be able to repossess land based on his guarantee once and then repossess land again, even if the creditor does not collect his debt twice.

讗诐 讻谉 谞驻讬砖讬 注诇讬讛 讘注诇讬 讚讬谞讬谉

Ravina answered: If so, if the purchaser attempts to repossess land twice based on a single repossession of the creditor, he will have too many litigants to deal with at once, and his dishonest dealings will be discovered.

讜诇讻转讜讘 诇讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 诪注诇讬讗 讜诇讻转讜讘 转讘专讗 诇诪讜讻专 讻诇 砖讟专讬 讚讬驻拽讜谉 注诇 讗专注讗 讚讗 驻住讜诇讬谉 诇讘专 诪谉 讚讬驻讜拽 讘讝诪谞讗 讚讗

The Gemara asks further: But let the court write a proper bill of sale, one that includes a guarantee, for this purchaser, and then let the court write a receipt for the seller, stating: All documents that are issued with regard to the purchase of this field are not valid, except for the one issued on this date, referring to the replacement document written by the court. This will prevent double collection, as if the purchaser attempts to collect on his guarantee with a second document, the seller will foil this attempt by showing this receipt.

讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专

The Rabbis said before Rav Pappa in response to this question, and some say it was said before Rav Ashi: Is that to say that the tanna of the baraita holds that in general the court does not write a receipt in such cases?

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘注诇诪讗 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讚诇诪讗 讗讝讬诇 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜讟专讬祝 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诇讜拽讞 讜讗讝讬诇 讗讬讛讜 讜讟专讬祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 讜砖讜讘专 讙讘讬 诇拽讜讞讜转 诇讬讻讗

Rav Pappa or Rav Ashi said to them: Do not draw this conclusion. It is possible that the tanna of the baraita holds that generally the court writes a receipt when a creditor has lost his promissory note. And here, this is the reason that it does not write a receipt: As, perhaps the creditor, i.e., the one from whom the property was stolen, will go and repossess property from the purchaser who bought the stolen land, and the purchaser, seeking reimbursement in accordance with the guarantee, will go and repossess property from other purchasers who had later bought property from the same seller. And the receipt will not help, because it is not with the purchasers who bought property from the seller, but is in the possession of the seller himself. The purchasers, who are the ones who will suffer from the double collection, have no protection; they will in fact not even be aware that they are the victims of a double collection.

住讜祝 住讜祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 诇讗讜 讗诪专讬 讚讗专注讗 讛讚专讬

The Gemara asks: Ultimately, don鈥檛 these purchasers go back to the owner, i.e., the seller, of the land to demand reimbursement? At that point the seller will produce the receipt, exposing the double collection, and the entire process will be reversed, so that ultimately the purchaser who suffered from the unjust collection will obtain possession of his property.

讗讚讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 砖诪讬讟 讜讗讻讬诇 驻讬专讬

The Gemara answers: While it is true that ultimately the deception will be discovered, in the interim, between the time the land was unjustly repossessed from the purchaser and the time when the injustice is reversed, the one who repossessed the land seizes the land and consumes its produce, i.e., he enjoys the profits produced by the land, and it will be difficult to receive full reimbursement for this stolen produce.

讗讬 谞诪讬 诇诇讜拽讞 砖诇讗 讘讗讞专讬讜转

Alternatively, the reason the option of writing a receipt for the seller of the land is not pursued here is that there is a concern about one who purchases land without a guarantee. As such a purchaser knows that he has no recourse to be reimbursed from the seller if the land he bought is repossessed, he will never contact the seller and discover that the seller has a receipt and that he has been the victim of an unjust double collection.

讗讬 讛讻讬 砖讟专讬 讛诇讜讗讛 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: If so, the same concern should be taken into consideration in the case of promissory notes as well. And yet Rav Pappa, or Rav Ashi, said that the tanna of the baraita concedes that a receipt may be written for the debtor to enable the collection of a debt in the event of the loss of the promissory note. Why are the aforementioned concerns not applicable to the case of debt collection?

讛转诐 讚讝讜讝讬 诪住讬拽 讗诪专讬 驻讬讬住讬讛 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讘讝讜讝讬 讛讻讗 讚讗专注讗 诪住讬拽 诪讬讚注 讬讚注讬 讚诪讗谉 讚诪住讬拽 讗专注讗 讘讝讜讝讬 诇讗 诪驻讬讬住

The Gemara answers: There, where the debtor owes money, when the creditor seeks to repossess sold land, the purchaser of that land will say to himself: There is a possibility that the debtor appeased the creditor by paying him money, since debts are usually settled with money. I will therefore investigate the matter with the debtor before allowing the creditor to repossess my land. At that point the receipt, held by the debtor, will be discovered, and double collection will be prevented. Here, where he owes land, as the issue is that the claim is based on reimbursement for having bought stolen land, the purchaser knows that it is not common for one who is owed land to be appeased with money in such cases. The purchaser will therefore allow his land to be repossessed and will seek reimbursement at a later time.

讗诪专 诪专 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讗讞专讬讜转 砖讘讜 讛讬讻讬 讻转讘讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讻转讘讬 讛讻讬 砖讟专讗 讚谞谉 讚诇讗 诇诪讬讙讘讬 讘讬讛 诇讗 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 讜诇讗 诪讘谞讬 讞专讬 讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚转讬拽讜诐 讗专注讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讚诇讜拽讞

搂 The Gemara returns to the baraita and analyzes one of its statements. The Master says in the baraita: With regard to deeds of buying and selling land, the court may write a replacement document, excluding the guarantee that was in the first document that if the field is repossessed the seller will compensate the purchaser for his loss. How do we write a bill of sale in such a way that it does not include this guarantee? Rav Na岣an said that the case is one in which the court writes as follows: Our deed is not intended to enable the collection of reimbursement in event of repossession, neither collection from liened property that has been sold nor collection from unsold property; rather, it is intended merely to ensure that the land is established in the possession of the purchaser.

讗诪专 专驻专诐 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讗讞专讬讜转 讟注讜转 住讜驻专 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讛讗 诇讗 讻转讘 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讙讘讬

Rafram says: This statement of Rav Na岣an serves to say that the omission of the guarantee of the sale from a document is a scribal error. That is, it is assumed that when one purchases land he expects to have his purchase guaranteed, and that if such a clause is not stated in the document it is presumed to be a mere scribal oversight, and a guarantee is in effect. Rav Na岣an said, in explaining the baraita, that the only reason a land purchase would not have a guarantee is that the scribe wrote this for him, i.e., he wrote that there is no guarantee, explicitly in the deed; this indicates that if the scribe did not write this explicitly for the purchaser, but left out the subject of the guarantee altogether, the purchaser would nevertheless have the guarantee and would be able to collect reimbursement from the seller in the event of repossession.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗讞专讬讜转 诇讗讜 讟注讜转 住讜驻专 讛讜讗 讜诪讗讬 讞讜抓 诪讗讞专讬讜转 砖讘讜 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗讞专讬讜转

Rav Ashi disagrees and says: The omission of the guarantee of the sale from a document is not a scribal error. Accordingly, if mention of a guarantee is omitted from a bill of sale, there is in fact no guarantee. And what does the baraita mean when it says: Excluding the guarantee that was in the first document? It means simply that in this case there was no clause about a guarantee written in it at all.

讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚讬讛讘讛 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 诇诪讬讝讘谉 诇讛 讗专注讗 讗讝诇 讝讘谉 诇讛 砖诇讗 讘讗讞专讬讜转 讗转讬讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉

The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who gave money to a certain man to act as her agent and purchase land for her. The agent went and purchased land for her, but he conducted the purchase in such a way that it was without a guarantee. The woman wanted to take action against the agent and came before Rav Na岣an to ask what recourse she had.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇转拽讜谞讬 砖讚专转讬讱 讜诇讗 诇注讜讜转讬 讝讬诇 讝讘谞讛 诪讬谞讬讛 砖诇讗 讘讗讞专讬讜转 讜讛讚专 讝讘谞讛 谞讬讛诇讛 讘讗讞专讬讜转

Rav Na岣an said to the agent: The principle with regard to an agent is that if he acts to the detriment of the one who appointed him, the one who appointed him can say: I sent you to act for my benefit and not to my detriment. Therefore, the entire agency is null and void, thereby negating the purchase. Nevertheless, you agreed to purchase the land without a guarantee. Therefore, go yourself and purchase the land from him without a guarantee, and then sell it to this woman with a guarantee that you will reimburse her in the event the land is repossessed.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛谞讜转谉 诪转谞讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讟专 讞讝专讛 诪转谞转讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪转谞转讜 拽讬讬诪转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 谞注砖讛 讻讗讜诪专 诇讜 砖讚讛 讝讜 谞转讜谞讛 诇讱 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛砖讟专 讘讬讚讱

搂 The baraita teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In the case of one who gives a gift of land to another, and the recipient returned the deed to him, his gift of land returns to him as well. But the Rabbis say: His gift of land remains in the possession of the recipient. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? Rav Asi says: It becomes as if the giver said to the recipient: This field is given to you only as long as the deed remains in your possession. Therefore, by returning the deed to the giver, the recipient is canceling the gift.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讙谞讘 讗讜 讗讘讚 谞诪讬

Rabba objects to this: If that is so that these are the conditions of the gift, then when the deed is stolen from or lost by the recipient, the gift should also be canceled.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘讗讜转讬讜转 谞拽谞讜转 讘诪住讬专讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讗讜转讬讜转 谞拽谞讜转 讘诪住讬专讛 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讗讜转讬讜转 谞拽谞讜转 讘诪住讬专讛

Rather, Rabba said a different explanation: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis disagree about whether or not the letters, i.e., the contents of a promissory note, are acquired by merely transferring the document from one holder of the document to another. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the letters are acquired by transferring the document. Therefore, if the recipient returns the bill of sale to the giver, the land returns to the giver as well. And the Rabbis hold that the letters are not acquired by transferring the document.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讘讗 诇讬讚讜谉 讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛 谞讬讚讜谉 讘砖讟专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讘讞讝拽讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to one who comes to court to be judged over a claim that land that is in his possession belongs to another, if he claims ownership based on a deed, i.e., a bill of sale, and claims further that he is the owner based on presumptive ownership of the land, as it was in his uncontested possession for three years, and he therefore does not need the deed as proof, his claim is judged based on the deed. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: His claim is judged based on his presumptive ownership.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讘讗讜转讬讜转 谞拽谞讜转 讘诪住讬专讛 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: With regard to what do Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagree? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: They disagree about whether or not letters are acquired by transferring the document from one holder of the document to another.

Scroll To Top