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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 8, 2016 | 讘壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讜

  • 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 Kamma 8

Is the term “best land” relative to the world or relative to one’s own land? 聽various sources are brought to attempt to resolve this question. 聽If one sells 3 different types of property to 3 different people either all on the same day or on separate days, does the one claiming the land in return for a loan, ketuba, or damages claim it based on the order in which it was sold (they get the last property sold) or do they claim it based on the type of land – poor quality, middle or best)?

注讬讚讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 谞讝拽讬谉 讘注讬讚讬转 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 讘讝讬讘讜专讬转

If he has only superior-quality and inferior-quality land, damages are paid from the superior-quality land, and pay-ments owed to a creditor and payments of a woman鈥檚 marriage contract are made from the inferior-quality land.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 诪爪讬注讗 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 谞讝拽讬谉 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讘讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 讘讝讬讘讜专讬转 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇讜 讛谉 砖诪讬谉 转注砖讛 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 砖诇讜 讻注讬讚讬转 讜讬讚讞讛 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗爪诇 讝讬讘讜专讬转

The Gemara explains how this baraita poses a challenge: In any event, the baraita teaches in the middle clause: If he owns only intermediate-quality and inferior-quality land, payments for damages and payments owed to a creditor are made from the intermediate-quality land, and payments of a woman鈥檚 marriage contract are made from the inferior-quality land. This clause demonstrates that the quality of land is appraised objectively based on the standard of the world at large. The reason for this is that if you say that the court appraises land based on the quality of the land of the one liable for the damage, let his intermediate-quality land be classified as superior-quality land, as that is the best land he owns, and consequently, the creditor should be directed to collect the debt from the inferior-quality land.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 诇讜 注讬讚讬转 讜诪讻专讛

The Gemara rejects this: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where at the time the borrower took the loan he also had superior-quality land and he subsequently sold it. Accordingly, no matter how land is appraised, at the time that the loan was given his intermediate-quality land would be classified as being of intermediate quality. Consequently, the creditor鈥檚 lien on the borrower鈥檚 land, which took effect from the moment the loan was given, takes effect with regard to the intermediate-quality land. Therefore, the creditor retains his right to collect from that land, regardless of the fact that by the time of collec-tion it was the borrower鈥檚 best land and at that point could be reclassified as land of superior quality.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 诇讜 注讬讚讬转 讜诪讻专讛

And so says Rav 岣sda: The baraita deals with a case where at the time he took the loan he also had superior-quality land and he subsequently sold it.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 讗讞专讬转讬 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 谞讝拽讬谉 讘讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 讘讝讬讘讜专讬转 拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬

The Gemara notes: This too stands to reason, from the fact that another baraita teaches: If a debtor has only intermediate-quality and inferior-quality land, damages are collected from the intermediate-quality land, while payments to a creditor and payments of a woman鈥檚 marriage contract are made from the inferior-quality land. These two baraitot are difficult, as they contradict each other. The baraita above teaches that in this case the creditor collects the debt from the intermediate-quality land, whereas this baraita teaches that he collects the debt from the inferior-quality land.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讗谉 砖讛讬转讛 诇讜 注讬讚讬转 讜诪讻专讛 讻讗谉 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 注讬讚讬转 讜诪讻专讛

Rather, must one not conclude from it that here, in the baraita above, it is a case where he also had superior-quality land at the time that he took the loan and he subsequently sold it, while there, in the baraita subsequently cited, it is a case where he did not have superior-quality land and he did not sell it. In such a case, since his intermediate-quality land was his best land, it is classified as superior-quality land and accordingly, no lien took effect with regard to it.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 注讬讚讬转 讜诪讻专讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚砖讜讬讗 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 砖诇讜 讻注讬讚讬转 讚注诇诪讗 讜讻讗谉 讚诇讗 砖讜讬讗 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 砖诇讜 讻注讬讚讬转 讚注诇诪讗

And if you wish, say instead that the contradiction between the baraitot can be resolved differently: Both this baraita and that baraita concern cases where the borrower did not have superior-quality land and sell it. And it is not difficult because this second baraita concerns a case where his intermediate-quality land is equivalent in quality to the superior-quality land of the world at large; therefore, it is classified as superior-quality land and the creditor has no right to collect from it. And here, the first baraita concerns a case in which his intermediate-quality land is not equivalent in quality to the superior-quality land of the world at large but is similar to the intermediate-quality land of the world at large; consequently, the creditor has a claim to it.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 砖诇讜 讻讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讚注诇诪讗 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讘砖诇讜 讛谉 砖诪讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讘砖诇 注讜诇诐 讛谉 砖诪讬谉

And if you wish, say instead: Both this baraita and that baraita concern a case where the borrower鈥檚 intermediate-quality land, which is the best land he owns, is equivalent in quality to the intermediate-quality land of the world at large, and here, the baraitot disagree about this: One Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that the court appraises the debtor鈥檚 land based on the quality of his other land, so that his best land is classified as superior-quality land and the creditor has no claim on it. And the other Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that the court appraises the debtor鈥檚 land based on the quality of land in the world at large, so that his land is classified as intermediate-quality land and the creditor is entitled to claim it.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讘讚注讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讘讝讬讘讜专讬转 砖谞讗诪专 讘讞讜抓 转注诪讜讚 讜讛讗讬砖 讗砖专 讗转讛 谞砖讛 讘讜 讬讜爪讬讗 讗诇讬讱 讗转 讛注讘讜讟 讛讞讜爪讛 诪讛 讚专讻讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诇讞讜抓 驻讞讜转 砖讘讻诇讬诐 讜诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讘讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转谞注讜诇 讚诇转 讘驻谞讬 诇讜讬谉

Ravina said: Another resolution to the contradiction between the baraitot is that the baraitot disagree with regard to the opinion of Ulla, as Ulla says: By Torah law, a creditor collects from inferior-quality land, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall stand outside, and the man you have a claim against will bring his collateral out to you鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:11). One can infer: What item would a person typically choose to bring out for use as collateral and potential payment? Certainly it is the most inferior of his utensils. The verse thereby indicates that a creditor collects from inferior-quality land. But if so, for what reason did the Sages say that a creditor collects from intermediate-quality land? They instituted this ordinance so as not to lock the door in the face of potential borrowers, as, if creditors were limited to collecting from inferior-quality land they would be hesitant to offer loans in the first place.

诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讚注讜诇讗 讜诪专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讚注讜诇讗

Ravina explains: One Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the ordinance cited by Ulla that a creditor collects from intermediate-quality land. And the other Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, is not of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the ordinance cited by Ulla, so the creditor has a right to collect from only inferior-quality land, in accordance with Torah law.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讻专 诇讗讞讚 讗讜 诇砖诇砖讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讻讗讞讚 讻讜诇谉 谞讻谞住讜 转讞转 讛讘注诇讬诐

The Sages taught in the Tosefta (Ketubot 12:3): If one owes money to pay damages, repay a loan, and pay a woman鈥檚 marriage contract, and he owns inferior-quality, intermediate-quality, and superior-quality land, and he sells all of his land, then if he sold all of the land to one person or to three people simultaneously, all the buyers replace the land鈥檚 prior owner with regard to repayment of his debts. At the time when each debt was created, each creditor gained a lien on the plots of the debtor鈥檚 land, from which they have a right to collect. As a lien remains in effect even if the land is sold, then even after the sale, each creditor can collect from the plots of land upon which they have a lien. Accordingly, damages are collected from the superior-quality land, the loan is repaid from the intermediate-quality land, and the marriage contract is paid from the inferior-quality land.

讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讻讜诇谉 讙讜讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讞专讜谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讜讘讛 诪砖诇驻谞讬讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讜讘讛 诪砖诇驻谞讬 驻谞讬讜

If he sold his plots of land one after the other, all the creditors collect from the last buyer, regardless of the quality of the land he purchased. If that buyer does not have sufficient land purchased from the debtor to pay all the debts, the creditors take the land he has and collect the remaining sums from the one who purchased land before him, and if he also does not have sufficient land, they collect the rest from the one before the one before him, i.e., the first buyer. The Sages instituted that creditors may not collect from land that a debtor sold, even though it is technically still liened to them, as long as the debtor still has sufficient means with which to repay the debt (see Gittin 48b). Accordingly, after the sale of the first plot of land, the creditors鈥 rights to collect are restricted to the land that remains in the possession of the debtor, and consequently they gain a lien on it, irrespective of its quality. Therefore, even if that land is subsequently sold, their rights to collect are restricted to that land, and only if the value of that land is insufficient to cover the cost of the debt may they utilize the original liens they had on the plots of land that were sold first.

诪讻专谉 诇讗讞讚 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬

The Gemara clarifies: With regard to the first case in the baraita, where he sold all the land to one person, what are the circum-stances?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讘转 讗讞转 讛砖转讗 诇砖诇砖讛 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 拽讚讬诐 讗诪专转 讻讜诇谉 谞讻谞住讜 转讞转 讛讘注诇讬诐 诪讻专谉 诇讗讞讚 诪讬讘注讬讗

If we say that he simultaneously sold all of the land to one person, that is difficult. Now that the baraita teaches that if he sold the land to three different people simultaneously, where it is possible to say that the sale to one of them preceded the other sales, yet you say the halakha is that all the buyers replace the land鈥檚 prior owner equally, and the possibility that one might have proceeded the other is disregarded, is it necessary to teach that the halakha is the same in a case where all the plots of land were simultaneously sold to one person?

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛

Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is referring to a case where the plots of land were sold one after the other.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖诇砖讛 讚讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讞转讬 诇讱 诪拽讜诐 诇讙讘讜转 诪诪谞讜

The Gemara asks: But what is different about the latter clause of the baraita, where the plots of land were sold to three buyers, one after the other, and the creditors collect only from the last buyer? It is different in that each one of the first two buyers can say to any creditor who tries to seize the land they purchased: Do not collect my land, as I left a place for you, a plot of land in the debtor鈥檚 possession, from which to collect. In other words, when the first two buyers purchased their land a plot of land remained with the debtor, and therefore the creditor鈥檚 rights of collection are restricted to that land.

讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讛谞讞转讬 诇讱 诪拽讜诐 诇讙讘讜转 诪诪谞讜

The Gemara continues its question: In this case as well, where all the plots of land were sold to a single buyer, with regard to each one of the first two plots of land that were sold, let the buyer say to any creditor who tries to collect: With my purchase of the first two plots of land, I left a place for you, a plot of land in the debtor鈥檚 possession, from which to collect. Therefore, even though the debtor subsequently sold the buyer all of the land, the creditor鈥檚 rights of collection are restricted to the last plot of land the debtor sold the buyer, irrespective of its quality. Why then does the baraita rule that in this case each creditor collects from the land that was originally liened to him?

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖诇拽讞 注讬讚讬转 讘讗讞专讜谞讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讻讙讜谉 砖诇拽讞 注讬讚讬转 讘讗讞专讜谞讛

The Gemara explains: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where the individual buyer purchased the superior-quality land last. Accordingly, the buyer is satisfied with allowing each creditor to collect from the land that was previously liened to him, rather than having them each collect from the superior-quality land. And so says Rav Sheshet: It is a case where the individual buyer purchased the superior-quality land last.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬转讜 讻讜诇讛讜 讜诇讬讙讘讜 诪注讬讚讬转

The Gemara asks: If that is so, let them all come and collect from the superior-quality land, as their rights to collect should be restricted to it, since it was purchased last.

诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 砖转拽讬转讜 讜砖拽诇讬转讜 讻讚讬谞讬讬讻讜 砖拽诇讬转讜 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讚专谞讗 砖讟专讗 讚讝讬讘讜专讬转 诇诪专讬讛 讜砖拽诇讬转讜 讻讜诇讻讜 诪讝讬讘讜专讬转

The Gemara answers: Because he can say the following threat to them: If you are silent and do not insist on collecting from the superior-quality land, and take the land of a quality that is due to you according to your standard legal rights, as in a case where you collect directly from the debtor, i.e., the injured party will collect from the superior-quality land, the creditor from the intermediate-quality land, and the woman will collect her marriage contract from the inferior-quality land, then take that land and I will allow you to do so. But if not, and you insist on taking the superior-quality land that I purchased last, then I will return the bill of sale of the inferior-quality land to its prior owner, i.e., the debtor, and you will all be forced to collect from the inferior-quality land, because whenever the debtor has land in his possession you are able to collect the debts only from him.

讗讬 讛讻讬

The Gemara asks: If so, that this is the reason for the ruling in the baraita,

讘谞讝拽讬谉 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 讛讻讬

then also with regard to damages, let the buyer say this to the injured party. He could threaten to return the bill of sale of the inferior-quality land to the debtor, which would force the injured party to collect directly from the debtor鈥檚 inferior-quality land. Since the buyer can do so, he can effectively force the injured party to collect from the purchased intermediate-quality land instead of fulfilling his right to collect from superior-quality land. Yet, the baraita teaches that in this case each party collects from the land that was originally liened to him, which means that damages are collected from the superior-quality land, indicating that this threat would not be effective.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讬转诪讬 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 驻专注讜谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讜砖讬注讘讜讚讗 讚讬诇讬讛 注诇讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 专诪讬讗

Rather, with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case in which the debtor died and his inheritors are his orphans, who are not subject to an obligation to repay the debts of their father. When one dies, his monetary debts are not inherited by his children. And therefore, the lien of the creditor rests solely upon the buyer of the land. Any lien that was in effect with regard to the land he owned at the time he incurred the obligation remains, and his creditors can therefore collect what they are owed from that land, even if it is in the possession of a buyer.

讛诇讻讱 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讻讬

Therefore, one cannot say that the ruling in the baraita is based on the fact that the buyer can threaten to return the bill of sale to the debtor, or in this case, to his orphans. In this case, even if he were to return the bill of sale, the creditors would not be able to collect from the land now in the orphans鈥 possession, as they received it anew, not as an inheritance from their father. Therefore, the creditors can still collect from the plots of land that remain with the buyer.

讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 谞驻专注讬谉 诪谞讻住讬谉 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 转拽谞转讗 讚讬讚讬 讗谞讗 讘讛讗 转拽谞转讗 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬

The Gemara suggests another explanation of the Tosefta: Rather, not all the creditors collect from the superior-quality land, which was the last plot of land purchased from the debtor, because the buyer can say to them: What is the reason that the Sages said one is not paid from liened property, i.e., property liened to a creditor that has been sold by the debtor, whenever there is unsold property still in the debtor鈥檚 possession? It is due to an ordinance created solely for my benefit, as I should not be expected to pay from the land I purchased when the debtor is still able to pay. If that ordinance were to be in effect in this case, all of their liens would be in effect with regard to the superior-quality land, as that was purchased last. In this case I do not find this ordinance satisfactory to me, and I would prefer for the lien of each creditor to remain in effect with regard to the land it had been on initially, and I will give each of you that land.

讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘转拽谞转 讞讻诪讬诐 讻讙讜谉 讝讜 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara notes: This fact that one is not required to avail himself of the financial benefit provided by a rabbinic ordinance is in accordance with the opinion of Rava. As Rava says: Anyone who says: I do not want to avail myself of the financial benefit provided by an ordinance of the Sages, such as this one, one listens to him.

诪讗讬 讻讙讜谉 讝讜

The Gemara asks: What does Rava mean by saying: An ordinance of the Sages, such as this one?

讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讬讻讜诇讛 讗砖讛 砖转讗诪专 诇讘注诇讛 讗讬谞讬 谞讬讝讜谞讬转 讜讗讬谞讬 注讜砖讛

The Gemara answers: His statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna. As Rav Huna says: The Sages enacted that a husband must sustain his wife. They also enacted that he receives her earnings in exchange. Yet, a wife is legally entitled to say to her husband: I will not be sustained by you, and in turn I will not work i.e., you will not keep my earnings. Since his obligation to sustain her is only for her benefit, she may forgo her sustenance and retain her earnings for herself.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讻专 诇讜拽讞 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 讜砖讬讬专 注讬讚讬转 诇驻谞讬讜 诇讬转讜 讻讜诇讛讜 讜诇讬讙讘讜 诪注讬讚讬转

The Gemara discusses a limitation on the buyer鈥檚 ability to refuse the benefit of the rabbinic ordinance: It is obvious that if the buyer sold, of the land he purchased from the debtor, the intermediate- and inferior-quality land to another buyer and retained in his possession only the superior-quality land, which he had purchased last, then all the creditors may come and collect from the superior-quality land.

讚讛讗 讗讞专讜谞讛 讛讬讗 讜讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 诇讬转谞讛讜 讙讘讬讛 讚诪爪讬 诇诪讬诪专 诇讛讜 讙讘讜 诪讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬 讘转拽谞转讗 讚专讘谞谉

For if the intermediate-quality and inferior quality land were in his possession, he would be able to say to the creditors: Collect from the intermediate-quality land and from the inferior-quality land, as it is not satisfactory to me to avail myself of the ordinance of the Sages. Now the he has sold the land of intermediate and inferior quality, however, he cannot unilaterally waive the ordinance without the consent of the second buyer. The second buyer benefits from the ordinance, since it compels the creditors to collect from the first buyer, and he will therefore certainly not agree to waive it.

讗讘诇 诪讻专 注讬讚讬转 讜砖讬讬专 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 诪讗讬

But if the first buyer sold only the superior-quality land that he had purchased last, and he retained in his possession the intermediate-quality and inferior-quality land, what is the halakha?

住讘专 讗讘讬讬 诇诪讬诪专 讗转讜 讻讜诇讛讜 讙讘讜 诪注讬讚讬转

Abaye thought to say: All the creditors should come and collect from the superior-quality land. Since that land was the last plot of land in the debtor鈥檚 possession, the creditors鈥 right of collection was restricted to that land, irrespective of the fact that it was then subsequently sold twice.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讛 诪讻专 专讗砖讜谉 诇砖谞讬 讻诇 讝讻讜转 砖转讘讗 诇讬讚讜 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讗转讜 讙讘讬 诇讜拽讞 专讗砖讜谉 诪爪讬 讗讙讘讬 诇讛讜 诪讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讚讻讬 讝讘谞讬 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 讗讻转讬 注讬讚讬转 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 讛讜讗讬 讜讗讬谉 谞驻专注讬谉 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讻诇 讝诪谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬 讘讛讗讬 转拽谞讛

Rava said to him: What has the first person sold to the second in any sale? Any rights that will come into his possession. And since, if the creditors were to come to the first buyer while he was still in possession of all three plots of land, he could have had them collect from the intermediate-quality and inferior-quality land; and this is the halakha even though when he initially purchased the intermediate-quality and inferior-quality land the superior-quality land was still unsold property in the debtor鈥檚 possession. As although there is the rabbinic ordinance that one does not exact payment from liened property when there is unsold property still in the debtor鈥檚 possession, the buyer could have said to them: I do not find this ordinance satisfactory to me.

诇讜拽讞 砖谞讬 谞诪讬 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讙讘讬 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 讚讻讬 讝讘讬谉 诇讜拽讞 砖谞讬 讗讚注转讗 讚讻诇 讝讻讜转讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讗砖讜谉 讘讙讜讛 讝讘讬谉

Rava continues: Therefore, since the first buyer had the right to say this, the second buyer can also say to them: Collect from the intermediate-quality and inferior-quality land in the first buyer鈥檚 possession. As, when the second buyer purchased the superior-quality land, he purchased it with the understanding that he also acquired all the rights that the first buyer had with regard to that land. Accordingly, he also acquires the right to insist that the creditors collect from the intermediate-quality and inferior-quality land.

讗诪专 专讘讗 专讗讜讘谉 砖诪讻专 讻诇 砖讚讜转讬讜 诇砖诪注讜谉 讜讛诇讱 砖诪注讜谉 讜诪讻专 砖讚讛 讗讞转 诇诇讜讬 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讚专讗讜讘谉 专爪讛 诪讝讛 讙讜讘讛 专爪讛 诪讝讛 讙讜讘讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚讝讘谉 讘讬谞讜谞讬转

In a related ruling, Rava says: In the case of Reuven, who sold all of his fields to Shimon simultaneously and Shimon proceeded to sell one field of those purchased to Levi, and Reuven鈥檚 creditor came to collect the debt, if the creditor so desires, he collects from this one, i.e., Shimon, and if he so desires, he collects from that one, i.e., Levi. And we said this only in a case where Levi purchased intermediate-quality land from Shimon. A creditor鈥檚 right is to collect the debt from intermediate-quality land. Accordingly, in this case, Reuven鈥檚 creditor can collect his loan from the intermediate-quality land even after it has been transferred into Levi鈥檚 possession. Nevertheless, if he so desires, he may insist on collecting his loan from any inferior-quality land left in Shimon鈥檚 possession. This is because a creditor also has the right to demand payment from a borrower鈥檚 inferior-quality land instead of his intermediate-quality land, and therefore that land is also liened to the loan.

讗讘诇 讝讘谉 注讬讚讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讛讻讬 讚讬讬拽讬 讜讝讘谞讬 注讬讚讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 讗专注讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讱

But if Levi purchased superior-quality and inferior-quality land from Shimon, no, the creditor can collect only from Shimon鈥檚 intermediate-quality land, as Levi could say to him: For this reason I was particular to purchase superior-quality and inferior-quality land, which is land that is not fit for you to collect from as a creditor.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 讝讘谉 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 砖讬讬专 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讚讻讜讜转讬讛 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讞转讬 诇讱 诪拽讜诐 诇讙讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讘诇 砖讬讬专 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讚讻讜讜转讬讛 讙讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 讙讘讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讞转讬 诇讱 诪拽讜诐 诇讙讘讜转 诪诪谞讜

And if Levi purchased the intermediate-quality land from Shimon as well, we said that Reuven鈥檚 creditor can collect from him only in a case where he did not leave some similar intermediate-quality land in Shimon鈥檚 possession, as in that case, Levi is unable to say to the creditor: I left a place for you, i.e., a plot of land, in Shimon鈥檚 possession, from which to collect. But where Levi did leave some similar intermediate-quality land in Shimon鈥檚 possession, the creditor does not collect from Levi, as Levi is able to say to him: I left a place for you from which to collect.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讗讜讘谉 砖诪讻专 砖讚讛 诇砖诪注讜谉 讘讗讞专讬讜转 讜讗转讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讚专讗讜讘谉 讜讟专祝 诪砖诪注讜谉 讚讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讝讬诇 专讗讜讘谉 讜诪砖转注讬 讚讬谞讗 讘讛讚讬讛 讜诇讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讘注诇 讚讘专讬诐 讚讬讚讬 讗转 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪驻拽转 诪讬谞讬讛 注诇讬 讛讚专

In another related ruling, Abaye says: In the case of Reuven, who sold a field liened to his creditor to Shimon with a guarantee, meaning that Reuven agreed to reimburse Shimon should Reuven鈥檚 creditor collect the debt from that field, and Reuven鈥檚 creditor came and seized the field from Shimon, the halakha is that Reuven can go and litigate with his creditor and claim that he had already repaid the debt, and insist that the field be returned to Shimon. And the creditor is unable to say to Reuven: I am not legally answerable to you, as I am not taking away your land, since you sold it to Shimon. This is because Reuven could say to him: If you extract the field from him, Shimon will return to me and demand that I reimburse him for his loss. Consequently, I am involved in this matter.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘讗讞专讬讜转 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬 讚转讛讜讬 诇砖诪注讜谉 转专注讜诪转 注诇讬

And there are those who say: Even in a case where he sold the field without a guarantee, as well, in which case even if the creditor seizes Shimon鈥檚 land there are no legal consequences for Reuven, Reuven can litigate with the creditor, as he could say to him: It is not satisfactory for me for Shimon to have a grievance against me because he lost the field I sold him on account of the fact that I was unable to pay my debt. Consequently, I am involved in this matter.

讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讗讜讘谉 砖诪讻专 砖讚讛 诇砖诪注讜谉 砖诇讗 讘讗讞专讬讜转

And in another related ruling, Abaye says: In the case of Reuven, who sold a field to Shimon without a guarantee,

  • 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 Kamma 8

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 8

注讬讚讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 谞讝拽讬谉 讘注讬讚讬转 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 讘讝讬讘讜专讬转

If he has only superior-quality and inferior-quality land, damages are paid from the superior-quality land, and pay-ments owed to a creditor and payments of a woman鈥檚 marriage contract are made from the inferior-quality land.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 诪爪讬注讗 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 谞讝拽讬谉 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讘讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 讘讝讬讘讜专讬转 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇讜 讛谉 砖诪讬谉 转注砖讛 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 砖诇讜 讻注讬讚讬转 讜讬讚讞讛 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗爪诇 讝讬讘讜专讬转

The Gemara explains how this baraita poses a challenge: In any event, the baraita teaches in the middle clause: If he owns only intermediate-quality and inferior-quality land, payments for damages and payments owed to a creditor are made from the intermediate-quality land, and payments of a woman鈥檚 marriage contract are made from the inferior-quality land. This clause demonstrates that the quality of land is appraised objectively based on the standard of the world at large. The reason for this is that if you say that the court appraises land based on the quality of the land of the one liable for the damage, let his intermediate-quality land be classified as superior-quality land, as that is the best land he owns, and consequently, the creditor should be directed to collect the debt from the inferior-quality land.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 诇讜 注讬讚讬转 讜诪讻专讛

The Gemara rejects this: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where at the time the borrower took the loan he also had superior-quality land and he subsequently sold it. Accordingly, no matter how land is appraised, at the time that the loan was given his intermediate-quality land would be classified as being of intermediate quality. Consequently, the creditor鈥檚 lien on the borrower鈥檚 land, which took effect from the moment the loan was given, takes effect with regard to the intermediate-quality land. Therefore, the creditor retains his right to collect from that land, regardless of the fact that by the time of collec-tion it was the borrower鈥檚 best land and at that point could be reclassified as land of superior quality.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 诇讜 注讬讚讬转 讜诪讻专讛

And so says Rav 岣sda: The baraita deals with a case where at the time he took the loan he also had superior-quality land and he subsequently sold it.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 讗讞专讬转讬 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 谞讝拽讬谉 讘讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 讘讝讬讘讜专讬转 拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬

The Gemara notes: This too stands to reason, from the fact that another baraita teaches: If a debtor has only intermediate-quality and inferior-quality land, damages are collected from the intermediate-quality land, while payments to a creditor and payments of a woman鈥檚 marriage contract are made from the inferior-quality land. These two baraitot are difficult, as they contradict each other. The baraita above teaches that in this case the creditor collects the debt from the intermediate-quality land, whereas this baraita teaches that he collects the debt from the inferior-quality land.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讗谉 砖讛讬转讛 诇讜 注讬讚讬转 讜诪讻专讛 讻讗谉 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 注讬讚讬转 讜诪讻专讛

Rather, must one not conclude from it that here, in the baraita above, it is a case where he also had superior-quality land at the time that he took the loan and he subsequently sold it, while there, in the baraita subsequently cited, it is a case where he did not have superior-quality land and he did not sell it. In such a case, since his intermediate-quality land was his best land, it is classified as superior-quality land and accordingly, no lien took effect with regard to it.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 注讬讚讬转 讜诪讻专讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚砖讜讬讗 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 砖诇讜 讻注讬讚讬转 讚注诇诪讗 讜讻讗谉 讚诇讗 砖讜讬讗 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 砖诇讜 讻注讬讚讬转 讚注诇诪讗

And if you wish, say instead that the contradiction between the baraitot can be resolved differently: Both this baraita and that baraita concern cases where the borrower did not have superior-quality land and sell it. And it is not difficult because this second baraita concerns a case where his intermediate-quality land is equivalent in quality to the superior-quality land of the world at large; therefore, it is classified as superior-quality land and the creditor has no right to collect from it. And here, the first baraita concerns a case in which his intermediate-quality land is not equivalent in quality to the superior-quality land of the world at large but is similar to the intermediate-quality land of the world at large; consequently, the creditor has a claim to it.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 砖诇讜 讻讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讚注诇诪讗 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讘砖诇讜 讛谉 砖诪讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讘砖诇 注讜诇诐 讛谉 砖诪讬谉

And if you wish, say instead: Both this baraita and that baraita concern a case where the borrower鈥檚 intermediate-quality land, which is the best land he owns, is equivalent in quality to the intermediate-quality land of the world at large, and here, the baraitot disagree about this: One Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that the court appraises the debtor鈥檚 land based on the quality of his other land, so that his best land is classified as superior-quality land and the creditor has no claim on it. And the other Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that the court appraises the debtor鈥檚 land based on the quality of land in the world at large, so that his land is classified as intermediate-quality land and the creditor is entitled to claim it.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讘讚注讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讘讝讬讘讜专讬转 砖谞讗诪专 讘讞讜抓 转注诪讜讚 讜讛讗讬砖 讗砖专 讗转讛 谞砖讛 讘讜 讬讜爪讬讗 讗诇讬讱 讗转 讛注讘讜讟 讛讞讜爪讛 诪讛 讚专讻讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诇讞讜抓 驻讞讜转 砖讘讻诇讬诐 讜诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讘讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转谞注讜诇 讚诇转 讘驻谞讬 诇讜讬谉

Ravina said: Another resolution to the contradiction between the baraitot is that the baraitot disagree with regard to the opinion of Ulla, as Ulla says: By Torah law, a creditor collects from inferior-quality land, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall stand outside, and the man you have a claim against will bring his collateral out to you鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:11). One can infer: What item would a person typically choose to bring out for use as collateral and potential payment? Certainly it is the most inferior of his utensils. The verse thereby indicates that a creditor collects from inferior-quality land. But if so, for what reason did the Sages say that a creditor collects from intermediate-quality land? They instituted this ordinance so as not to lock the door in the face of potential borrowers, as, if creditors were limited to collecting from inferior-quality land they would be hesitant to offer loans in the first place.

诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讚注讜诇讗 讜诪专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讚注讜诇讗

Ravina explains: One Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the ordinance cited by Ulla that a creditor collects from intermediate-quality land. And the other Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, is not of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the ordinance cited by Ulla, so the creditor has a right to collect from only inferior-quality land, in accordance with Torah law.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讻专 诇讗讞讚 讗讜 诇砖诇砖讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讻讗讞讚 讻讜诇谉 谞讻谞住讜 转讞转 讛讘注诇讬诐

The Sages taught in the Tosefta (Ketubot 12:3): If one owes money to pay damages, repay a loan, and pay a woman鈥檚 marriage contract, and he owns inferior-quality, intermediate-quality, and superior-quality land, and he sells all of his land, then if he sold all of the land to one person or to three people simultaneously, all the buyers replace the land鈥檚 prior owner with regard to repayment of his debts. At the time when each debt was created, each creditor gained a lien on the plots of the debtor鈥檚 land, from which they have a right to collect. As a lien remains in effect even if the land is sold, then even after the sale, each creditor can collect from the plots of land upon which they have a lien. Accordingly, damages are collected from the superior-quality land, the loan is repaid from the intermediate-quality land, and the marriage contract is paid from the inferior-quality land.

讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讻讜诇谉 讙讜讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讞专讜谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讜讘讛 诪砖诇驻谞讬讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讜讘讛 诪砖诇驻谞讬 驻谞讬讜

If he sold his plots of land one after the other, all the creditors collect from the last buyer, regardless of the quality of the land he purchased. If that buyer does not have sufficient land purchased from the debtor to pay all the debts, the creditors take the land he has and collect the remaining sums from the one who purchased land before him, and if he also does not have sufficient land, they collect the rest from the one before the one before him, i.e., the first buyer. The Sages instituted that creditors may not collect from land that a debtor sold, even though it is technically still liened to them, as long as the debtor still has sufficient means with which to repay the debt (see Gittin 48b). Accordingly, after the sale of the first plot of land, the creditors鈥 rights to collect are restricted to the land that remains in the possession of the debtor, and consequently they gain a lien on it, irrespective of its quality. Therefore, even if that land is subsequently sold, their rights to collect are restricted to that land, and only if the value of that land is insufficient to cover the cost of the debt may they utilize the original liens they had on the plots of land that were sold first.

诪讻专谉 诇讗讞讚 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬

The Gemara clarifies: With regard to the first case in the baraita, where he sold all the land to one person, what are the circum-stances?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讘转 讗讞转 讛砖转讗 诇砖诇砖讛 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 拽讚讬诐 讗诪专转 讻讜诇谉 谞讻谞住讜 转讞转 讛讘注诇讬诐 诪讻专谉 诇讗讞讚 诪讬讘注讬讗

If we say that he simultaneously sold all of the land to one person, that is difficult. Now that the baraita teaches that if he sold the land to three different people simultaneously, where it is possible to say that the sale to one of them preceded the other sales, yet you say the halakha is that all the buyers replace the land鈥檚 prior owner equally, and the possibility that one might have proceeded the other is disregarded, is it necessary to teach that the halakha is the same in a case where all the plots of land were simultaneously sold to one person?

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛

Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is referring to a case where the plots of land were sold one after the other.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖诇砖讛 讚讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讞转讬 诇讱 诪拽讜诐 诇讙讘讜转 诪诪谞讜

The Gemara asks: But what is different about the latter clause of the baraita, where the plots of land were sold to three buyers, one after the other, and the creditors collect only from the last buyer? It is different in that each one of the first two buyers can say to any creditor who tries to seize the land they purchased: Do not collect my land, as I left a place for you, a plot of land in the debtor鈥檚 possession, from which to collect. In other words, when the first two buyers purchased their land a plot of land remained with the debtor, and therefore the creditor鈥檚 rights of collection are restricted to that land.

讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讛谞讞转讬 诇讱 诪拽讜诐 诇讙讘讜转 诪诪谞讜

The Gemara continues its question: In this case as well, where all the plots of land were sold to a single buyer, with regard to each one of the first two plots of land that were sold, let the buyer say to any creditor who tries to collect: With my purchase of the first two plots of land, I left a place for you, a plot of land in the debtor鈥檚 possession, from which to collect. Therefore, even though the debtor subsequently sold the buyer all of the land, the creditor鈥檚 rights of collection are restricted to the last plot of land the debtor sold the buyer, irrespective of its quality. Why then does the baraita rule that in this case each creditor collects from the land that was originally liened to him?

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖诇拽讞 注讬讚讬转 讘讗讞专讜谞讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讻讙讜谉 砖诇拽讞 注讬讚讬转 讘讗讞专讜谞讛

The Gemara explains: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where the individual buyer purchased the superior-quality land last. Accordingly, the buyer is satisfied with allowing each creditor to collect from the land that was previously liened to him, rather than having them each collect from the superior-quality land. And so says Rav Sheshet: It is a case where the individual buyer purchased the superior-quality land last.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬转讜 讻讜诇讛讜 讜诇讬讙讘讜 诪注讬讚讬转

The Gemara asks: If that is so, let them all come and collect from the superior-quality land, as their rights to collect should be restricted to it, since it was purchased last.

诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 砖转拽讬转讜 讜砖拽诇讬转讜 讻讚讬谞讬讬讻讜 砖拽诇讬转讜 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讚专谞讗 砖讟专讗 讚讝讬讘讜专讬转 诇诪专讬讛 讜砖拽诇讬转讜 讻讜诇讻讜 诪讝讬讘讜专讬转

The Gemara answers: Because he can say the following threat to them: If you are silent and do not insist on collecting from the superior-quality land, and take the land of a quality that is due to you according to your standard legal rights, as in a case where you collect directly from the debtor, i.e., the injured party will collect from the superior-quality land, the creditor from the intermediate-quality land, and the woman will collect her marriage contract from the inferior-quality land, then take that land and I will allow you to do so. But if not, and you insist on taking the superior-quality land that I purchased last, then I will return the bill of sale of the inferior-quality land to its prior owner, i.e., the debtor, and you will all be forced to collect from the inferior-quality land, because whenever the debtor has land in his possession you are able to collect the debts only from him.

讗讬 讛讻讬

The Gemara asks: If so, that this is the reason for the ruling in the baraita,

讘谞讝拽讬谉 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 讛讻讬

then also with regard to damages, let the buyer say this to the injured party. He could threaten to return the bill of sale of the inferior-quality land to the debtor, which would force the injured party to collect directly from the debtor鈥檚 inferior-quality land. Since the buyer can do so, he can effectively force the injured party to collect from the purchased intermediate-quality land instead of fulfilling his right to collect from superior-quality land. Yet, the baraita teaches that in this case each party collects from the land that was originally liened to him, which means that damages are collected from the superior-quality land, indicating that this threat would not be effective.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讬转诪讬 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 驻专注讜谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讜砖讬注讘讜讚讗 讚讬诇讬讛 注诇讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 专诪讬讗

Rather, with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case in which the debtor died and his inheritors are his orphans, who are not subject to an obligation to repay the debts of their father. When one dies, his monetary debts are not inherited by his children. And therefore, the lien of the creditor rests solely upon the buyer of the land. Any lien that was in effect with regard to the land he owned at the time he incurred the obligation remains, and his creditors can therefore collect what they are owed from that land, even if it is in the possession of a buyer.

讛诇讻讱 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讻讬

Therefore, one cannot say that the ruling in the baraita is based on the fact that the buyer can threaten to return the bill of sale to the debtor, or in this case, to his orphans. In this case, even if he were to return the bill of sale, the creditors would not be able to collect from the land now in the orphans鈥 possession, as they received it anew, not as an inheritance from their father. Therefore, the creditors can still collect from the plots of land that remain with the buyer.

讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 谞驻专注讬谉 诪谞讻住讬谉 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 转拽谞转讗 讚讬讚讬 讗谞讗 讘讛讗 转拽谞转讗 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬

The Gemara suggests another explanation of the Tosefta: Rather, not all the creditors collect from the superior-quality land, which was the last plot of land purchased from the debtor, because the buyer can say to them: What is the reason that the Sages said one is not paid from liened property, i.e., property liened to a creditor that has been sold by the debtor, whenever there is unsold property still in the debtor鈥檚 possession? It is due to an ordinance created solely for my benefit, as I should not be expected to pay from the land I purchased when the debtor is still able to pay. If that ordinance were to be in effect in this case, all of their liens would be in effect with regard to the superior-quality land, as that was purchased last. In this case I do not find this ordinance satisfactory to me, and I would prefer for the lien of each creditor to remain in effect with regard to the land it had been on initially, and I will give each of you that land.

讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘转拽谞转 讞讻诪讬诐 讻讙讜谉 讝讜 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara notes: This fact that one is not required to avail himself of the financial benefit provided by a rabbinic ordinance is in accordance with the opinion of Rava. As Rava says: Anyone who says: I do not want to avail myself of the financial benefit provided by an ordinance of the Sages, such as this one, one listens to him.

诪讗讬 讻讙讜谉 讝讜

The Gemara asks: What does Rava mean by saying: An ordinance of the Sages, such as this one?

讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讬讻讜诇讛 讗砖讛 砖转讗诪专 诇讘注诇讛 讗讬谞讬 谞讬讝讜谞讬转 讜讗讬谞讬 注讜砖讛

The Gemara answers: His statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna. As Rav Huna says: The Sages enacted that a husband must sustain his wife. They also enacted that he receives her earnings in exchange. Yet, a wife is legally entitled to say to her husband: I will not be sustained by you, and in turn I will not work i.e., you will not keep my earnings. Since his obligation to sustain her is only for her benefit, she may forgo her sustenance and retain her earnings for herself.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讻专 诇讜拽讞 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 讜砖讬讬专 注讬讚讬转 诇驻谞讬讜 诇讬转讜 讻讜诇讛讜 讜诇讬讙讘讜 诪注讬讚讬转

The Gemara discusses a limitation on the buyer鈥檚 ability to refuse the benefit of the rabbinic ordinance: It is obvious that if the buyer sold, of the land he purchased from the debtor, the intermediate- and inferior-quality land to another buyer and retained in his possession only the superior-quality land, which he had purchased last, then all the creditors may come and collect from the superior-quality land.

讚讛讗 讗讞专讜谞讛 讛讬讗 讜讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 诇讬转谞讛讜 讙讘讬讛 讚诪爪讬 诇诪讬诪专 诇讛讜 讙讘讜 诪讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬 讘转拽谞转讗 讚专讘谞谉

For if the intermediate-quality and inferior quality land were in his possession, he would be able to say to the creditors: Collect from the intermediate-quality land and from the inferior-quality land, as it is not satisfactory to me to avail myself of the ordinance of the Sages. Now the he has sold the land of intermediate and inferior quality, however, he cannot unilaterally waive the ordinance without the consent of the second buyer. The second buyer benefits from the ordinance, since it compels the creditors to collect from the first buyer, and he will therefore certainly not agree to waive it.

讗讘诇 诪讻专 注讬讚讬转 讜砖讬讬专 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 诪讗讬

But if the first buyer sold only the superior-quality land that he had purchased last, and he retained in his possession the intermediate-quality and inferior-quality land, what is the halakha?

住讘专 讗讘讬讬 诇诪讬诪专 讗转讜 讻讜诇讛讜 讙讘讜 诪注讬讚讬转

Abaye thought to say: All the creditors should come and collect from the superior-quality land. Since that land was the last plot of land in the debtor鈥檚 possession, the creditors鈥 right of collection was restricted to that land, irrespective of the fact that it was then subsequently sold twice.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讛 诪讻专 专讗砖讜谉 诇砖谞讬 讻诇 讝讻讜转 砖转讘讗 诇讬讚讜 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讗转讜 讙讘讬 诇讜拽讞 专讗砖讜谉 诪爪讬 讗讙讘讬 诇讛讜 诪讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讚讻讬 讝讘谞讬 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 讗讻转讬 注讬讚讬转 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 讛讜讗讬 讜讗讬谉 谞驻专注讬谉 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讻诇 讝诪谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬 讘讛讗讬 转拽谞讛

Rava said to him: What has the first person sold to the second in any sale? Any rights that will come into his possession. And since, if the creditors were to come to the first buyer while he was still in possession of all three plots of land, he could have had them collect from the intermediate-quality and inferior-quality land; and this is the halakha even though when he initially purchased the intermediate-quality and inferior-quality land the superior-quality land was still unsold property in the debtor鈥檚 possession. As although there is the rabbinic ordinance that one does not exact payment from liened property when there is unsold property still in the debtor鈥檚 possession, the buyer could have said to them: I do not find this ordinance satisfactory to me.

诇讜拽讞 砖谞讬 谞诪讬 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讙讘讬 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 讚讻讬 讝讘讬谉 诇讜拽讞 砖谞讬 讗讚注转讗 讚讻诇 讝讻讜转讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讗砖讜谉 讘讙讜讛 讝讘讬谉

Rava continues: Therefore, since the first buyer had the right to say this, the second buyer can also say to them: Collect from the intermediate-quality and inferior-quality land in the first buyer鈥檚 possession. As, when the second buyer purchased the superior-quality land, he purchased it with the understanding that he also acquired all the rights that the first buyer had with regard to that land. Accordingly, he also acquires the right to insist that the creditors collect from the intermediate-quality and inferior-quality land.

讗诪专 专讘讗 专讗讜讘谉 砖诪讻专 讻诇 砖讚讜转讬讜 诇砖诪注讜谉 讜讛诇讱 砖诪注讜谉 讜诪讻专 砖讚讛 讗讞转 诇诇讜讬 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讚专讗讜讘谉 专爪讛 诪讝讛 讙讜讘讛 专爪讛 诪讝讛 讙讜讘讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚讝讘谉 讘讬谞讜谞讬转

In a related ruling, Rava says: In the case of Reuven, who sold all of his fields to Shimon simultaneously and Shimon proceeded to sell one field of those purchased to Levi, and Reuven鈥檚 creditor came to collect the debt, if the creditor so desires, he collects from this one, i.e., Shimon, and if he so desires, he collects from that one, i.e., Levi. And we said this only in a case where Levi purchased intermediate-quality land from Shimon. A creditor鈥檚 right is to collect the debt from intermediate-quality land. Accordingly, in this case, Reuven鈥檚 creditor can collect his loan from the intermediate-quality land even after it has been transferred into Levi鈥檚 possession. Nevertheless, if he so desires, he may insist on collecting his loan from any inferior-quality land left in Shimon鈥檚 possession. This is because a creditor also has the right to demand payment from a borrower鈥檚 inferior-quality land instead of his intermediate-quality land, and therefore that land is also liened to the loan.

讗讘诇 讝讘谉 注讬讚讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讛讻讬 讚讬讬拽讬 讜讝讘谞讬 注讬讚讬转 讜讝讬讘讜专讬转 讗专注讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讱

But if Levi purchased superior-quality and inferior-quality land from Shimon, no, the creditor can collect only from Shimon鈥檚 intermediate-quality land, as Levi could say to him: For this reason I was particular to purchase superior-quality and inferior-quality land, which is land that is not fit for you to collect from as a creditor.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 讝讘谉 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 砖讬讬专 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讚讻讜讜转讬讛 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讞转讬 诇讱 诪拽讜诐 诇讙讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讘诇 砖讬讬专 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讚讻讜讜转讬讛 讙讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 讙讘讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讞转讬 诇讱 诪拽讜诐 诇讙讘讜转 诪诪谞讜

And if Levi purchased the intermediate-quality land from Shimon as well, we said that Reuven鈥檚 creditor can collect from him only in a case where he did not leave some similar intermediate-quality land in Shimon鈥檚 possession, as in that case, Levi is unable to say to the creditor: I left a place for you, i.e., a plot of land, in Shimon鈥檚 possession, from which to collect. But where Levi did leave some similar intermediate-quality land in Shimon鈥檚 possession, the creditor does not collect from Levi, as Levi is able to say to him: I left a place for you from which to collect.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讗讜讘谉 砖诪讻专 砖讚讛 诇砖诪注讜谉 讘讗讞专讬讜转 讜讗转讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讚专讗讜讘谉 讜讟专祝 诪砖诪注讜谉 讚讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讝讬诇 专讗讜讘谉 讜诪砖转注讬 讚讬谞讗 讘讛讚讬讛 讜诇讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讘注诇 讚讘专讬诐 讚讬讚讬 讗转 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪驻拽转 诪讬谞讬讛 注诇讬 讛讚专

In another related ruling, Abaye says: In the case of Reuven, who sold a field liened to his creditor to Shimon with a guarantee, meaning that Reuven agreed to reimburse Shimon should Reuven鈥檚 creditor collect the debt from that field, and Reuven鈥檚 creditor came and seized the field from Shimon, the halakha is that Reuven can go and litigate with his creditor and claim that he had already repaid the debt, and insist that the field be returned to Shimon. And the creditor is unable to say to Reuven: I am not legally answerable to you, as I am not taking away your land, since you sold it to Shimon. This is because Reuven could say to him: If you extract the field from him, Shimon will return to me and demand that I reimburse him for his loss. Consequently, I am involved in this matter.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘讗讞专讬讜转 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬 讚转讛讜讬 诇砖诪注讜谉 转专注讜诪转 注诇讬

And there are those who say: Even in a case where he sold the field without a guarantee, as well, in which case even if the creditor seizes Shimon鈥檚 land there are no legal consequences for Reuven, Reuven can litigate with the creditor, as he could say to him: It is not satisfactory for me for Shimon to have a grievance against me because he lost the field I sold him on account of the fact that I was unable to pay my debt. Consequently, I am involved in this matter.

讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讗讜讘谉 砖诪讻专 砖讚讛 诇砖诪注讜谉 砖诇讗 讘讗讞专讬讜转

And in another related ruling, Abaye says: In the case of Reuven, who sold a field to Shimon without a guarantee,

Scroll To Top