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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 10, 2016 | 讞壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Metzia 14

Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree about聽the case in the mishna. 聽A braita is then brought which supports Rabbi Yochanan’s opinion and contradicts both Rabbi Elazar and Shmuel’s opinion. 聽Another statement of Shmuel is brought regarding the rabbi’s opinion – that even if one doesn’t write that property is liened to the loan, it is – and it is questioned by a statement of Shmuel’s in a different context. 聽The gemara then distinguishes between the cases – one a loan and the other a sale. 聽A story is brought to prove this distinction. 聽Can one back out of a deal if there are rumours circulating that the land doesn’t belong to the “owner”? 聽At what stage and does it depend if the land was sold with achrayut? 聽If one sold a field that wasn’t his, Rav and Shmuel debate whether or not he needs to reimburse聽the buyer for the improvements he did to the field.

Study Guide Bava Metzia 14


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讞讚讗 讛讜讗 讚讞讚 讟注诐 讛讜讗 讚诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛 讛讜讗 诪转专抓 讛讻讬

The Gemara answers: It is actually one element, as both elements have the same one reason; because Rabbi Elazar says that the dispute in the mishna is in a case when the liable party does not admit his debt, he explains Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion in this manner, i.e., that a promissory note that does not include a property guarantee cannot be used to collect the debt even from unsold property.

转讬讜讘转讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘转专转讬 讞讚讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讛讗 诪讜拽讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛

The Gemara elaborates on the statement that the baraita serves as a conclusive refutation of two elements of the opinion of Shmuel: One element is like the element of the opinion of Rabbi Elazar that was refuted, as Shmuel also establishes the dispute in the mishna as referring to a case when the liable party does not admit to the debt, and the baraita states that in such a case there is no dispute.

讜讞讚讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪爪讗 砖讟专 讛拽谞讗讛 讘砖讜拽 讬讞讝讬专 诇讘注诇讬诐 讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇驻专注讜谉

And the other one is that which Shmuel says: If one found a deed of transfer in the marketplace, in which it is stipulated that the debtor transfers the rights to his property from the date that the document was signed, he must return it to its owner, and we do not suspect that there was repayment and that there is collusion between the creditor and the debtor.

转讬讜讘转讗 讚拽转谞讬 讛讻讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讛 讗诇诪讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇驻专注讜谉 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讜讛 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇驻专注讜谉

There is a conclusive refutation of that statement as well, as the baraita here teaches: Even if they both agree, he should return it neither to this person nor to that person. Apparently, we suspect that there was repayment. And all the more so here, in the case of a deed of transfer, when the liable party does not admit that he owes money, the deed should certainly not be returned, as we suspect that there was repayment.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讞专讬讜转 讟注讜转 住讜驻专 讛讜讗

Shmuel said: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that one can collect a debt from liened property even if the promissory note does not include a property guarantee? They hold that omission of the property guarantee from the promissory note is a scribal error, as one would certainly not lend money without a property guarantee.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 讗讬转讬 诇专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讘讞 砖驻专 讜砖注讘讜讚 爪专讬讱 诇讬诪诇讱

Rava bar Ittai said to Rav Idi bar Avin: Did Shmuel actually say this; i.e., that the omission of this clause is considered a scribal error? But doesn鈥檛 Shmuel say that enhancement, superior-quality land, and a lien require consultation? When a scribe writes a deed of sale for a field he must ask the seller whether to write explicitly that if there is a lien on the field, and the field is then is repossessed from the buyer, in which case the seller must compensate the buyer for any enhancement of the value of the field that occurred while it was in his possession, that this compensation will be made from superior-quality land, and that he liens all of his land as security for this sale. This indicates that Shmuel holds that a property guarantee is not written in every promissory note.

诇讬诪讗 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讛讗

The Gemara asks: Shall we say that the one who says this statement quoting Shmuel does not say that statement quoting Shmuel? Perhaps it is a dispute between the amora鈥檌m who transmitted the statements of Shmuel.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖讟专 讛诇讜讗讛 讚诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讗讬谞砖 讝讜讝讬 讘讻讚讬 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专 讚注讘讬讚 讗讬谞砖 讚讝讘讬谉 讗专注讗 诇讬讜诪讬讛

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, where Shmuel said that the omission of a property guarantee is a scribal error, it was with regard to a promissory note, as a person does not give away his money for nothing. When one lends his money, he requires a property guarantee. There, by contrast, where Shmuel said that a scribe must consult with the seller with regard to writing a property guarantee, it is with regard to a case of buying and selling land, as a person is apt to purchase land for a day. It is conceivable that the buyer is willing to risk that there is a prior lien on the land, thinking that even if he owns the property only for one day he can earn a profit.

讻讬 讛讛讬讗 讚讗讘讜讛 讘专 讗讬讛讬 讝讘讬谉 注诇讬转讗 诪讗讞转讬讛 讗转讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讟专驻讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻转讘讛 诇讱 讗讞专讬讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 讝讬诇 诇砖诇诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 诪专 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讗讞专讬讜转 讟注讜转 住讜驻专 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘砖讟专讬 讛诇讜讗讛 讗讘诇 讘砖讟专讬 诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专 诇讗 讚注讘讬讚 讗讬谞砖 讚讝讘讬谉 讗专注讗 诇讬讜诪讬讛

As evidence of this distinction, the Gemara gives an example: It is like that incident in which Avuh bar Ihi purchased a loft from his sister. Her creditor came and repossessed the loft from him. He came before Mar Shmuel to file a claim against his sister. Shmuel said to him: Did she write you a guarantee in the deed of sale? He said to Shmuel: No. Shmuel said to him: If so, go to peace (see Berakhot 64a), as there is nothing that can be done. He said to Shmuel: But wasn鈥檛 it you, Master, who said that omission of the guarantee of the sale from the document is a scribal error? Shmuel said to him: This statement applies only to promissory notes, but with regard to deeds of buying and selling it does not apply, as a person is apt to purchase land for a day.

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 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讚专讗讜讘谉 讜拽讗 讟专讬祝 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 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 讚诪驻拽转 诪讬谞讬讛 注诇讬 讚讬讚讬 讛讚专

Abaye said: Consider the case of Reuven, who sold a field to Shimon with a property guarantee, and Reuven鈥檚 creditor came and repossessed the field from Shimon, as he had a prior lien on the property. It is the halakha that Reuven can go and litigate with the creditor, and the creditor cannot say to him: I am not legally answerable to you since I am taking the field from Shimon. This is because Reuven can say to his creditor: That which you take from him comes back to me, as I sold the field to Shimon with a guarantee, so you cannot claim that I am not a legal party in this matter.

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 讚诇讬讛讜讬 诇砖诪注讜谉 转专注讜诪转 注诇讬

There are those who say that Abaye said: Even if Reuven sold the field to Shimon without a property guarantee, Reuven can dispute the legal claim in court, as he can say to the creditor: It is not amenable to me that Shimon would have a grievance against me for selling him property that was subsequently repossessed.

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 讜讬爪讗讜 注诇讬讛 注住讬拽讬谉 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讞讝讬拽 讘讛

And Abaye said: Consider the case of Reuven, who sold a field to Shimon without a property guarantee, and disputants emerged disputing Reuven鈥檚 prior ownership of the field. As long as Shimon has not yet taken actual possession of the land,

讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 诪砖讛讞讝讬拽 讘讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬讬转讗 讚拽讟专讬 住讘专转 讜拽讘诇转 诪讗讬诪转讬 讛讜讬讗 讞讝拽讛 诪讻讬 讚讬讬砖 讗诪爪专讬

he can withdraw from the transaction and is not required to pay for the land. Once he has taken possession of the land, he cannot withdraw, as Reuven, the seller, can say to him: The purchase of the land was like purchasing a tied sack whose content is unknown and might not be worth anything. Since you were aware of that and accepted it, as you purchased it without a guarantee, you cannot withdraw your purchase. From when is it that he has taken possession? It is from when he walks along the borders of the field to inspect them.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讞专讬讜转 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讞讜讬 讟专驻讱 讜讗砖诇诐 诇讱

And there are those who say: Even if he bought the field with a property guarantee, the buyer cannot withdraw from the sale, as the seller can say to him: Show me your document of authorization to repossess, which a court provides to a buyer when the land he purchased is seized from him by a third party who demonstrated that it did not belong to the seller, and then I will pay you. I do not wish to cancel the sale and reimburse you unless it is clear that the field is being taken from you legally.

讗讬转诪专 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜谞诪爪讗转 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇讜 专讘 讗诪专 讬砖 诇讜 诪注讜转 讜讬砖 诇讜 砖讘讞 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪注讜转 讬砖 诇讜 砖讘讞 讗讬谉 诇讜

It was stated that with regard to a case of one who sells a field to another and it is found subsequently that it did not belong to the seller, and the rightful owner repossesses the field from the buyer and the buyer then demands reimbursement from the seller, Rav says that the buyer has the right to be repaid the money that he paid for the field, and he also has the right to compensation for the enhancement of the value of the field while it was in his possession. And Shmuel says that he has the right to the money, but he does not have the right to compensation for the enhancement.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 驻讬专砖 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讘讞 诪讛讜 讟注诪讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 驻讬专砖 砖讘讞讗 讜讛讻讗 讛讗 驻讬专砖 诇讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讟注诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 拽专拽注 诪讞讝讬 讻专讬讘讬转 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬谉 讜诇讗讜 讜专驻讬讗 讘讬讚讬讛

The students raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: What is the halakha if the seller specified that the buyer would receive payment for any enhancement in the value of the field in the event that the field is taken by the rightful owners? Is the reason for the opinion of Shmuel because the seller did not specify that the buyer would receive the enhancement when he sold him the field, but here, in this case, he did specify it? Or perhaps Shmuel鈥檚 reason is that since the buyer is reimbursed but the seller does not have the right to the land, i.e., he is not given back the land, the transaction appears to have been a loan, and therefore payment for enhancement of the field appears to be interest. Rav Huna said to them: Yes and no, and the matter was unclear to him.

讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪注讜转 讬砖 诇讜 砖讘讞 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖驻讬专砖 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讘讞 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽专拽注 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讻专 诪注讜转讬讜 注讜诪讚 讜谞讜讟诇

It was stated that Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says that he has the right to the money, but he does not have the right to the value of the enhancement, even if the seller specified in the deed of sale that he would compensate the buyer for the value of the enhancement in the event that the field was repossessed. What is the reason? Since the seller does not have the right to the land, the buyer appears to be standing and taking payment for the right to use his money, which is interest.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讗讻讬诇转 驻讬专讜转 讜诇砖讘讞 拽专拽注讜转 讜诇诪讝讜谉 讛讗砖讛 讜讛讘谞讜转 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐

Rava raised an objection to the statement of Rav Na岣an: It is taught in a mishna (Gittin 48b) that one cannot appropriate liened property that has been sold as payment for consuming produce or for enhancement of land, cases that will be explained later, or for the sustenance of a man鈥檚 wife and his daughters after his death, to which he committed in his marriage contract. This is despite the fact that each of these financial liabilities or commitments predated the sale of the land. These ordinances were instituted by the Sages for the betterment of the world, as these liabilities are not of a fixed amount, and the purchaser of the liened property cannot assess the risk he is assuming should some other person come to collect compensation from that property.

诪诪砖注讘讚讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 讛讗 诪讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 诪驻拽讬谞谉 讜拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 诇砖讘讞 拽专拽注讜转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘诇讜拽讞 诪讙讝诇谉

The mishna indicates that that we do not appropriate liened property for these purposes, but we do appropriate unsold property. And in any event, it is taught in the mishna that one of these purposes is for the enhancement of land. What, is it not referring to a case where one purchases a field from a robber, in which case the field did not belong to the seller? And it says that the seller must pay the buyer the value of the field鈥檚 enhancement, provided he has unsold property.

诇讗 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘

The Gemara responds: No, it is referring to a case of a creditor, where one sold a field and his creditor subsequently repossessed it from the buyer due to the seller鈥檚 prior debt to him. In that case, the sale of the land was valid, and it does not appear to have been a loan. Therefore, the seller鈥檚 payment of the enhancement does not appear to be interest.

讗讬 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗讬诪讗 专讬砖讗 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讗讻讬诇转 驻讬专讜转 讜讗讬 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘 讘注诇 讞讜讘 诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 驻讬专讬 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛砖讘讞 砖讘讞 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 驻讬专讜转 诇讗

The Gemara asks: If this mishna is referring to the case of a creditor, say the first clause of the mishna: One cannot appropriate liened property for consuming produce. This is apparently referring to a case where the field was full of unharvested produce and was appropriated from the buyer along with the produce. The buyer then claims payment for the value of the produce as well. And if the reference is to the case of a creditor, does a creditor have the right to appropriate produce from the buyer? But doesn鈥檛 Shmuel say that a creditor collects the value of the enhancement of the field? This indicates that he does collect the value of enhancement, but he does not collect the produce.

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讙讜讝诇 讜谞讙讝诇 讜诪讚专讬砖讗 讘讙讜讝诇 讜谞讙讝诇 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讘讙讜讝诇 讜谞讙讝诇

Rather, it is obvious that the mishna is referring to the case of a robber, who stole the field and sold it, and a robbery victim, who recovers his field, including the produce, from the buyer. And from the fact that the first clause is referring to a robber and a robbery victim, the latter clause, i.e., the case of the enhancement of land, is also referring to a robber and a robbery victim. Rava鈥檚 objection to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion remains.

诪讬讚讬 讗专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗

The Gemara rejects the premise: Are the cases comparable? This case, with regard to consuming produce, is as it is, and that case, with regard to the enhancement of land, is as it is. The former case is referring to a case of robbery and the latter case is referring to the case of a creditor.

讜讛讗 诇讗 转谞讬 讛讻讬 诇砖讘讞 拽专拽注讜转 讻讬爪讚 讛专讬 砖讙讝诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讜砖讘讞 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉

The Gemara asks: But it is not taught that way in a baraita that elaborates on the mishna, stating: What is the case in which one appropriates property for enhancement of land? It is a case where one robbed another of a field and it is appropriated by the court from his possession. When he collects payment, he collects the principal, i.e., the value of the field itself, from liened property, and he collects the enhancement from unsold property.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻讚拽转谞讬 讙讝诇谉 诪诪讗谉 讙讘讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 砖讙讝诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜诪讻专讛 诇讗讞专 讜讛砖讘讬讞讛

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that the case is as it is taught in the baraita, which indicates that it is the robber who collects, from whom does the robber collect? Who owes him money? Rather, is it not referring to a case where one robbed another of a field and sold it to another person, i.e., to a third party, and that third party invested in the field and enhanced it? Accordingly, when the court appropriates the land from the purchaser, he collects the value of the enhancement from the unsold property of the robber who sold it to him. This interpretation poses a difficulty to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion.

讗诪专 诇讱 诇讗讜 转专讜爪讬 拽讗 诪转专爪转 转专讬抓 谞诪讬 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘

The Gemara answers: Shmuel could have said to you: Did you not explain the baraita by adding information, i.e., that the robber sold the field to a third party? If so, you could also explain that rather than referring to a robber, it is referring to a creditor. This interpretation would accord with the opinion of Shmuel.

转讗 砖诪注 诇讗讻讬诇转 驻讬专讜转 讻讬爪讚 讛专讬 砖讙讝诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讜驻讬专讜转 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another baraita that elaborates on the mishna and poses a difficulty to the opinion of Shmuel: What is the case in which one appropriates property for consuming produce? It is the case of one who robbed another of a field, and it is appropriated from his possession. When he collects payment, he collects the principal from liened property and he collects the produce from unsold property.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻讚拽转谞讬 讙讝诇谉 诪诪讗谉 讙讘讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 砖讙讝诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜诪讻专讛 诇讗讞专 讜讛砖讘讬讞讛

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If we say that the case is as it is taught in the baraita, which indicates that it is the robber who collects, from whom does the robber collect? Rather, is it not referring to a case where one robbed another of a field and sold it to yet another person, and that third person enhanced it?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讙讝诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 诪诇讗讛 驻讬专讜转 讜讗讻诇 讗转 讛驻讬专讜转 讜讞驻专 讘讛 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 讘讗 谞讙讝诇 诇讙讘讜转 拽专谉 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讘讗 谞讙讝诇 诇讙讘讜转 驻讬专讜转 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉

Rava said: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where one stole a field full of produce from another, and he consumed the produce and dug pits, ditches, and caves in the field, damaging it. When the robbery victim comes to collect the principal, the value of the field before it was damaged, he collects it from the robber鈥檚 liened property. When the robbery victim comes to collect the value of the produce from the robber, he collects it from unsold property.

专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: It is a case where

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 Metzia 14

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 14

讞讚讗 讛讜讗 讚讞讚 讟注诐 讛讜讗 讚诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛 讛讜讗 诪转专抓 讛讻讬

The Gemara answers: It is actually one element, as both elements have the same one reason; because Rabbi Elazar says that the dispute in the mishna is in a case when the liable party does not admit his debt, he explains Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion in this manner, i.e., that a promissory note that does not include a property guarantee cannot be used to collect the debt even from unsold property.

转讬讜讘转讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘转专转讬 讞讚讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讛讗 诪讜拽讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛

The Gemara elaborates on the statement that the baraita serves as a conclusive refutation of two elements of the opinion of Shmuel: One element is like the element of the opinion of Rabbi Elazar that was refuted, as Shmuel also establishes the dispute in the mishna as referring to a case when the liable party does not admit to the debt, and the baraita states that in such a case there is no dispute.

讜讞讚讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪爪讗 砖讟专 讛拽谞讗讛 讘砖讜拽 讬讞讝讬专 诇讘注诇讬诐 讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇驻专注讜谉

And the other one is that which Shmuel says: If one found a deed of transfer in the marketplace, in which it is stipulated that the debtor transfers the rights to his property from the date that the document was signed, he must return it to its owner, and we do not suspect that there was repayment and that there is collusion between the creditor and the debtor.

转讬讜讘转讗 讚拽转谞讬 讛讻讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讛 讗诇诪讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇驻专注讜谉 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讜讛 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇驻专注讜谉

There is a conclusive refutation of that statement as well, as the baraita here teaches: Even if they both agree, he should return it neither to this person nor to that person. Apparently, we suspect that there was repayment. And all the more so here, in the case of a deed of transfer, when the liable party does not admit that he owes money, the deed should certainly not be returned, as we suspect that there was repayment.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讞专讬讜转 讟注讜转 住讜驻专 讛讜讗

Shmuel said: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that one can collect a debt from liened property even if the promissory note does not include a property guarantee? They hold that omission of the property guarantee from the promissory note is a scribal error, as one would certainly not lend money without a property guarantee.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 讗讬转讬 诇专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讘讞 砖驻专 讜砖注讘讜讚 爪专讬讱 诇讬诪诇讱

Rava bar Ittai said to Rav Idi bar Avin: Did Shmuel actually say this; i.e., that the omission of this clause is considered a scribal error? But doesn鈥檛 Shmuel say that enhancement, superior-quality land, and a lien require consultation? When a scribe writes a deed of sale for a field he must ask the seller whether to write explicitly that if there is a lien on the field, and the field is then is repossessed from the buyer, in which case the seller must compensate the buyer for any enhancement of the value of the field that occurred while it was in his possession, that this compensation will be made from superior-quality land, and that he liens all of his land as security for this sale. This indicates that Shmuel holds that a property guarantee is not written in every promissory note.

诇讬诪讗 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讛讗

The Gemara asks: Shall we say that the one who says this statement quoting Shmuel does not say that statement quoting Shmuel? Perhaps it is a dispute between the amora鈥檌m who transmitted the statements of Shmuel.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖讟专 讛诇讜讗讛 讚诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讗讬谞砖 讝讜讝讬 讘讻讚讬 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专 讚注讘讬讚 讗讬谞砖 讚讝讘讬谉 讗专注讗 诇讬讜诪讬讛

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, where Shmuel said that the omission of a property guarantee is a scribal error, it was with regard to a promissory note, as a person does not give away his money for nothing. When one lends his money, he requires a property guarantee. There, by contrast, where Shmuel said that a scribe must consult with the seller with regard to writing a property guarantee, it is with regard to a case of buying and selling land, as a person is apt to purchase land for a day. It is conceivable that the buyer is willing to risk that there is a prior lien on the land, thinking that even if he owns the property only for one day he can earn a profit.

讻讬 讛讛讬讗 讚讗讘讜讛 讘专 讗讬讛讬 讝讘讬谉 注诇讬转讗 诪讗讞转讬讛 讗转讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讟专驻讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻转讘讛 诇讱 讗讞专讬讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 讝讬诇 诇砖诇诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 诪专 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讗讞专讬讜转 讟注讜转 住讜驻专 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘砖讟专讬 讛诇讜讗讛 讗讘诇 讘砖讟专讬 诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专 诇讗 讚注讘讬讚 讗讬谞砖 讚讝讘讬谉 讗专注讗 诇讬讜诪讬讛

As evidence of this distinction, the Gemara gives an example: It is like that incident in which Avuh bar Ihi purchased a loft from his sister. Her creditor came and repossessed the loft from him. He came before Mar Shmuel to file a claim against his sister. Shmuel said to him: Did she write you a guarantee in the deed of sale? He said to Shmuel: No. Shmuel said to him: If so, go to peace (see Berakhot 64a), as there is nothing that can be done. He said to Shmuel: But wasn鈥檛 it you, Master, who said that omission of the guarantee of the sale from the document is a scribal error? Shmuel said to him: This statement applies only to promissory notes, but with regard to deeds of buying and selling it does not apply, as a person is apt to purchase land for a day.

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 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讚专讗讜讘谉 讜拽讗 讟专讬祝 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 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 讚诪驻拽转 诪讬谞讬讛 注诇讬 讚讬讚讬 讛讚专

Abaye said: Consider the case of Reuven, who sold a field to Shimon with a property guarantee, and Reuven鈥檚 creditor came and repossessed the field from Shimon, as he had a prior lien on the property. It is the halakha that Reuven can go and litigate with the creditor, and the creditor cannot say to him: I am not legally answerable to you since I am taking the field from Shimon. This is because Reuven can say to his creditor: That which you take from him comes back to me, as I sold the field to Shimon with a guarantee, so you cannot claim that I am not a legal party in this matter.

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 讚诇讬讛讜讬 诇砖诪注讜谉 转专注讜诪转 注诇讬

There are those who say that Abaye said: Even if Reuven sold the field to Shimon without a property guarantee, Reuven can dispute the legal claim in court, as he can say to the creditor: It is not amenable to me that Shimon would have a grievance against me for selling him property that was subsequently repossessed.

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 讜讬爪讗讜 注诇讬讛 注住讬拽讬谉 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讞讝讬拽 讘讛

And Abaye said: Consider the case of Reuven, who sold a field to Shimon without a property guarantee, and disputants emerged disputing Reuven鈥檚 prior ownership of the field. As long as Shimon has not yet taken actual possession of the land,

讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 诪砖讛讞讝讬拽 讘讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬讬转讗 讚拽讟专讬 住讘专转 讜拽讘诇转 诪讗讬诪转讬 讛讜讬讗 讞讝拽讛 诪讻讬 讚讬讬砖 讗诪爪专讬

he can withdraw from the transaction and is not required to pay for the land. Once he has taken possession of the land, he cannot withdraw, as Reuven, the seller, can say to him: The purchase of the land was like purchasing a tied sack whose content is unknown and might not be worth anything. Since you were aware of that and accepted it, as you purchased it without a guarantee, you cannot withdraw your purchase. From when is it that he has taken possession? It is from when he walks along the borders of the field to inspect them.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讞专讬讜转 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讞讜讬 讟专驻讱 讜讗砖诇诐 诇讱

And there are those who say: Even if he bought the field with a property guarantee, the buyer cannot withdraw from the sale, as the seller can say to him: Show me your document of authorization to repossess, which a court provides to a buyer when the land he purchased is seized from him by a third party who demonstrated that it did not belong to the seller, and then I will pay you. I do not wish to cancel the sale and reimburse you unless it is clear that the field is being taken from you legally.

讗讬转诪专 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜谞诪爪讗转 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇讜 专讘 讗诪专 讬砖 诇讜 诪注讜转 讜讬砖 诇讜 砖讘讞 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪注讜转 讬砖 诇讜 砖讘讞 讗讬谉 诇讜

It was stated that with regard to a case of one who sells a field to another and it is found subsequently that it did not belong to the seller, and the rightful owner repossesses the field from the buyer and the buyer then demands reimbursement from the seller, Rav says that the buyer has the right to be repaid the money that he paid for the field, and he also has the right to compensation for the enhancement of the value of the field while it was in his possession. And Shmuel says that he has the right to the money, but he does not have the right to compensation for the enhancement.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 驻讬专砖 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讘讞 诪讛讜 讟注诪讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 驻讬专砖 砖讘讞讗 讜讛讻讗 讛讗 驻讬专砖 诇讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讟注诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 拽专拽注 诪讞讝讬 讻专讬讘讬转 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬谉 讜诇讗讜 讜专驻讬讗 讘讬讚讬讛

The students raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: What is the halakha if the seller specified that the buyer would receive payment for any enhancement in the value of the field in the event that the field is taken by the rightful owners? Is the reason for the opinion of Shmuel because the seller did not specify that the buyer would receive the enhancement when he sold him the field, but here, in this case, he did specify it? Or perhaps Shmuel鈥檚 reason is that since the buyer is reimbursed but the seller does not have the right to the land, i.e., he is not given back the land, the transaction appears to have been a loan, and therefore payment for enhancement of the field appears to be interest. Rav Huna said to them: Yes and no, and the matter was unclear to him.

讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪注讜转 讬砖 诇讜 砖讘讞 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖驻讬专砖 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讘讞 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽专拽注 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讻专 诪注讜转讬讜 注讜诪讚 讜谞讜讟诇

It was stated that Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says that he has the right to the money, but he does not have the right to the value of the enhancement, even if the seller specified in the deed of sale that he would compensate the buyer for the value of the enhancement in the event that the field was repossessed. What is the reason? Since the seller does not have the right to the land, the buyer appears to be standing and taking payment for the right to use his money, which is interest.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讗讻讬诇转 驻讬专讜转 讜诇砖讘讞 拽专拽注讜转 讜诇诪讝讜谉 讛讗砖讛 讜讛讘谞讜转 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐

Rava raised an objection to the statement of Rav Na岣an: It is taught in a mishna (Gittin 48b) that one cannot appropriate liened property that has been sold as payment for consuming produce or for enhancement of land, cases that will be explained later, or for the sustenance of a man鈥檚 wife and his daughters after his death, to which he committed in his marriage contract. This is despite the fact that each of these financial liabilities or commitments predated the sale of the land. These ordinances were instituted by the Sages for the betterment of the world, as these liabilities are not of a fixed amount, and the purchaser of the liened property cannot assess the risk he is assuming should some other person come to collect compensation from that property.

诪诪砖注讘讚讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 讛讗 诪讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 诪驻拽讬谞谉 讜拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 诇砖讘讞 拽专拽注讜转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘诇讜拽讞 诪讙讝诇谉

The mishna indicates that that we do not appropriate liened property for these purposes, but we do appropriate unsold property. And in any event, it is taught in the mishna that one of these purposes is for the enhancement of land. What, is it not referring to a case where one purchases a field from a robber, in which case the field did not belong to the seller? And it says that the seller must pay the buyer the value of the field鈥檚 enhancement, provided he has unsold property.

诇讗 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘

The Gemara responds: No, it is referring to a case of a creditor, where one sold a field and his creditor subsequently repossessed it from the buyer due to the seller鈥檚 prior debt to him. In that case, the sale of the land was valid, and it does not appear to have been a loan. Therefore, the seller鈥檚 payment of the enhancement does not appear to be interest.

讗讬 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗讬诪讗 专讬砖讗 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讗讻讬诇转 驻讬专讜转 讜讗讬 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘 讘注诇 讞讜讘 诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 驻讬专讬 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛砖讘讞 砖讘讞 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 驻讬专讜转 诇讗

The Gemara asks: If this mishna is referring to the case of a creditor, say the first clause of the mishna: One cannot appropriate liened property for consuming produce. This is apparently referring to a case where the field was full of unharvested produce and was appropriated from the buyer along with the produce. The buyer then claims payment for the value of the produce as well. And if the reference is to the case of a creditor, does a creditor have the right to appropriate produce from the buyer? But doesn鈥檛 Shmuel say that a creditor collects the value of the enhancement of the field? This indicates that he does collect the value of enhancement, but he does not collect the produce.

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讙讜讝诇 讜谞讙讝诇 讜诪讚专讬砖讗 讘讙讜讝诇 讜谞讙讝诇 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讘讙讜讝诇 讜谞讙讝诇

Rather, it is obvious that the mishna is referring to the case of a robber, who stole the field and sold it, and a robbery victim, who recovers his field, including the produce, from the buyer. And from the fact that the first clause is referring to a robber and a robbery victim, the latter clause, i.e., the case of the enhancement of land, is also referring to a robber and a robbery victim. Rava鈥檚 objection to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion remains.

诪讬讚讬 讗专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗

The Gemara rejects the premise: Are the cases comparable? This case, with regard to consuming produce, is as it is, and that case, with regard to the enhancement of land, is as it is. The former case is referring to a case of robbery and the latter case is referring to the case of a creditor.

讜讛讗 诇讗 转谞讬 讛讻讬 诇砖讘讞 拽专拽注讜转 讻讬爪讚 讛专讬 砖讙讝诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讜砖讘讞 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉

The Gemara asks: But it is not taught that way in a baraita that elaborates on the mishna, stating: What is the case in which one appropriates property for enhancement of land? It is a case where one robbed another of a field and it is appropriated by the court from his possession. When he collects payment, he collects the principal, i.e., the value of the field itself, from liened property, and he collects the enhancement from unsold property.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻讚拽转谞讬 讙讝诇谉 诪诪讗谉 讙讘讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 砖讙讝诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜诪讻专讛 诇讗讞专 讜讛砖讘讬讞讛

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that the case is as it is taught in the baraita, which indicates that it is the robber who collects, from whom does the robber collect? Who owes him money? Rather, is it not referring to a case where one robbed another of a field and sold it to another person, i.e., to a third party, and that third party invested in the field and enhanced it? Accordingly, when the court appropriates the land from the purchaser, he collects the value of the enhancement from the unsold property of the robber who sold it to him. This interpretation poses a difficulty to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion.

讗诪专 诇讱 诇讗讜 转专讜爪讬 拽讗 诪转专爪转 转专讬抓 谞诪讬 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘

The Gemara answers: Shmuel could have said to you: Did you not explain the baraita by adding information, i.e., that the robber sold the field to a third party? If so, you could also explain that rather than referring to a robber, it is referring to a creditor. This interpretation would accord with the opinion of Shmuel.

转讗 砖诪注 诇讗讻讬诇转 驻讬专讜转 讻讬爪讚 讛专讬 砖讙讝诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讜驻讬专讜转 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another baraita that elaborates on the mishna and poses a difficulty to the opinion of Shmuel: What is the case in which one appropriates property for consuming produce? It is the case of one who robbed another of a field, and it is appropriated from his possession. When he collects payment, he collects the principal from liened property and he collects the produce from unsold property.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻讚拽转谞讬 讙讝诇谉 诪诪讗谉 讙讘讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 砖讙讝诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜诪讻专讛 诇讗讞专 讜讛砖讘讬讞讛

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If we say that the case is as it is taught in the baraita, which indicates that it is the robber who collects, from whom does the robber collect? Rather, is it not referring to a case where one robbed another of a field and sold it to yet another person, and that third person enhanced it?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讙讝诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 诪诇讗讛 驻讬专讜转 讜讗讻诇 讗转 讛驻讬专讜转 讜讞驻专 讘讛 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 讘讗 谞讙讝诇 诇讙讘讜转 拽专谉 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讘讗 谞讙讝诇 诇讙讘讜转 驻讬专讜转 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉

Rava said: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where one stole a field full of produce from another, and he consumed the produce and dug pits, ditches, and caves in the field, damaging it. When the robbery victim comes to collect the principal, the value of the field before it was damaged, he collects it from the robber鈥檚 liened property. When the robbery victim comes to collect the value of the produce from the robber, he collects it from unsold property.

专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: It is a case where

Scroll To Top