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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 11, 2016 | 讟壮 讘转砖专讬 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 Metzia 15

Shmuel’s opinions relating to shevach are discussed. 聽If one buys from a robber and invests in the property, he loses his investment because if the robber returns him his investment, it will look like interest. 聽Various sources are brought to contradict this but are resolved. 聽According to Shmuel, a ba’al chov who comes to demand land from liened property, he can take the shevach, (the investment). 聽Various sources are brought to prove or question his opinion and as a result some distinctions are made. 聽If one buys property and knows it is stolen, Rav and Shmuel debate whether or not he can get his money back. 聽THe basis of their argument is discussed and compared to another case where they also debate the same issue.
Study Guide Bava Metzia 15

砖谞讟诇讜讛 诪住讬拽讬谉 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

gentile thugs took the field from the robber by force due to previous dealings between them. In that case, when the robbery victim comes to collect the principal, he collects it from liened property, and when the robbery victim comes to collect payment for the produce, he can collect only from unsold property.

专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讘讚讬谞讗 诪砖诪注 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讗 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讘注讬谞讗 诪砖诪注

The Gemara explains: Rava did not state his explanation of the baraita in accordance with the explanation of Rabba bar Rav Huna, because the phrase: It is appropriated from his possession, indicates that the field was taken from him legally and not by thugs. And Rabba bar Rav Huna did not state his explanation of the baraita in accordance with the explanation of Rava, because the phrase: It is appropriated from his possession, indicates that the field is appropriated in its unadulterated form, and was not damaged.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇爪讚讚讬谉 拽转谞讬 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 讜诪讻专 讗转 讛砖讚讛 讘讗 诇讜拽讞 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

Rav Ashi stated that the baraita teaches its rulings disjunctively. According to Rav Ashi, the baraita is referring to a case where one robbed another of a field while it was full of produce, and he consumed the produce and sold the field. When, after the true owner recovers the field from purchaser, the purchaser comes to collect the principal from the robber, i.e., the amount that he paid for the field, he collects it from the robber鈥檚 liened property. When the robbery victim comes to collect payment for the produce, he collects only from unsold property.

讘讬谉 诇专讘讗 讘讬谉 诇专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讛讜讗 讜诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐

The Gemara raises a difficulty: According to both Rava and Rabba bar Rav Huna, the money that the robber owes the robbery victim has the status of a loan by oral agreement, as it is not accompanied by documentation, and one who is owed a loan by oral agreement cannot collect from liened property.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讜讛讚专 讝讘讬谉

The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the robber stood trial for his robbery and was found guilty, and he subsequently sold the land. Since he sold it after his liability was well known, the debt is equivalent to one that is written in a promissory note, and can be collected from liened property.

讗讬 讛讻讬 驻讬专讜转 谞诪讬 讻砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 注诇 讛拽专谉 讜诇讗 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 注诇 讛驻讬专讜转 讜诪讗讬 驻住拽讗 住转诪讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 讻讬 转讘注 讗讬谞讬砖 拽专谞讗 转讘注 讘专讬砖讗

The Gemara asks: If so, the owner should collect payment for the produce as well from liened property. The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case when the robber stood trial for the principal, but did not yet stand trial for the produce. The Gemara asks: And why was it stated without qualification? According to this explanation, the distinction is not between the principal and the produce but rather between debts for which the robber stood trial and those for which he did not stand trial. The Gemara answers: The normal way of things is that when a person files a claim, he first claims the principal and only afterward does he file claims with regard to other property, such as produce.

讜住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讜拽讞 诪讙讝诇谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖讘讞讗

搂 The Gemara questions the statement that Rav Na岣an cited in Shmuel鈥檚 name: But does Shmuel hold that one who buys land from a robber does not have the right to the value of the enhancement of the land?

讜讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 砖讬诇转 讗诪诇讬讱 讜讻转讜讘 砖讜驻专讗 砖讘讞讗 讜驻讬专讬

But didn鈥檛 Shmuel say to Rav 岣nnana bar Sheilat, who was a scribe: When you write a deed of sale, consult with the parties, and if they agree, write that the seller commits to compensate the buyer, in the event that the land is appropriated from him, with superior-quality land, and for the value of the enhancement of the land and the produce as well? That was the standard formula for deeds of sale.

讘诪讗讬 讗讬 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 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘诇讜拽讞 诪讙讝诇谉

The Gemara clarifies: To what case is this statement referring? If it is a case where the seller鈥檚 creditor repossesses the land, does a creditor have rights to the produce? But doesn鈥檛 Shmuel say that a creditor collects the value of the enhancement of the field, indicating that he does collect the value of the enhancement, but he does not collect the produce? Rather, is it not referring to a case of one who buys land from a robber, and the owner subsequently repossesses it? This contradicts Shmuel鈥檚 earlier statement that one who buys land from a robber does not have the right to the value of the enhancement.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽专拽注

Rav Yosef said: Here we are dealing with a case where the robber owns land, which he can return to the buyer instead of paying him money. In that case, the transaction appears to be a sale and not payment of interest for a loan.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讻讬 诪讜转专 诇诇讜转 住讗讛 讘住讗讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽专拽注

Abaye said to him: But is it permitted for one to borrow a se鈥檃 of grain for return of a se鈥檃 in a case where he owns land? The Sages render prohibited executing a loan of produce for return of the same amount of produce, lest the price rise in the interim, causing the debtor to return a higher value than he borrowed, which appears to be interest. This is the halakha even in a case where the borrower owns land. Similarly, in the case where the robber owns land, the payment of the value of the enhancement resembles the payment of interest.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讛诇讜讗讛 讛讻讗 讝讘讬谞讬

Rav Yosef said to him: The distinction between the two cases is that there, with regard to borrowing a se鈥檃 and returning a se鈥檃, the case in question involves a loan, whereas here, it is a case involving a sale. Since the field was bought from the robber, the additional value that the robber pays does not appear to be interest.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖拽谞讜 诪讬讚讜

There are those who say that this is what Rav Yosef said: Here we are dealing with a case where the buyer performed an act of acquisition at the time he purchased the land from the robber鈥檚 possession, thereby formalizing a condition that should the field be appropriated from him, he will be reimbursed for any enhancement in its value. Since he acquired this right at the time of the purchase, it does not appear as though he is receiving interest.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讻讬 诪讜转专 诇诇讜转 住讗讛 讘住讗讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖拽谞讜 诪讬讚讜

Abaye said to him: But is it permitted for one to borrow a se鈥檃 for a se鈥檃 in a case where he performed an act of acquisition formalizing such a condition at the time he purchased the land from the lender鈥檚 possession? Isn鈥檛 it still considered to be interest and therefore prohibited?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讛诇讜讗讛 讜讛讻讗 讝讘讬谞讬

Rav Yosef said to him: There, with regard to borrowing a se鈥檃 and returning a se鈥檃, it is a case involving a loan, whereas here it is a case involving a sale. Buying at a low price and selling for a higher price is not considered to be interest.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛砖讘讞 讗诪专 专讘讗 转讚注 砖讻讱 讻讜转讘 诇讜 诪讜讻专 诇诇讜拽讞 讗谞讗 讗讬拽讜诐 讜讗砖驻讬 讜讗讚讻讬 讜讗诪专讬拽 讝讘讬谞讬 讗讬诇讬谉 讗讬谞讜谉 讜注诪诇讬讛讜谉 讜砖讘讞讬讛讜谉 讜讗讬拽讜诐 拽讚诪讱 讜爪讘讬 讝讘讬谞讗 讚谞谉 讜拽讘讬诇 注诇讜讛讬

The Gemara returns to discuss Shmuel鈥檚 statement itself that was mentioned above. Shmuel says: A creditor collects the value of the enhancement of the land. Rava says: Know that this is true, as this is the standard formulation that the seller writes to the buyer in a deed of sale: I will stand and silence and purify and cleanse this sale, i.e., I accept responsibility if the land is repossessed by my creditor. The text of the document continues: This applies to this property itself, and the labor invested in it, and its enhancement; and I will present its value before you. The witnesses then sign the document and attest: And this seller consented and accepted upon himself all of the commitments enumerated in the document. Evidently, a creditor can collect the value of the enhancement.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诇专讘讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诪转谞讛 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讟专讬祝 砖讘讞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉

Rav 岣yya bar Avin said to Rava: If that is so, in the case of a gift, where the owner does not write this formulation to the recipient in the deed of gift, would you indeed say that the creditor does not repossess the value of the enhancement of the land from the recipient of the gift? Rava said to him: Indeed.

讜讻讬 讬驻讛 讻讞 诪转谞讛 诪诪讻专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讬驻讛 讜讬驻讛

Rav 岣yya bar Avin said to Rava: But is the legal power of a gift stronger than that of a sale, as in the case of a sale the buyer loses the value of the enhancement if the land is repossessed? Rava said to him: Yes, it is indeed stronger. Since in a case of repossession, the recipient of the gift does not receive the value of the enhancement back from the one who gave him the gift, he is under no obligation to relinquish this value to the creditor.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗 诪转谞讬转讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讜谞讗 讞讘专讬谉 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讘诪讬诇讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 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

Rav Na岣an said: This following baraita supports the opinion of Mar Shmuel; but our colleague, Rav Huna, interprets it as referring to other matters, so it does not support Shmuel鈥檚 opinion. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a case of one who sells a field to another, and it is appropriated from the buyer鈥檚 possession, as it was liened to the seller鈥檚 debt, when the buyer then collects compensation from the seller, he collects the principal from liened property, and he collects the enhancement from unsold property. Evidently, the value of the enhancement is also repossessed by the creditor.

讜讛讜谞讗 讞讘专讬谉 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讘诪讬诇讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讘诇讜拽讞 诪讙讝诇谉

But our colleague, Rav Huna, interprets it as referring to other matters, i.e., to the case of one who buys a field from a robber. In that case, the robbery victim is certainly entitled to the value of the enhancement of the land.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讛砖讘讬讞讛 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜讟专驻讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讗诐 讛砖讘讞 讬讜转专 注诇 讛讬爪讬讗讛 谞讜讟诇 讗转 讛砖讘讞 诪讘注诇 讛拽专拽注 讜讛讬爪讬讗讛 诪讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜讗诐 讛讬爪讬讗讛 讬转讬专讛 注诇 讛砖讘讞 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讛讜爪讗讛 砖讬注讜专 砖讘讞 诪讘注诇 讞讜讘

It is taught in another baraita: In a case of one who sells a field to another, and the buyer enhances it, and then a creditor comes and repossesses the field, in this case when the buyer collects compensation, the halakha is as follows: If the value of the enhancement of the field is greater than the buyer鈥檚 expenses in generating that enhancement, he takes the difference in value between the enhancement and the expenses from the owner of the land, i.e., the seller, and he is compensated for the expenses by the creditor. And if the expenses were greater than the enhancement of the field, he receives compensation for his expenses, only up to the value of the enhancement, from the creditor.

讜讛讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪讗讬 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讗讬 讘诇讜拽讞 诪讙讝诇谉 拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讜拽讞 诪讙讝诇谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖讘讞讗 讗讬 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘 拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛砖讘讞

The Gemara asks: But how does Shmuel interpret the baraita? If it is referring to one who buys a field from a robber, the first clause in the baraita poses a difficulty to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion, as Shmuel says that one who buys a field from a robber does not have the right to compensation for the enhancement of the field, and the baraita states that the buyer is entitled to compensation for the enhancement. If it is referring to a creditor, then both the first clause and the latter clause in the baraita pose a difficulty to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion, as Shmuel says that a creditor collects the enhancement of the field and needs to pay nothing.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘诇讜拽讞 诪讙讝诇谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽专拽注 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘砖拽谞讜 诪讬讚讜

The Gemara suggests two answers: If you wish, say that the baraita is referring to one who buys a field from a robber, in a case where the robber owns land with which he can compensate the buyer instead of paying him money. In that case, the compensation does not appear to be interest. Alternatively, it is referring to a case where the buyer performed an act of acquisition at the time he purchased the land from the robber鈥檚 possession, thereby formalizing a condition that should the field be appropriated from him, he will be reimbursed for any enhancement in its value. Since the buyer acquired the enhancement at the time he paid for the field, it does not appear as if he is receiving interest.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖讘讞

If you wish, say instead that it is referring to a creditor, but nevertheless it is not difficult according to the opinion of Shmuel. Here, in the baraita, the reference is to enhancement

讛诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讬诐 讻讗谉 讘砖讘讞 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讬诐

of the field that reaches one鈥檚 shoulders, i.e., the produce that grew due to the improvements made by the purchaser is almost fully grown and ripened, and it can soon be harvested and carried upon one鈥檚 shoulders. At that point, the produce is considered independent of the land and is therefore not collected by the creditor unless he pays for the expenses. And there, in Shmuel鈥檚 statement that the creditor collects the enhancement without paying compensation, the reference is to enhancement that does not reach one鈥檚 shoulders, i.e., whose growth is not almost complete. At that point, the produce is considered to be part of the land.

讜讛讗 诪注砖讬诐 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讜拽讗 诪讙讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘讞 讛诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讬诐

The Gemara asks: But there were daily incidents of this type, and Shmuel would collect payment from buyers even for enhancement that reaches one鈥檚 shoulders, without requiring the creditors to compensate them for their expenses.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪住讬拽 讘讬讛 讻砖讬注讜专 讗专注讗 讜砖讘讞讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪住讬拽 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讻砖讬注讜专 讗专注讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 砖讘讞讬讛 讜诪住诇讬拽 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers that this is not difficult; these instances when Shmuel did not require the creditor to compensate the purchaser were cases where the creditor was owed by the debtor the same amount of money as the value of the land and the enhancement. That baraita, which states that the creditor must compensate the purchaser for the enhancement, is referring to a case where he was owed by the debtor only the same amount of money as the value of the land, without the enhancement, as in this case the creditor gives the buyer the value of his enhancement to the land and thereby dismisses from the buyer any claim to the land.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇诇讜拽讞 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪住诇讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇诇讜拽讞 诪爪讬 诪住诇讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讜 讛讜讛 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讛讜讛 诪住诇拽讬谞讱 诪讻讜诇讛 讗专注讗 讛砖转讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讛讘 诇讬 讙专讘讗 讚讗专注讗 讘讗专注讗 砖讬注讜专 砖讘讞讗讬

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that even if the purchaser has money, he is unable to dismiss the creditor from his claim to the land by paying its value. But according to the one who says that when the purchaser has money he can dismiss the creditor by paying the value of the land, let the purchaser say to him: If I had money, I would have dismissed you from the entire plot of land. Now that I do not have enough money to pay off the entire debt, give me at least a se鈥檃 of land from the land that you wish to repossess, which is the amount of my enhancement.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖注砖讗讜 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讛讗 诇讱 驻专注讜谉 讗诇讗 诪讝讜

The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the debtor, who sold this land to the purchaser, set aside his land as designated repayment [apoteiki] for the debt, as he said to the creditor: You will be repaid only from this piece of land. Consequently, the buyer cannot dismiss the creditor from any part of the land, even though he enhanced its value.

讛讻讬专 讘讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇讜 讜诇拽讞讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪注讜转 讬砖 诇讜 砖讘讞 讗讬谉 诇讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪注讜转 讗讬谉 诇讜

搂 In a case where one who bought a field from a robber recognized that it was not the seller鈥檚, i.e., he knew that it was stolen property, but he purchased it nevertheless, when the true owner repossesses the field Rav says that the purchaser has the right to be reimbursed for the money that he paid for the field, but he does not have the right to be reimbursed for the enhancement of the field in his possession. And Shmuel says that he does not have the right to be reimbursed even for the money he paid for the field, as he knew that the sale was invalid.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘 住讘专 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖拽专拽注 讗讬谉 诇讜 讜讙诪专 讜谞转谉 诇砖讜诐 驻拽讚讜谉 讜谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇砖讜诐 驻拽讚讜谉 住讘专 诇讗 诪拽讘诇

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rav and Shmuel disagree? The Gemara answers: Rav holds that such a person knows that the sale is invalid and that he does not have the right to the land, and therefore he clearly resolved to give the money to the seller as a deposit. The Gemara asks: But if that is his objective, let him say to the seller explicitly that he is giving him the money as a deposit. The Gemara answers: The purchaser thought that the seller would not accept it as a deposit, and therefore he gave it to him in this fashion so that he would hold it for him in the interim.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖拽专拽注 讗讬谉 诇讜 讜讙诪专 讜谞转谉 诇砖讜诐 诪转谞讛 讜谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇砖讜诐 诪转谞讛 讻住讬驻讗 诇讬讛 诪讬诇转讗

And Shmuel holds that such a person knows that he does not have the right to the land, and therefore he clearly resolved to give the money to the seller as a gift. The Gemara asks: But if so, let him say to the seller that he is giving him the money as a gift. The Gemara answers: If he would say so explicitly, the matter would be embarrassing for the seller. Therefore, the purchaser used this ploy in order to give a gift to the seller.

讜讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讬讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗讬转诪专 讛诪拽讚砖 讗转 讗讞讜转讜 专讘 讗诪专 诪注讜转 讞讜讝专讬谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪注讜转 诪转谞讛 专讘 讗诪专 诪注讜转 讞讜讝专讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讗讞讜转讜 讜讙诪专 讜谞转谉 诇砖讜诐 驻拽讚讜谉 讜谞讬诪讗 诇讛 诇砖讜诐 驻拽讚讜谉 住讘专 诇讗 诪拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rav and Shmuel already disagree about this principle one time? As it was stated concerning one who betroths his sister: Rav says: The money he gave for the betrothal is returned, since the betrothal does not take effect; and Shmuel says: This money is a gift, meaning that he wished to give a gift to his sister and he did so in this manner. Rav says: The money must be returned since a person knows that betrothal does not take effect with his sister, and he decided to give the money to her for the purpose of a deposit. The Gemara raises a difficulty: And let him explicitly say to her that he is giving her the money for the purpose of a deposit. The Gemara answers: He thought she would not accept it from him.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪注讜转 诪转谞讛 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讗讞讜转讜 讜讙诪专 讜谞转谉 诇砖讜诐 诪转谞讛 讜谞讬诪讗 诇讛 诇砖讜诐 诪转谞讛 讻住讬驻讗 诇讛 诪讬诇转讗

And Shmuel says: The money is considered to be a gift because a person knows that betrothal does not take effect with his sister, and he decided to give the money to her for the purpose of a gift. The Gemara again raises a difficulty: And let him explicitly say to her that he is giving it to her for the purpose of a gift. The Gemara answers: He thought the matter would be embarrassing to her and she would refuse to accept the money. He therefore attempted to give it her by an alternative method.

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 讚诇讗 注讘讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讚讬讛讘讬 诪转谞讜转 诇谞讜讻专讗讛 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 讗讞讜转讜 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇

The Gemara explains: It is necessary to present the disagreement in both instances because if it were stated only with regard to that case, of buying property from a robber, one might have reasoned that it is specifically in that case that Rav says that the money returns to the purchaser, as people do not tend to give gifts to non-relatives, and therefore it is clear that the purchaser intended for the money to be a deposit. But with regard to the case of one who betroths his sister, one might say that Rav concedes to Shmuel that the money was given as a gift. It is therefore necessary to present Rav鈥檚 opinion in both cases.

讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讱 讘讛讱 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘 爪专讬讻讗

And conversely, if the disagreement were stated only in that case, i.e., betrothal of one鈥檚 sister, one might have reasoned that it is only in that case that Shmuel says the money is a gift, but in this case, where the purchaser is a non-relative, one might say that Shmuel concedes to Rav that the money is a deposit. It is therefore necessary to present the disagreement in both instances.

讘讬谉 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 驻拽讚讜谉 讘讬谉 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 诪转谞讛 讛讗讬 诇讗专注讗 讘诪讗讬 拽讗 谞讞讬转 讜驻讬专讜转 讛讬讻讬 讗讻讬诇

The Gemara asks: Both according to Rav, who says that the money is a deposit, and according to Shmuel, who says that the money is a gift, when this purchaser takes possession of the land despite knowing that his acquisition is invalid, with what justification does he take possession of the land, and how does he justify consuming its produce?

住讘专 讗谞讗 讗讬讞讜转 诇讗专注讗 讜讗讬注讘讬讚 讜讗讬讻讜诇 讘讙讜讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讛讜讛 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬讛讜 诇讻讬 讗转讬 诪专讬讛 讚讗专注讗 讝讜讝讗讬 谞讛讜讜 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 驻拽讚讜谉 驻拽讚讜谉 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 诪转谞讛 诪转谞讛

The Gemara answers that the purchaser reasons: I will take possession of the land, and work it, and consume the produce that is in it, just as the seller would have done. And when the owner of the land comes and claims it, the money that I paid for it will be designated for a different purpose. According to Rav, who says that the money is a deposit, it will be a deposit, and according to Shmuel, who says that the money is a gift, it will be a gift.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讬砖 诇讜 诪注讜转 讜讬砖 诇讜 砖讘讞 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 驻讬专砖 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讘讞 讛讻讬专 讘讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇讜 讜诇拽讞讛 诪注讜转 讬砖 诇讜 砖讘讞 讗讬谉 诇讜

Rava said: With regard to the aforementioned halakhic disputes, the halakha is that in a case where one bought a field and it turned out to be stolen, the purchaser has the right to demand that the seller return the money he paid for the land, and he also has the right to demand that the seller compensate him for the value of the enhancement, in accordance with the opinion of Rav. And this is the halakha even if the seller did not explicitly obligate himself to compensate him for the enhancement. But if the purchaser recognized that the field was not the seller鈥檚 and he purchased it anyway, he has the right to demand that the seller return the money he paid for the land, but he does not have the right to demand compensation for the enhancement, in accordance with the opinion of Rav.

讗讞专讬讜转 讟注讜转 住讜驻专 讛讜讗 讘讬谉 讘砖讟专讬 讛诇讜讗讛 讘讬谉 讘砖讟专讬 诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专

Rava issued another ruling with regard to a dispute cited above: Omission of the guarantee of the sale from the document is a scribal error. This is the halakha both with regard to promissory notes and with regard to deeds of buying and selling, i.e., deeds of sale.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诪专讘 讞讝专 讜诇拽讞讛 诪讘注诇讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛 诪讻专 诇讜 专讗砖讜谉 诇砖谞讬 讻诇 讝讻讜转 砖转讘讗 诇讬讚讜

Shmuel asked Rav: If one robbed another of a field and sold it, and then purchased it from the original owner, what is the halakha? Can the robber now repossess the field from the person to whom he sold it before he legally owned it? Rav said to him: No, he cannot. What did the first person, the robber, sell to the second person, the purchaser, when he sold him the field? He sold him any rights to the field that will come into his possession. Consequently, the rights that the robber has now acquired are transferred to the purchaser.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗诪专 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 谞拽专讬讬讛 讙讝诇谞讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讬拽讜 讘讛诪谞讜转讬讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the robber would buy the land he had already sold in order to retroactively uphold the sale? Mar Zutra said: It is preferable for him not to be called a robber by the purchaser when the original owner demands he return the field. Rav Ashi said: It is preferable for him to maintain his reliability, i.e., to be considered an honest person.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚诪讬转 诇讜拽讞 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 诇拽专讬讬讛 讙讝诇谞讗

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two opinions? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in a case where the purchaser died. According to the one who says that the robber bought it because it is preferable for him not to be called a robber,

  • 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 Metzia 15

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 15

砖谞讟诇讜讛 诪住讬拽讬谉 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

gentile thugs took the field from the robber by force due to previous dealings between them. In that case, when the robbery victim comes to collect the principal, he collects it from liened property, and when the robbery victim comes to collect payment for the produce, he can collect only from unsold property.

专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讘讚讬谞讗 诪砖诪注 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讗 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讘注讬谞讗 诪砖诪注

The Gemara explains: Rava did not state his explanation of the baraita in accordance with the explanation of Rabba bar Rav Huna, because the phrase: It is appropriated from his possession, indicates that the field was taken from him legally and not by thugs. And Rabba bar Rav Huna did not state his explanation of the baraita in accordance with the explanation of Rava, because the phrase: It is appropriated from his possession, indicates that the field is appropriated in its unadulterated form, and was not damaged.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇爪讚讚讬谉 拽转谞讬 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 讜诪讻专 讗转 讛砖讚讛 讘讗 诇讜拽讞 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

Rav Ashi stated that the baraita teaches its rulings disjunctively. According to Rav Ashi, the baraita is referring to a case where one robbed another of a field while it was full of produce, and he consumed the produce and sold the field. When, after the true owner recovers the field from purchaser, the purchaser comes to collect the principal from the robber, i.e., the amount that he paid for the field, he collects it from the robber鈥檚 liened property. When the robbery victim comes to collect payment for the produce, he collects only from unsold property.

讘讬谉 诇专讘讗 讘讬谉 诇专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讛讜讗 讜诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐

The Gemara raises a difficulty: According to both Rava and Rabba bar Rav Huna, the money that the robber owes the robbery victim has the status of a loan by oral agreement, as it is not accompanied by documentation, and one who is owed a loan by oral agreement cannot collect from liened property.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讜讛讚专 讝讘讬谉

The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the robber stood trial for his robbery and was found guilty, and he subsequently sold the land. Since he sold it after his liability was well known, the debt is equivalent to one that is written in a promissory note, and can be collected from liened property.

讗讬 讛讻讬 驻讬专讜转 谞诪讬 讻砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 注诇 讛拽专谉 讜诇讗 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 注诇 讛驻讬专讜转 讜诪讗讬 驻住拽讗 住转诪讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 讻讬 转讘注 讗讬谞讬砖 拽专谞讗 转讘注 讘专讬砖讗

The Gemara asks: If so, the owner should collect payment for the produce as well from liened property. The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case when the robber stood trial for the principal, but did not yet stand trial for the produce. The Gemara asks: And why was it stated without qualification? According to this explanation, the distinction is not between the principal and the produce but rather between debts for which the robber stood trial and those for which he did not stand trial. The Gemara answers: The normal way of things is that when a person files a claim, he first claims the principal and only afterward does he file claims with regard to other property, such as produce.

讜住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讜拽讞 诪讙讝诇谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖讘讞讗

搂 The Gemara questions the statement that Rav Na岣an cited in Shmuel鈥檚 name: But does Shmuel hold that one who buys land from a robber does not have the right to the value of the enhancement of the land?

讜讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 砖讬诇转 讗诪诇讬讱 讜讻转讜讘 砖讜驻专讗 砖讘讞讗 讜驻讬专讬

But didn鈥檛 Shmuel say to Rav 岣nnana bar Sheilat, who was a scribe: When you write a deed of sale, consult with the parties, and if they agree, write that the seller commits to compensate the buyer, in the event that the land is appropriated from him, with superior-quality land, and for the value of the enhancement of the land and the produce as well? That was the standard formula for deeds of sale.

讘诪讗讬 讗讬 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 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘诇讜拽讞 诪讙讝诇谉

The Gemara clarifies: To what case is this statement referring? If it is a case where the seller鈥檚 creditor repossesses the land, does a creditor have rights to the produce? But doesn鈥檛 Shmuel say that a creditor collects the value of the enhancement of the field, indicating that he does collect the value of the enhancement, but he does not collect the produce? Rather, is it not referring to a case of one who buys land from a robber, and the owner subsequently repossesses it? This contradicts Shmuel鈥檚 earlier statement that one who buys land from a robber does not have the right to the value of the enhancement.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽专拽注

Rav Yosef said: Here we are dealing with a case where the robber owns land, which he can return to the buyer instead of paying him money. In that case, the transaction appears to be a sale and not payment of interest for a loan.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讻讬 诪讜转专 诇诇讜转 住讗讛 讘住讗讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽专拽注

Abaye said to him: But is it permitted for one to borrow a se鈥檃 of grain for return of a se鈥檃 in a case where he owns land? The Sages render prohibited executing a loan of produce for return of the same amount of produce, lest the price rise in the interim, causing the debtor to return a higher value than he borrowed, which appears to be interest. This is the halakha even in a case where the borrower owns land. Similarly, in the case where the robber owns land, the payment of the value of the enhancement resembles the payment of interest.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讛诇讜讗讛 讛讻讗 讝讘讬谞讬

Rav Yosef said to him: The distinction between the two cases is that there, with regard to borrowing a se鈥檃 and returning a se鈥檃, the case in question involves a loan, whereas here, it is a case involving a sale. Since the field was bought from the robber, the additional value that the robber pays does not appear to be interest.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖拽谞讜 诪讬讚讜

There are those who say that this is what Rav Yosef said: Here we are dealing with a case where the buyer performed an act of acquisition at the time he purchased the land from the robber鈥檚 possession, thereby formalizing a condition that should the field be appropriated from him, he will be reimbursed for any enhancement in its value. Since he acquired this right at the time of the purchase, it does not appear as though he is receiving interest.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讻讬 诪讜转专 诇诇讜转 住讗讛 讘住讗讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖拽谞讜 诪讬讚讜

Abaye said to him: But is it permitted for one to borrow a se鈥檃 for a se鈥檃 in a case where he performed an act of acquisition formalizing such a condition at the time he purchased the land from the lender鈥檚 possession? Isn鈥檛 it still considered to be interest and therefore prohibited?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讛诇讜讗讛 讜讛讻讗 讝讘讬谞讬

Rav Yosef said to him: There, with regard to borrowing a se鈥檃 and returning a se鈥檃, it is a case involving a loan, whereas here it is a case involving a sale. Buying at a low price and selling for a higher price is not considered to be interest.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛砖讘讞 讗诪专 专讘讗 转讚注 砖讻讱 讻讜转讘 诇讜 诪讜讻专 诇诇讜拽讞 讗谞讗 讗讬拽讜诐 讜讗砖驻讬 讜讗讚讻讬 讜讗诪专讬拽 讝讘讬谞讬 讗讬诇讬谉 讗讬谞讜谉 讜注诪诇讬讛讜谉 讜砖讘讞讬讛讜谉 讜讗讬拽讜诐 拽讚诪讱 讜爪讘讬 讝讘讬谞讗 讚谞谉 讜拽讘讬诇 注诇讜讛讬

The Gemara returns to discuss Shmuel鈥檚 statement itself that was mentioned above. Shmuel says: A creditor collects the value of the enhancement of the land. Rava says: Know that this is true, as this is the standard formulation that the seller writes to the buyer in a deed of sale: I will stand and silence and purify and cleanse this sale, i.e., I accept responsibility if the land is repossessed by my creditor. The text of the document continues: This applies to this property itself, and the labor invested in it, and its enhancement; and I will present its value before you. The witnesses then sign the document and attest: And this seller consented and accepted upon himself all of the commitments enumerated in the document. Evidently, a creditor can collect the value of the enhancement.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诇专讘讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诪转谞讛 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讟专讬祝 砖讘讞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉

Rav 岣yya bar Avin said to Rava: If that is so, in the case of a gift, where the owner does not write this formulation to the recipient in the deed of gift, would you indeed say that the creditor does not repossess the value of the enhancement of the land from the recipient of the gift? Rava said to him: Indeed.

讜讻讬 讬驻讛 讻讞 诪转谞讛 诪诪讻专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讬驻讛 讜讬驻讛

Rav 岣yya bar Avin said to Rava: But is the legal power of a gift stronger than that of a sale, as in the case of a sale the buyer loses the value of the enhancement if the land is repossessed? Rava said to him: Yes, it is indeed stronger. Since in a case of repossession, the recipient of the gift does not receive the value of the enhancement back from the one who gave him the gift, he is under no obligation to relinquish this value to the creditor.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗 诪转谞讬转讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讜谞讗 讞讘专讬谉 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讘诪讬诇讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 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

Rav Na岣an said: This following baraita supports the opinion of Mar Shmuel; but our colleague, Rav Huna, interprets it as referring to other matters, so it does not support Shmuel鈥檚 opinion. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a case of one who sells a field to another, and it is appropriated from the buyer鈥檚 possession, as it was liened to the seller鈥檚 debt, when the buyer then collects compensation from the seller, he collects the principal from liened property, and he collects the enhancement from unsold property. Evidently, the value of the enhancement is also repossessed by the creditor.

讜讛讜谞讗 讞讘专讬谉 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讘诪讬诇讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讘诇讜拽讞 诪讙讝诇谉

But our colleague, Rav Huna, interprets it as referring to other matters, i.e., to the case of one who buys a field from a robber. In that case, the robbery victim is certainly entitled to the value of the enhancement of the land.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讛砖讘讬讞讛 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜讟专驻讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讗诐 讛砖讘讞 讬讜转专 注诇 讛讬爪讬讗讛 谞讜讟诇 讗转 讛砖讘讞 诪讘注诇 讛拽专拽注 讜讛讬爪讬讗讛 诪讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜讗诐 讛讬爪讬讗讛 讬转讬专讛 注诇 讛砖讘讞 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讛讜爪讗讛 砖讬注讜专 砖讘讞 诪讘注诇 讞讜讘

It is taught in another baraita: In a case of one who sells a field to another, and the buyer enhances it, and then a creditor comes and repossesses the field, in this case when the buyer collects compensation, the halakha is as follows: If the value of the enhancement of the field is greater than the buyer鈥檚 expenses in generating that enhancement, he takes the difference in value between the enhancement and the expenses from the owner of the land, i.e., the seller, and he is compensated for the expenses by the creditor. And if the expenses were greater than the enhancement of the field, he receives compensation for his expenses, only up to the value of the enhancement, from the creditor.

讜讛讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪讗讬 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讗讬 讘诇讜拽讞 诪讙讝诇谉 拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讜拽讞 诪讙讝诇谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖讘讞讗 讗讬 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘 拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛砖讘讞

The Gemara asks: But how does Shmuel interpret the baraita? If it is referring to one who buys a field from a robber, the first clause in the baraita poses a difficulty to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion, as Shmuel says that one who buys a field from a robber does not have the right to compensation for the enhancement of the field, and the baraita states that the buyer is entitled to compensation for the enhancement. If it is referring to a creditor, then both the first clause and the latter clause in the baraita pose a difficulty to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion, as Shmuel says that a creditor collects the enhancement of the field and needs to pay nothing.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘诇讜拽讞 诪讙讝诇谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽专拽注 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘砖拽谞讜 诪讬讚讜

The Gemara suggests two answers: If you wish, say that the baraita is referring to one who buys a field from a robber, in a case where the robber owns land with which he can compensate the buyer instead of paying him money. In that case, the compensation does not appear to be interest. Alternatively, it is referring to a case where the buyer performed an act of acquisition at the time he purchased the land from the robber鈥檚 possession, thereby formalizing a condition that should the field be appropriated from him, he will be reimbursed for any enhancement in its value. Since the buyer acquired the enhancement at the time he paid for the field, it does not appear as if he is receiving interest.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖讘讞

If you wish, say instead that it is referring to a creditor, but nevertheless it is not difficult according to the opinion of Shmuel. Here, in the baraita, the reference is to enhancement

讛诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讬诐 讻讗谉 讘砖讘讞 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讬诐

of the field that reaches one鈥檚 shoulders, i.e., the produce that grew due to the improvements made by the purchaser is almost fully grown and ripened, and it can soon be harvested and carried upon one鈥檚 shoulders. At that point, the produce is considered independent of the land and is therefore not collected by the creditor unless he pays for the expenses. And there, in Shmuel鈥檚 statement that the creditor collects the enhancement without paying compensation, the reference is to enhancement that does not reach one鈥檚 shoulders, i.e., whose growth is not almost complete. At that point, the produce is considered to be part of the land.

讜讛讗 诪注砖讬诐 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讜拽讗 诪讙讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘讞 讛诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讬诐

The Gemara asks: But there were daily incidents of this type, and Shmuel would collect payment from buyers even for enhancement that reaches one鈥檚 shoulders, without requiring the creditors to compensate them for their expenses.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪住讬拽 讘讬讛 讻砖讬注讜专 讗专注讗 讜砖讘讞讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪住讬拽 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讻砖讬注讜专 讗专注讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 砖讘讞讬讛 讜诪住诇讬拽 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers that this is not difficult; these instances when Shmuel did not require the creditor to compensate the purchaser were cases where the creditor was owed by the debtor the same amount of money as the value of the land and the enhancement. That baraita, which states that the creditor must compensate the purchaser for the enhancement, is referring to a case where he was owed by the debtor only the same amount of money as the value of the land, without the enhancement, as in this case the creditor gives the buyer the value of his enhancement to the land and thereby dismisses from the buyer any claim to the land.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇诇讜拽讞 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪住诇讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇诇讜拽讞 诪爪讬 诪住诇讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讜 讛讜讛 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讛讜讛 诪住诇拽讬谞讱 诪讻讜诇讛 讗专注讗 讛砖转讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讛讘 诇讬 讙专讘讗 讚讗专注讗 讘讗专注讗 砖讬注讜专 砖讘讞讗讬

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that even if the purchaser has money, he is unable to dismiss the creditor from his claim to the land by paying its value. But according to the one who says that when the purchaser has money he can dismiss the creditor by paying the value of the land, let the purchaser say to him: If I had money, I would have dismissed you from the entire plot of land. Now that I do not have enough money to pay off the entire debt, give me at least a se鈥檃 of land from the land that you wish to repossess, which is the amount of my enhancement.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖注砖讗讜 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讛讗 诇讱 驻专注讜谉 讗诇讗 诪讝讜

The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the debtor, who sold this land to the purchaser, set aside his land as designated repayment [apoteiki] for the debt, as he said to the creditor: You will be repaid only from this piece of land. Consequently, the buyer cannot dismiss the creditor from any part of the land, even though he enhanced its value.

讛讻讬专 讘讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇讜 讜诇拽讞讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪注讜转 讬砖 诇讜 砖讘讞 讗讬谉 诇讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪注讜转 讗讬谉 诇讜

搂 In a case where one who bought a field from a robber recognized that it was not the seller鈥檚, i.e., he knew that it was stolen property, but he purchased it nevertheless, when the true owner repossesses the field Rav says that the purchaser has the right to be reimbursed for the money that he paid for the field, but he does not have the right to be reimbursed for the enhancement of the field in his possession. And Shmuel says that he does not have the right to be reimbursed even for the money he paid for the field, as he knew that the sale was invalid.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘 住讘专 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖拽专拽注 讗讬谉 诇讜 讜讙诪专 讜谞转谉 诇砖讜诐 驻拽讚讜谉 讜谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇砖讜诐 驻拽讚讜谉 住讘专 诇讗 诪拽讘诇

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rav and Shmuel disagree? The Gemara answers: Rav holds that such a person knows that the sale is invalid and that he does not have the right to the land, and therefore he clearly resolved to give the money to the seller as a deposit. The Gemara asks: But if that is his objective, let him say to the seller explicitly that he is giving him the money as a deposit. The Gemara answers: The purchaser thought that the seller would not accept it as a deposit, and therefore he gave it to him in this fashion so that he would hold it for him in the interim.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖拽专拽注 讗讬谉 诇讜 讜讙诪专 讜谞转谉 诇砖讜诐 诪转谞讛 讜谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇砖讜诐 诪转谞讛 讻住讬驻讗 诇讬讛 诪讬诇转讗

And Shmuel holds that such a person knows that he does not have the right to the land, and therefore he clearly resolved to give the money to the seller as a gift. The Gemara asks: But if so, let him say to the seller that he is giving him the money as a gift. The Gemara answers: If he would say so explicitly, the matter would be embarrassing for the seller. Therefore, the purchaser used this ploy in order to give a gift to the seller.

讜讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讬讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗讬转诪专 讛诪拽讚砖 讗转 讗讞讜转讜 专讘 讗诪专 诪注讜转 讞讜讝专讬谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪注讜转 诪转谞讛 专讘 讗诪专 诪注讜转 讞讜讝专讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讗讞讜转讜 讜讙诪专 讜谞转谉 诇砖讜诐 驻拽讚讜谉 讜谞讬诪讗 诇讛 诇砖讜诐 驻拽讚讜谉 住讘专 诇讗 诪拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rav and Shmuel already disagree about this principle one time? As it was stated concerning one who betroths his sister: Rav says: The money he gave for the betrothal is returned, since the betrothal does not take effect; and Shmuel says: This money is a gift, meaning that he wished to give a gift to his sister and he did so in this manner. Rav says: The money must be returned since a person knows that betrothal does not take effect with his sister, and he decided to give the money to her for the purpose of a deposit. The Gemara raises a difficulty: And let him explicitly say to her that he is giving her the money for the purpose of a deposit. The Gemara answers: He thought she would not accept it from him.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪注讜转 诪转谞讛 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讗讞讜转讜 讜讙诪专 讜谞转谉 诇砖讜诐 诪转谞讛 讜谞讬诪讗 诇讛 诇砖讜诐 诪转谞讛 讻住讬驻讗 诇讛 诪讬诇转讗

And Shmuel says: The money is considered to be a gift because a person knows that betrothal does not take effect with his sister, and he decided to give the money to her for the purpose of a gift. The Gemara again raises a difficulty: And let him explicitly say to her that he is giving it to her for the purpose of a gift. The Gemara answers: He thought the matter would be embarrassing to her and she would refuse to accept the money. He therefore attempted to give it her by an alternative method.

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 讚诇讗 注讘讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讚讬讛讘讬 诪转谞讜转 诇谞讜讻专讗讛 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 讗讞讜转讜 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇

The Gemara explains: It is necessary to present the disagreement in both instances because if it were stated only with regard to that case, of buying property from a robber, one might have reasoned that it is specifically in that case that Rav says that the money returns to the purchaser, as people do not tend to give gifts to non-relatives, and therefore it is clear that the purchaser intended for the money to be a deposit. But with regard to the case of one who betroths his sister, one might say that Rav concedes to Shmuel that the money was given as a gift. It is therefore necessary to present Rav鈥檚 opinion in both cases.

讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讱 讘讛讱 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘 爪专讬讻讗

And conversely, if the disagreement were stated only in that case, i.e., betrothal of one鈥檚 sister, one might have reasoned that it is only in that case that Shmuel says the money is a gift, but in this case, where the purchaser is a non-relative, one might say that Shmuel concedes to Rav that the money is a deposit. It is therefore necessary to present the disagreement in both instances.

讘讬谉 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 驻拽讚讜谉 讘讬谉 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 诪转谞讛 讛讗讬 诇讗专注讗 讘诪讗讬 拽讗 谞讞讬转 讜驻讬专讜转 讛讬讻讬 讗讻讬诇

The Gemara asks: Both according to Rav, who says that the money is a deposit, and according to Shmuel, who says that the money is a gift, when this purchaser takes possession of the land despite knowing that his acquisition is invalid, with what justification does he take possession of the land, and how does he justify consuming its produce?

住讘专 讗谞讗 讗讬讞讜转 诇讗专注讗 讜讗讬注讘讬讚 讜讗讬讻讜诇 讘讙讜讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讛讜讛 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬讛讜 诇讻讬 讗转讬 诪专讬讛 讚讗专注讗 讝讜讝讗讬 谞讛讜讜 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 驻拽讚讜谉 驻拽讚讜谉 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 诪转谞讛 诪转谞讛

The Gemara answers that the purchaser reasons: I will take possession of the land, and work it, and consume the produce that is in it, just as the seller would have done. And when the owner of the land comes and claims it, the money that I paid for it will be designated for a different purpose. According to Rav, who says that the money is a deposit, it will be a deposit, and according to Shmuel, who says that the money is a gift, it will be a gift.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讬砖 诇讜 诪注讜转 讜讬砖 诇讜 砖讘讞 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 驻讬专砖 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讘讞 讛讻讬专 讘讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇讜 讜诇拽讞讛 诪注讜转 讬砖 诇讜 砖讘讞 讗讬谉 诇讜

Rava said: With regard to the aforementioned halakhic disputes, the halakha is that in a case where one bought a field and it turned out to be stolen, the purchaser has the right to demand that the seller return the money he paid for the land, and he also has the right to demand that the seller compensate him for the value of the enhancement, in accordance with the opinion of Rav. And this is the halakha even if the seller did not explicitly obligate himself to compensate him for the enhancement. But if the purchaser recognized that the field was not the seller鈥檚 and he purchased it anyway, he has the right to demand that the seller return the money he paid for the land, but he does not have the right to demand compensation for the enhancement, in accordance with the opinion of Rav.

讗讞专讬讜转 讟注讜转 住讜驻专 讛讜讗 讘讬谉 讘砖讟专讬 讛诇讜讗讛 讘讬谉 讘砖讟专讬 诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专

Rava issued another ruling with regard to a dispute cited above: Omission of the guarantee of the sale from the document is a scribal error. This is the halakha both with regard to promissory notes and with regard to deeds of buying and selling, i.e., deeds of sale.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诪专讘 讞讝专 讜诇拽讞讛 诪讘注诇讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛 诪讻专 诇讜 专讗砖讜谉 诇砖谞讬 讻诇 讝讻讜转 砖转讘讗 诇讬讚讜

Shmuel asked Rav: If one robbed another of a field and sold it, and then purchased it from the original owner, what is the halakha? Can the robber now repossess the field from the person to whom he sold it before he legally owned it? Rav said to him: No, he cannot. What did the first person, the robber, sell to the second person, the purchaser, when he sold him the field? He sold him any rights to the field that will come into his possession. Consequently, the rights that the robber has now acquired are transferred to the purchaser.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗诪专 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 谞拽专讬讬讛 讙讝诇谞讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讬拽讜 讘讛诪谞讜转讬讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the robber would buy the land he had already sold in order to retroactively uphold the sale? Mar Zutra said: It is preferable for him not to be called a robber by the purchaser when the original owner demands he return the field. Rav Ashi said: It is preferable for him to maintain his reliability, i.e., to be considered an honest person.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚诪讬转 诇讜拽讞 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 诇拽专讬讬讛 讙讝诇谞讗

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two opinions? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in a case where the purchaser died. According to the one who says that the robber bought it because it is preferable for him not to be called a robber,

Scroll To Top