Bava Batra 157a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yehoshua ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

says:

if

on a weekday they said

that he can perform an acquisition, they instituted that acquisition can be effected through speech,

and a kal va-homer applies to Shabbat

when he cannot perform an acquisition on it, surely they instituted that he acquire through speech.

Similarly

they disagreed about a similar matter:

one may acquire for an adult,

since acquisition is by virtue of agency, and an adult who can appoint an agent—it is possible to acquire on his behalf.

But one may not acquire for a minor,

who cannot appoint an agent,

the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: In the case of an adult they said

that even though he can acquire for himself, it is possible to acquire on his behalf;

a kal va-homer applies to a minor

for whom they instituted acquisition. All this is according to the view of Rabbi Meir.

But

Rabbi Yehuda says

that the dispute is as it was explained in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: On Shabbat, his words stand, because he cannot write. But not on a weekday. Rabbi Yehoshua says: On Shabbat they said; a kal va-homer applies on a weekday. Similarly, one may acquire for a minor, but one may not acquire for an adult, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: For a minor they said; a kal va-homer applies to an adult.

Mishna:

The house fell upon him and upon his father

and both of them died,

or upon him and upon his inheritors,

whom he inherits, such as his uncle, who is the closest relative,

and his wife’s marriage-contract was upon him,

he had a debt of his wife’s marriage-contract,

and a creditor

who was his creditor—

the father’s heirs say: The son died first, and afterward the father died,

and the property passes to the father’s heirs, and it is impossible to collect from it, since the son never acquired it.

And the creditors say: The father died first, and afterward the son died,

and therefore the son first inherited his father’s property, and only afterward did he die. It follows that the property was in his possession, and the creditors can collect their debt from the property.

The School of Shammai says: They divide,

since both have equal possession of the property, because a document that stands to be collected is considered as collected; therefore the creditors and the heirs are both considered to be in possession of the property, and because of the uncertainty they divide it.

And the School of Hillel says: The property remains in its presumptive status

of the heirs, since they are in possession, whereas these creditors are lacking collection.

Gemara:

We learned there

in a Mishna:

One who lends money to his fellow by means of a document collects from liened property,

since the document creates publicity, and the purchasers knew to take care not to purchase it; therefore he collects from them. But one who lends money to his fellow

through witnesses,

without a document, which is considered an oral loan,

collects

only

from unencumbered property

since the loan has no publicity.

Shmuel raised a problem:

Shmuel was uncertain:

“I acquire this,” and he acquired it—

what

is the halakha? One who wrote to his fellow in the loan document that he wished to lien property that he would acquire in the future, while at the time of the loan it was still not his—is it possible to lien property that has not yet come into the world?

According to Rabbi Meir,

according to the view of Rabbi Meir,

who says that a person can transfer ownership of an object that has not yet come into the world,

for it is possible to transfer ownership of the fruit of a palm tree even though the fruit has not yet come into the world, and likewise it is possible to betroth a woman after she converts even though at present she is not fit for betrothal,

do not raise the problem for yourself

there is no uncertainty,

for certainly he acquired it,

because according to his view it is possible to lien property that is not yet in the world. For if it is possible to transfer ownership, it is certainly possible to lien.

Rather,

when you raise the problem for yourself,

all of Shmuel’s uncertainty is

according to the Rabbis, who say:

who hold

that a person cannot transfer ownership of an object that has not yet come into the world;

is a lien like an acquisition, or is liening this object easier?

Come and hear,

the Gemara attempts to resolve the uncertainty from the beraita:

And the Sages say,

they disagree with Admon and hold that one who lent money to his fellow, and afterward the lender sold land to the borrower—this is not proof that the borrower had already repaid the debt [for otherwise, the lender would not have sold him his land, but would have collected the money for his debt], as Admon holds. Rather,

he was astute,

the lender was astute,

for he sold him the land

even though he owed him money,

because he can take it as collateral against him.

The land that he sold him would now be collateral for the debt, and the lender would suffer no loss.

Apparently, the land was acquired after the loan, so how could it be collateral for a debt that preceded it? And it proves from here that if he writes, “I acquire this,” it becomes liened.

Rava said to him,

to reject the proof:

Did he say, “from it”?

Here the land is already in the borrower’s possession, and there is no proof from here that it is possible to lien an object that has not yet come into the world, since

from him—even from the cloak on my shoulders!

the lender himself can collect, even from the clothes that he is wearing, since this is not collection by virtue of a lien; rather, whatever is found with the borrower, the lender can collect, even if he did not write for him, “I acquire this.”

When the problem was raised for us,

the entire uncertainty concerned a borrower who wrote to the lender that he was also liening all his property,

“I acquire this,”

and afterward

he acquired and sold,

the borrower afterward acquired property and sold it, or he wrote

“I acquire this,”

and

he acquired and inherited,

he acquired property and inherited it to them—can the lender collect from the purchasers or from the heirs?

And the Gemara attempts to resolve the uncertainty from our Mishna:

Rav Hana said: Come and hear: “The house fell upon him and upon his father, upon him and upon his inheritors, and his wife’s marriage-contract was upon him,”

there was upon the son a debt of a wife’s marriage-contract, or a creditor to whom he owed money,

“the father’s heirs say: The son died first,”

and he never inherited his father,

“and afterward the father died. And the creditors say: The father died first,”

and the son inherited him, and the inheritance was liened for collection of the debt.

And if it enters your mind

if you wish to conceive and say that one who writes

“I acquire this,”

and

he acquired and sold,

or

“I acquire this,”

and

he acquired and inherited—it does not become liened,

because it was not in the world at the time of the loan, then

even granted that the father died first,

even if the father died first,

“I acquire this” it is!

For the property was not present at the time of the loan; rather, he inherited it afterward. Necessarily, since he wrote “I acquire this,” it is possible to lien property that will exist in the future.

Rav Naḥman said to them

to reject the proof:

“Our colleague Zeira interpreted it,

he explained the Mishna on the basis of

It is a mitzva upon the orphans to repay their father’s debt.

And this is not on account of a lien; rather, orphans whose father left them property have a mitzva to repay his debts. And it is possible that “I acquire this” is not effective for liening property.

Rav Ashi challenged this,

to uphold the proof: It is impossible to say that in our Mishna this is on account of a mitzva, for if “I acquire this” is not effective, the document has no validity at all, since it is impossible to collect through it from property that the borrower will acquire afterward. And if so,

it is like an oral loan,

for no document was written concerning it,

! And Rav and Shmuel, who both say,

both hold that

an oral loan is collected neither from the heirs nor from the purchasers,

since it has no publicity, the Sages did not institute that he collect.