Bava Batra 157b — the Talmud in English

Rather,

the Gemara rejects the proof:

Whose opinion is this? It is Rabbi Meir’s.

The Mishna follows Rabbi Meir,

who says: A person can transfer an object that has not yet come into the world.

And the entire uncertainty was according to the Rabbis. But according to Rabbi Meir, just as it is possible to transfer an object that has not yet come into the world, so too it is possible to place a lien on what he has not yet acquired.

The Gemara attempts to resolve the uncertainty:

Come and hear

a proof from what we learned in a beraita:

Pre-dated debt documents,

a loan document in which an earlier date was written, for example, the loan was in Nisan and it was written that it was in the preceding Tishrei,

are invalid.

The document is invalid and it is impossible to collect with it, since he would unlawfully seize from purchasers who acquired land from Tishrei until Nisan.

And post-dated ones are valid.

Documents that were written after the loan, for example, the loan was in Nisan and the document was written in Tishrei, or it was written on the day of the loan and a date of Tishrei was written in it, the documents are valid, since there is no concern that they will collect unlawfully.

And if it enters your mind

that we maintain

that regarding daikni, he acquired and sold,

or

that regarding daikni, he acquired and inherited, there is no lien,

then

why are the post-dated ones valid!?

Let us be concerned lest the borrower acquired property between Nisan and Tishrei, and it does not become subject to a lien, since this was after the loan, which was in Nisan; and if the borrower sells the property after Tishrei, the lender will seize it from the purchasers, because since this was before the date written in the document, he will think that it is subject to a lien, whereas in fact it is not subject to a lien, if we say that daikni does not become subject to a lien.

And it is proven from here that daikni does become subject to a lien.

The Gemara rejects that even this beraita is

whose opinion is this? It is Rabbi Meir’s, who says: A person can transfer an object that has not yet come into the world.

Come and hear

the Gemara attempts to resolve the uncertainty from what we learned in a beraita: debts that are not fixed are not collected from purchasers, since the purchasers cannot assess the debt and ascertain whether the seller has property equal to the amount of the debt, so that it should not be collected from them.

And one of the examples of a debt that is not fixed is the improvement of land.

The beraita explains:

With regard to the improvement of land, how so?

In what manner is it said that it is not collected from purchasers?

If one sold a field to another and he improved it,

one who bought a field, and the purchaser improved it, and now it is worth more,

and a creditor came

of the seller

and seized it,

for the land was subject to his lien, and he seized the land from him together with the improvement. And since the purchaser received a guarantee from the seller,

when he,

the purchaser, returns

and collects

from the seller,

he collects the principal from property subject to a lien

like any creditor, for the seller’s property becomes subject to a lien for him,

and the improvement from unencumbered property.

And the improvement that he made he collects only from unencumbered property, since it is not fixed, because it is not known how much he will improve it.

And if it enters your mind

that we maintain

that regarding daikni, he acquired and sold, or that regarding daikni, he acquired and inherited, there is no lien,

then

why does the creditor collect the improvement!?

Why does the creditor collect the improvement from the purchaser, when it came only after the loan?

And it is proven from here that daikni becomes subject to a lien.

The Gemara rejects:

Whose opinion is this,

this beraita?

It is Rabbi Meir’s, who says: A person can transfer an object that has not yet come into the world.

And in conclusion, the question has not been resolved.

And the Gemara adds:

If you should determine,

if we adopt the side that

that regarding daikni, he acquired and sold

or

that regarding daikni, he acquired and inherited, there is no lien,

there is nothing to be uncertain about:

this does not become subject to a lien.

But

if you should determine that it does become subject to a lien,

if we adopt the side that it becomes subject to a lien, from now it is necessary to discuss: What is the law if

he borrowed

from Reuben

and borrowed

from Simeon, and for both of them he wrote “daikni,” and finally

he acquired again

he acquired property,

what

to whom does the lien apply?

And the sides of the uncertainty are: Does

it become subject to a lien for the first one,

it becomes subject to a lien for the first one because he preceded,

or does it become subject to a lien for the latter one,

or for the second one, because by placing a lien on it for the second one, he retracted from the first one, and he can retract since the lien has not yet taken effect as long as he has not acquired property.

Rav Naḥman said: This matter, we were uncertain about it,

we were uncertain about this question,

and they sent from there,

and they sent us an answer from the Land of Israel that

the first one acquired.

But

Rav Huna said: They divide it.

They divide it between them, because he did not intend to retract from the lien of the first one, but rather to place a lien on it also for the second one, and he can do this, since the lien has not yet taken effect, and he becomes obligated to both of them proportionally to the amount of the loan, because when he acquired the property, the lien of both of them took effect equally.

And Rabba bar Avuha likewise taught: They divide it.

Ravina said: The first recension of Rav Ashi,

when Rav Ashi taught his Talmud for the first time,

said to us

he ruled in this case that only

the first one acquired.

Whereas

the later recension of Rav Ashi,

when he taught his Talmud a second time, he

said to us: They divide it!

And the conclusion of the Gemara is:

And the halakha is: They divide it.

It was objected,

the Gemara raises an objection to the ruling that both of them divide it, from the aforementioned beraita:

With regard to the improvement of land, how so?

In what case is the improvement of land not collected from property subject to a lien?

If one sold a field to another, and he improved it,

the purchaser,

and a creditor came

of the seller,

and seized it

from the purchaser for his debt,

when he,

the purchaser,

collects

from his seller what they seized from him,

he collects the principal from property subject to a lien, and the improvement from unencumbered property.

And if it is so,

if we maintain that when he places a lien on daikni for two creditors, they divide it between them, then

he should have needed to say: half the improvement!?

The seller’s creditor should seize only half the improvement, since the improvement is subject to a lien both for the purchaser, on account of the guarantee that the seller gave him, and for the seller’s creditor!?

The Gemara answers:

What is the meaning of “he collects,” which it likewise teaches,

the intention of the beraita is to say that the creditor collects from the improvement only

half the improvement.