Bava Batra 169b (קסט:) — the Talmud in English

He said to them:

Rav Pappa [or Rav Ashi]: There is no proof from here, because in general

one writes a receipt. And here, this is the reason

that one does not write a warranty in the second document: because the receipt will not be effective.

For perhaps the creditor will go and expropriate it from the purchaser,

perhaps the creditor [from whom the land was unlawfully taken] will expropriate it from this purchaser, who claims that his document was lost,

and he will go and expropriate property from purchasers,

and afterward he will go and expropriate property from the purchasers of his seller, rather than from the seller himself.

And as for the receipt, it is not in the possession of the purchasers.

The receipt is in the seller’s possession, rather than in the purchasers’ possession. Consequently, despite the receipt, there remains concern that he may expropriate property twice from two purchasers of the seller.

And we challenge this:

Ultimately,

these

purchasers

from whom he expropriated their fields

will they not say: The land must return!?

Will they not return to the seller, the owner of the land, to demand from him the money they paid for the fields? If so, the seller will be able to show them the receipt, and it will become clear that he expropriated property twice unlawfully!?

And we resolve the difficulty: In any event,

in the meantime,

while the purchasers have not yet come to the seller,

he will seize and consume the produce.

He will consume the produce of the field that he expropriated unlawfully, and “stolen property that has been consumed” is difficult to recover from the robber.

Alternatively,

there is concern

for a purchaser without a warranty.

Perhaps that purchaser from whom the field was expropriated a second time bought the field from the seller without a warranty. He will therefore not go to the seller at all to demand payment for it, since the seller bears no warranty for it, and he will consequently lose his field unlawfully.

And we challenge this:

If so, loan documents should also be [written with a receipt]!?

How could Rav Pappa say that in general one writes a receipt when the creditor claims that he lost his document, and we obligate the debtor to pay on the basis of the receipt in his possession? There too, should we not be concerned that perhaps the creditor did not lose his document, and he will go directly to one of the debtor’s purchasers and expropriate property from him, since the receipt is in the debtor’s possession, and the purchaser knows nothing about it? The Gemara explains:

There,

in the case of loan documents,

he is claiming money,

as the creditor demands money from the debtor. Therefore, when he comes to expropriate property from the debtor’s purchasers, they do not hasten to give him their land, because

they say,

they reason:

The creditor was appeased with money,

presumably, the debtor has already paid him the debt in the meantime. Therefore, they first go to the debtor to determine whether he indeed failed to pay the creditor. They then discover that he has a receipt, and that this debt has already been paid. Consequently, it is possible to write a receipt in the case of a loan document. But

here,

in the case of the purchaser whose field was expropriated from him,

he is claiming land,

as he demands that his seller give him another field in its place. Therefore, when he comes to the seller’s purchasers, they do not delay giving him their land, because

it is known that one who claims land is not appeased with money.

They know that the seller has not yet paid him, because generally, when one person claims land from another, he does not hasten to compromise by accepting money instead of the land until he is certain that the other cannot give him land. Meanwhile, he will consume the produce from their fields. Therefore, a warranty is not written for him in the second document.

The Master said: “Except for the warranty contained therein.”

And the Gemara discusses this:

How do we write [such a document]?

How does one formulate a document without a warranty?

The Gemara explains:

Rav Naḥman said: We write as follows: “This document of ours is not to be used to collect either from encumbered property or from unencumbered property,”

[that is, this document was not written so that the purchaser could collect with it, either from the seller’s encumbered assets or from his unencumbered assets]

“but only so that the land should remain in the possession of the purchaser!”

Its sole purpose is that the field remain in the purchaser’s possession, so that the seller cannot deny that he sold it to him.

Rafram said:

This means

that from Rav Naḥman’s statement we learn that a document in which the word

“warranty” was not written is a scribal error.

We say that the scribe who wrote the document erred and failed to write the matter of the warranty. It is therefore as though the warranty had been written, because no one purchases a field without receiving a warranty for it.

For Rav Naḥman said:

The reason is that he wrote this for him,

meaning that only because the seller explicitly wrote in the second document that it contains no warranty

—otherwise, he may collect.

But if he had not written this explicitly, its status would be that of a document containing a warranty, enabling him to collect from the seller’s property if the field were expropriated from him.

Rav Ashi said: “Warranty”—

is not a scribal error!

Rather, one must explicitly write in the document that it contains no warranty.

And what does

“except for the warranty contained therein” mean?

It means that no warranty is written in it.

The warranty is not written in the document, and consequently it contains no warranty, contrary to Rav Naḥman’s opinion that one must explicitly write that it contains no warranty.

There was a certain woman who gave money to a certain man

to

purchase land for her,

so that he would buy a field for her.

He went and bought it for her.

That man went and bought a field for her without a warranty, meaning that the seller was not responsible for paying her if the field were expropriated from her.

She came before Rav Naḥman.

The woman came before Rav Naḥman to bring a claim against the man for having purchased the field for her without a warranty.

He said to him

Rav Naḥman said to that man: She can claim:

“I sent you to improve matters for me, not to damage them.”

She sent you to benefit her, whereas you damaged matters in carrying out your agency!

Therefore,

go and purchase it from him,

go and purchase the field from the seller

without a warranty,

that is, write the sale document in your own name,

and then sell it to her,

and afterward sell the field to the woman

with a warranty.

We learned in a beraita:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: “One who gives a gift to another and the recipient returns the document to him,”

his gift is returned.

And the Sages say: His gift remains valid.

And the Gemara discusses this:

What is the reason of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that his gift is returned?

The Gemara explains:

Rav Asi said:

It is because

he is considered as though he said to him,

the giver said to him:

“This field is given to you”

only

“as long as the document

is still

in your possession,”

and as soon as he returned the document to him, the gift was nullified.

Rabba raised an objection to this: If so, if the document was stolen or lost

from the recipient,

also,

would we likewise say that the gift is void!?

The Gemara explains:

Rather, Rabba said: They disagree

about whether the letters are acquired through delivery.

This is the dispute.

The question is whether a person can transfer the rights stated in a document merely by delivering the document, or whether an additional act of acquisition is required. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis disagree about this:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: Letters are acquired through delivery.

Therefore, when the recipient of the gift returns the document to the giver, he thereby transfers the gift back to him.

And the Rabbis hold: Letters are not acquired through delivery.

The giving of the document therefore does not constitute an act of acquisition of the gift, and the gift remains valid.

The Sages taught: One who comes to litigate with a document and proof of possession,

a person who comes to defend himself against one who challenges his ownership of a field, claiming: “I purchased the field from you, and the sale document is still in my possession; I also have witnesses attesting to my proof of possession,”

is judged on the basis of the document; this is the statement of Rabbi.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

He is judged

on the basis of proof of possession.

The Gemara will immediately explain their dispute in various ways.

And the Gemara discusses this:

About what do they disagree?

The Gemara explains:

When Rav Dimi came, he said: They disagree about whether letters are acquired through delivery.

This concerns a case in which the possessor of the field claims that he purchased the field from Shimon, who had purchased it from Levi, and Shimon did not write him a new document; rather, he delivered to him the document that he had received from Levi.