Bava Batra 169b — the Talmud in English

He said to them:

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

a release is written. And here, this is the reason

that guarantee is not written in the second deed: because the release will not help.

For perhaps the creditor will go and seize from the purchaser,

perhaps the creditor [whose property was unlawfully taken] will seize from this purchaser, who claims that his deed was lost,

and he will go and seize from purchasers,

and afterward he will go and seize from the purchasers of his seller, and not from the seller himself.

And a release with regard to purchasers does not exist.

For the release is in the seller’s possession and not in the purchasers’ possession, and it turns out that, despite the release, there is still concern lest he seize twice from two purchasers of the seller.

And we object:

Ultimately,

these

purchasers

whose fields were seized from them,

do they not say that they return to the land!?

Do they not return to the seller, the owner of the land, to demand from him the value of the fields for which they paid? And if so, the seller can present the release to them, and it will become clear that he seized twice unlawfully!?

And we answer: In any event,

in the meantime,

while the purchasers come to the seller,

he will take possession and eat produce.

He will eat the produce of the field that he seized unlawfully, and “difficult is stolen property that has been consumed” to extract it from the robber.

Alternatively,

there is concern

for a purchaser without a guarantee.

Perhaps that purchaser from whom the field was seized a second time bought the field from the seller without a guarantee, and he will not go at all to the seller to demand its value, since he has no guarantee regarding it, and it turns out that he loses his field unlawfully.

And we object:

If so, loan deeds also!?

How did Rav Pappa say that in general a release is written when the creditor claims that he lost his deed, and we obligate the debtor to pay on the basis of the release in his possession? There too, let us be concerned lest the creditor did not lose his deed, and he will go directly to one of the debtor’s purchasers and seize from him, since the release is with the debtor and he does not know about it? And the Gemara explains:

There,

in loan deeds,

for he is claiming money,

since the creditor demands money from the debtor, when he comes to seize from the debtor’s purchasers, they do not hurry to give him their lands, because

they say,

they think:

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 clarify whether he indeed did not pay the creditor; then it becomes clear to them that he has a release, and that this debt has already been paid, and therefore it is possible to write a release in a loan deed. But

here,

in the case of that purchaser whose field was seized from him,

for he is claiming land,

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

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

They know that the seller has still not paid him, because ordinarily, one who demands land from another does not hurry to compromise by accepting money in place of the land until he is certain that the other cannot give him land, and meanwhile he will eat their produce. Therefore, guarantee is not written for him in the second deed.

The master said: “Except for the guarantee in it.”

And the Gemara discusses:

How do we write it?

How do we write the wording of a deed without a guarantee?

And the Gemara explains:

Rav Naḥman said: For we write as follows: “This deed of ours, by which one may not collect either from liened property or from free property,”

[this deed was not written so that the purchaser could collect through it, neither from liened property nor from the seller’s free property]

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

Its entire purpose is that the field should remain in the purchaser’s possession, and that the seller should not be able to deny that he sold it to him.

Rafram said:

This is to say,

from Rav Naḥman’s words we have learned: A deed in which

“guarantee” is not written is a scribal error.

We say that the scribe who wrote the deed erred and did not write the matter of the guarantee, and it is as though the guarantee had been written, for no person purchases a field without receiving a guarantee for it.

For Rav Naḥman said:

The reason is that he wrote for him this way,

only because the seller explicitly wrote for him in the second deed that it contains no guarantee.

Had he not written for him this way, he collects.

But if he had not written this explicitly, its law would be like that of a deed containing a guarantee, to collect from the seller’s property if the field were seized from him.

Rav Ashi said: “Guarantee”—

is not a scribal error!

Rather, one must write explicitly in the deed that it contains no guarantee.

And what is the meaning of

“except for the guarantee in it”?

That guarantee is not written in it.

The guarantee is not written in the deed, and consequently there is no guarantee in it, and not as Rav Naḥman said, that one must write explicitly that it contains no guarantee.

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

to

buy land for her

so that he would purchase a field for her.

He went and bought it for her.

That man went and bought for her a field without a guarantee, so that the seller was not responsible for paying her if the field were seized from her.

She came before Rav Naḥman.

The woman came before Rav Naḥman to make a claim against that man for having bought the field for her without a guarantee.

He said to him

Rav Naḥman said to that man: She can claim:

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

She sent you to benefit her, whereas you damaged her through your agency!

Therefore,

go and buy it from him,

go and buy the field from the seller yourself

without a guarantee,

that is, write the deed of sale in your own name,

and afterward sell it to her,

and afterward sell the field to the woman

with a guarantee.

We learned in a beraita:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One who gives a gift to his fellow and he returns the deed to him,

his gift is retracted.

And the Sages say: His gift remains in force.

And the Gemara discusses:

What is the reason of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that his gift is retracted?

And the Gemara explains:

Rav Asi said:

For

it is made as though he said to him,

the giver said:

“This field is given to you”

only

“as long as the deed

is still

in your possession,”

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

Rabba challenged him: If so, if it was stolen or lost

from the recipient’s possession,

also,

would we say here as well that the gift is void!?

And the Gemara explains:

Rather, Rabba said: They disagree

about whether documents are acquired through delivery.

They differ.

The question whether a person can transfer the rights stated in a deed merely by delivering the deed, or whether an additional act of acquisition is required for this, is the subject of the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis:

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

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

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

The giving of the deed does not constitute an act of acquisition of the gift, and therefore the gift still remains in force.

The Sages taught: One who comes to litigate with a deed and possession,

a person who comes to defend himself against one who challenges his ownership of a field, and he says to him: “I purchased the field from you, and the deed of sale is still in my possession, and I also have witnesses to my possession,”

is judged by the deed; these are the words of Rabbi.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

He is judged

by possession.

And the Gemara will immediately explain their dispute in various ways.

And the Gemara discusses:

In what do they differ?

And the Gemara explains:

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

The case is one in which the possessor of the field claims that he bought the field from Shimon, who had bought it from Levi, and Shimon did not write him a new deed but delivered to him the deed that he had received from Levi.