Bava Batra 44b — the Talmud in English

And the reason for the concluding clause that we learned: “He sold him a cow, he sold him a cloak; he testifies for him concerning it, because its responsibility is not upon him,” is that

specifically a house or a field

he does not testify for him concerning it, for the creditor of the seller will take it,

but a cow and a cloak

he does testify for him concerning it. And because

it is not necessary ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

in an unspecified case [in which the borrower did not explicitly designate the cow or the cloak for the lender to collect from them],

it is not subordinate to him

to the lender, the cow or the cloak, to collect from it—

And

what is the reason

they are not subordinate to him? Because

they are movable property, and movable property is not subordinate to a creditor [movable property is not subordinate to a creditor; only land is].

And even though he wrote to him

the borrower wrote to the lender in an unspecified formulation, “You may collect even

from the cloak that is on his shoulders

[from the garment on his shoulders],

this applies

to the case in which the borrower collects from them when

they are in their actual state

[they are extant, meaning that they are in the borrower’s possession],

but when they are not in their actual state,

meaning that they are not in the borrower’s possession but he sold them—

no;

and therefore it is not necessary when he subordinated it to him without specification that the seller testifies concerning it—

Rather, even if he made it an apotiki [he explicitly designated the cow and the cloak for him to collect from them]

also not

the cow and the cloak in the purchaser’s possession become subordinate to the seller’s creditor, and the seller testifies concerning it. And

what is the reason?

As in the statement of Rava! For Rava said:

are the cow and garment in the buyer’s possession liened to the seller’s creditor, and the seller may testify on their behalf.

And what is the reason?

He made

his slave an apotiki

to his creditor,

and sold him

to a purchaser,

the creditor collects from him;

but if he made his

ox and donkey an apotiki, and sold them, the creditor does not collect from him.

What is the reason?

For

this one—

the subordination of a slave as an apotiki—

has public notice

it has a voice,

and it was incumbent upon the purchaser to take care not to purchase him; and since he did not take care, he suffered the loss.

But if this—

it is publicly known, and the buyer should have taken care not to purchase him. Since he did not take care, he suffered the loss.

the subordination of an ox or donkey as an apotiki—

has no public notice,

and the purchasers did not know of the subordination, and in order not to cause them a loss, he does not collect from them.

And we still raise an objection: Why does the seller testify for the purchaser concerning a cow and a cloak, because they are not subordinate to his creditor for him to collect from them!?

And let us be concerned

perhaps he acquired for him [the seller subordinated to his creditor]

movable property along with land,

and then even the movable property becomes subordinate to the creditor. And as

Rabba said: If he acquired for him [if he subordinated to him]

movable property along with land,

the lender

collects land and collects

also

movable property—

movable property together with land,

the lender

collects the land and collects

And Rav Ḥisda said: And this is when he wrote to him

the borrower wrote to his creditor, when he subordinated movable property to him along with land, that the subordination is

not like an asmachta,

and not like the standard forms of documents [these are documents made to copy documents from them, and they were not written for collecting with them, and they have no substance].

And we answer:

Here,

in the beraita that we learned, “He sold him a cow, he sold him a cloak; he testifies for him concerning it”—

with what are we dealing:

with a case in which he acquired the cow and the cloak from another person

and sold

them to this one

immediately,

so that it was impossible for him to borrow in the interim and subordinate them to the lender.

a case where he acquired

the cow and garment from someone else

And we raise an objection against it:

And let us be concerned, perhaps

“what I will acquire”

it is,

meaning: But there is reason for concern that perhaps he borrowed before acquiring the cow and the cloak, and subordinated to the lender, along with land, the movable property that he would acquire in the future. If so, as soon as the seller acquired them, they became subordinate to the lender. And it still is difficult: Why does he testify, for in this manner it turns out that he is placing them before his creditor!? And since we are not concerned about this, is it then you may derive from it

that we can resolve what the Gemara later, in the chapter “One Who Dies,” was uncertain about: If he subordinated to him “

what I will acquire” [what he is destined to acquire], and

acquired and sold, or if he

acquired and inherited, it does not become subordinate,

because a person does not subordinate something that has not yet entered the world!?

And we answer: One may always say that if he wrote “what I will acquire,” it does become subordinate. However, the beraita, which is not concerned with subordination along with land, is not because of the reason stated above, but

it is not necessary,

meaning, this beraita is dealing with a case

in which witnesses say: “

We know concerning this one

that he borrowed

that he never had land at all [we know that he never had land],” and therefore he cannot subordinate movable property along with land, and so he testifies concerning the cow and cloak that he sold.

because a person cannot lien something that does not yet exist!?

And we resolve the difficulty: In fact, one may say that if he wrote “property that I will acquire,” it does become liened. However, the reason the beraita is not concerned with a lien created together with land is not the reason stated above. Rather,

it is necessary—that is, the beraita is dealing with a case where

And we still raise an objection: Why does he testify for him concerning the cow and cloak? Even though there is no concern of an interest because he is placing it before his creditor, as explained, nevertheless he has an interest, for if the claimant prevails, it turns out that this one sold him something that was not his,

and

Rav Pappa said:

Even though the Sages said: One who sells a field to his fellow without responsibility, and a creditor comes and takes it from the purchaser

from the purchaser,

he does not return against him;

nevertheless, if it turns out that it is not his, he does return against him,

even if he explicitly wrote that the sale was without responsibility.

Although the Sages said: If one sells a field to another without a guarantee, and a creditor comes and takes it from the buyer,

from the buyer,

the buyer cannot return to him;

nevertheless, if

And if so, he has an interest in the testimony, so that the claimant will not prevail in his claim!?

And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing: With one who recognizes in it

the purchaser

that it is the offspring of his donkey, the purchaser knows and admitted that this cow and cloak belong to the seller, and if so he can no longer make a claim against the seller, for he admitted to him that the law is with him and not with the claimant. And Rav Zevid disputed Rav Pappa and

said: Even if it turns out that it is not his, he does not return

the purchaser

against him,

because

he says to him

the seller says to the purchaser: “ For this I sold it to you, without responsibility,”

I sold it to you for this reason, and explicitly wrote that I was not selling it to you with responsibility, in order to include this case as well.

The substance: Ravin bar Shmuel said in the name of Shmuel: One who sells a field to his fellow without responsibility does not testify for him concerning it, because he places it before his creditor.

And we raise an objection against it:

What are the circumstances!?

because

he can say to him

the seller says to the buyer:

“This is why I sold it to you: without a guarantee,”

I sold it to you and explicitly wrote that I was not selling it with a guarantee in order to include even this case.

The essential statement: Ravin bar Shmuel said in the name of Shmuel: If one sells a field to another without a guarantee, he may not testify on its behalf, because he would be placing it before his creditor.

And we raise a difficulty concerning this:

What are the circumstances!?