Bava Kamma 8a — the Talmud in English

And if he had only land of

superior and inferior quality

, and he did not have land of medium quality, then

those harmed

collect

from the superior-quality land

, according to their law,

whereas the creditor and the woman's ketuba

collect

from the inferior-quality land.

The woman's ketuba is collected according to its law, whereas the creditor, since by Torah law his law is that he collects from inferior-quality land, and only the Sages enacted that he should collect from land of medium quality because of closing the door before prospective borrowers, therefore, when the one who caused the damage does not have land of medium quality, the Sages enacted nothing for him, but he collects according to his law, by Torah law.

And now Rav Shmuel bar Abba explains his difficulty from the beraita:

It teaches, at any rate, in the middle

, among the laws that the beraita taught, a law is taught in the middle: if he had

land of medium and inferior quality,

then

those harmed and the creditor

collect

from land of medium quality, and the woman's ketuba from inferior-quality land.

If you say, “They assess according to the world's [land],” it is understandable why this person is considered to have land of medium quality, and the creditor collects from it, because the medium-quality land is assessed according to the world's lands.

But

,

if you say, “They assess according to his own [land],”

it is not understandable why it is considered medium-quality land. For among his fields he has no field better than it, and if so,

his medium-quality land should be made like superior-quality land,

for the best, and the matter should be considered as though he has superior- and inferior-quality land, and only those harmed should collect from the superior-quality land,

and the creditor should be pushed off to

the

inferior-quality land.

For the law of the creditor is not to collect from superior-quality land. And if, nevertheless, it is explained in the beraita that the creditor too collects from the medium-quality land, it is proved that “they assess according to the world's [land],” and not as Rabbi Abba said, “They assess according to his own [land].”

And the Gemara answers, and rejects the proof from the beraita:

“In fact, they assess according to his own [land],” but

with what are we dealing here

[here it is referring],

for example, he had superior-quality land and sold it.

That is to say, at the time of the loan the borrower had additional land superior to this, and therefore this land was then considered only medium-quality land, and at that time it had already become liened to the creditor. Therefore, the creditor has the right to collect from it even today, although now the borrower no longer has a field better than it.

And Rav Hisda likewise said

to resolve [it], that it is dealing with

for example, he had superior-quality land and sold it.

And the Gemara attempts to prove that the beraita must be established this way, because otherwise there will be a contradiction between the beraitot:

This too is logically evident

: that we established that he had superior-quality land and sold it is logical to say for another reason,

from the fact that it teaches

in

another

[different] beraita: he had only land of

medium and inferior quality

and did not have superior-quality land; the law is: payments for

those harmed

are collected

from land of medium quality, whereas the creditor and the woman's ketuba

collect

from inferior-quality land.

But

they are difficult

—the beraitot

to one another

: this beraita, which holds that in such a case the creditor collects from inferior-quality land, contradicts the earlier beraita, which holds that in such a case the creditor collects from land of medium quality.

Rather, is it not [so]? Learn from it:

it is proved that one must distinguish between the beraitot:

here

it is dealing

with a case where he had superior-quality land and sold it

, and therefore the creditor collects from the medium-quality land, since it had already become liened to him at the time of the loan.

And here

, in the second beraita, it is dealing

with a case where he did not have superior-quality land and sold it.

And this medium-quality land, which is the best of his assets, is considered superior-quality land, because everyone agrees that “they assess according to his own [land].” Therefore, the creditor does not collect from it, but from the inferior-quality land.

And the Gemara continues and gives another explanation for the beraitot, and consequently there is no proof at all:

And if you wish, say

, it is possible to establish the beraitot so that

both this and that

, in both beraitot it is dealing

with a case where he did not have superior-quality land and sold it

, and according to everyone, “they assess according to the world's [land].”

And it is not difficult

the contradiction between the beraitot.

For

this

, the beraita that holds that the creditor's law is that he collects from inferior-quality land, is speaking in a case

where his medium-quality land was made like the world's superior-quality land.

His medium-quality land was equal in its level of importance to superior-quality land according to the general standard; therefore its law is like superior-quality land, and the creditor has no right to collect from it, and he is pushed off to the inferior-quality land.

And here,

the beraita that holds that the creditor collects from medium-quality land, is speaking in a case

where his medium-quality land was not made

like the world's superior-quality land

, his medium-quality land being equal in importance only to the world's medium-quality land, and not to superior-quality land; therefore the law of the creditor is to collect from it.

And the Gemara gives another way of resolving the contradiction between the beraitot:

And if you wish, say

, it is possible to establish the beraitot in such a way that

both this and that

, in both beraitot it is dealing

with a case where his medium-quality land was

equal

to the world's medium-quality land

, and likewise, in both beraitot it is not dealing with a case where he had superior-quality land and sold it.

And here they disagree about this

, the beraitot disagree about this:

one master holds, they assess according to his own [land]

, the beraita that says that the creditor's law is that he collects from inferior-quality land holds that “they assess according to his own [land].” And since this land was not better than it, it is considered superior-quality land, and the creditor is pushed off to inferior-quality land.

And one master holds, they assess according to the world's [land]

, the beraita that says that the creditor collects from medium-quality land holds that “they assess according to the world's [land].” Therefore, his medium-quality land, which is equal to the world's medium-quality land, is considered medium-quality land, and the creditor collects from it according to his law.

And the Gemara brings another resolution of the contradiction between the beraitot:

Ravina said

: These beraitot

disagree about Ulla's [statement],

they disagree about what Ulla said.

For Ulla said: By Torah law, the creditor

's law is

that he collects from inferior-quality land. As it is said

concerning a person who is owed money by another and comes to collect his debt from him:

“You shall stand outside, and the man to whom you lend shall bring the collateral out to you

[a pledge, so that if the borrower does not pay his debt, he collects the debt from the pledge],

outside.”

Thus the Torah gave the borrower the option of repaying his debt as he wishes. For

what is a person's practice in bringing outside

for repayment of his debt?

The least of the utensils!

The least valuable and worst one. And likewise, when he repays him from his land, his practice is to repay him with inferior-quality land. And it is proved that by Torah law the creditor collects from inferior-quality land. Rather, the Sages enacted that he should collect from medium-quality land.

And for what reason did they say

[the Sages enacted] that

the creditor's law is that he collects from medium-quality land?

So that you should not close the door before borrowers

, for if they repay the lenders from inferior-quality land, they will refrain from lending their money, and the door of the lenders will be closed before the borrowers.

And in this the beraitot disagree:

One master,

the tannai in the beraita that says that the creditor's law is that he collects from medium-quality land,

has Ulla's enactment

, holds like Ulla, that the Sages enacted for the creditor that he should collect from medium-quality land.

And one master,

the tannai in the beraita that says that the creditor collects from inferior-quality land,

does not have Ulla's enactment

, does not hold like Ulla, but holds that the creditor collects from inferior-quality land according to his law by Torah law. And the Gemara brings another beraita dealing with the order of collection from liened lands:

The Sages taught:

One upon whom there were imposed three obligations to pay—payments for damage, payment of a debt to a lender, and payment of a woman's ketuba—and in his possession were all three types of land, superior-quality, medium-quality, and inferior-quality, and he sold his lands, then if he

sold

all his lands

to

one person,

or

sold

to three people at once,

on one day, and the three deeds of acquisition were written on one day, so that none had precedence over the other, then

all of them

[all the purchasers]

entered in place of the owners

. That is, their law is like the law of the owners: the one who acquired the superior-quality land pays the person harmed from it, the one who took the medium-quality land pays the creditor from it, and the purchaser of the inferior-quality land pays the woman her ketuba from it.

But if he sold them to three people

one after the other,

each parcel of land on a different day,

all of them

, all the creditors—the person harmed, the lender, and his divorced wife—

collect

their debt

from the

purchaser who bought

last,

even if the land in his possession is inferior-quality land. For the purchasers who bought first, even if they bought the superior- and medium-quality land, can push away the claimants by saying: “I left you a place [land] from which to collect, with the seller”!

For the law is that one does not collect from liened assets [already in the possession of a purchaser] where there are free assets [in the possession of the owner], even if the assets that remained are inferior-quality land, whereas the claimant is a person harmed whose law is that he collects from superior-quality land; he collects only from them.

And since at the time when the first purchasers acquired the land, other land still remained in the seller's possession, it follows that the primary law of collection took effect upon this land, and this law of collection remains even if ultimately that land was sold.

And if

he does not have

—the one who purchased last does not have enough to pay all three of them—

he collects from the one before him

, the claimants complete their collection from the purchaser who preceded him. And if

he does not have

either

he

enough for the debt,

he collects from the one before the one before him,

the claimants complete their collection from the first purchaser. In such a case they cannot say, “I left you a place,” for the land that they left from which to collect is not sufficient for the collection of all of them. The Gemara asks: this that we learned in the beraita, that if he

sold them to

one

person

the purchaser entered in place of the owners,

what are the circumstances?

In what manner is this referring?

If you say that it was at one time,

if it is said that the purchaser acquired them together in one purchase [in one document], it is difficult: it is obvious! For

now, in the case of three, where it can be said that one of them preceded,

if he sold to three people on one day, and although their purchases took place at separate times, this in the morning and that in the evening, and seemingly the first purchaser could say, “I left you a place from which to collect,” nevertheless, since it is not recognizable in the deed of sale who took first,

you say that all of them entered in place of the owners,

for it is considered that they all purchased together;

if he sold to

a single

person in one document, is it necessary to say so—

does it need to be stated?! Surely it is obvious, since he acquired them together, that one field does not have a greater lien upon it than the other, and therefore each one collects according to his law.

Rather, it is obvious

that the case is even where he sold them to one person over three days,

one after the other,

each field on a different day,

and

if so, the difficulty is:

what is different,

what is different if he sold

to three

one after the other,

so that each and every one says to him,

each of the first purchasers can say to the claimant:

“I left you a place from which to collect!”

And therefore, in the case where the last one acquired the zibburit, even the one injured collects from it.

Behold,

this too—

that same one who acquired everything one after the other, if he acquired the zibburit last—

let each and every one say to him,

that he should say to each of the claimants:

“I left you a place from which to collect!”

And they should all collect from the zibburit that he acquired last. And why do we say that this one entered in place of the owners, and all of them collect according to their law?

The Gemara answers:

Here, with what are we dealing? For example, where he acquired the best-quality property last,

The case in the beraita is where he acquired the best-quality property last. Therefore he does not say to the claimants, “I left you a place from which to collect,” for if so, they would all collect from the best-quality property.

And so said Rav Sheshet,

to resolve it, that the case is

for example, where he acquired the best-quality property last.

And the Gemara raises an objection to the answer:

If so,

if so, why indeed should each one collect according to his law?

Let them all come and collect from the best-quality property,

let them all come [including the creditor and the woman] and take from the best-quality property, since it remained last as free property, and the law of their collection was therefore imposed upon it!?

The Gemara answers: The reason that they do not all collect from it is

because he says to them,

the purchaser says to the claimants:

“If you remain silent and take according to your law, you take it,”

if you remain silent [you waive the claim] and each one takes according to his law, you can take it,

but

however,

if not,

but you continue to claim the best-quality property, then

“I will return the document of the zibburit to its owner,”

I will return the document of the purchase of the zibburit to the seller, and through this the seller will have free land,

“and all of you will take from the zibburit,”

then all of you will collect from this zibburit, for one does not collect from encumbered properties in a place where free properties exist.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: