Bava Metzia 14a — the Talmud in English

And we explain: these two objections

are one

[one objection],

for it is one reason!

Because of one reason, Rabbi Elazar had to say both things.

For since Rabbi Elazar said that the dispute is when the debtor does not admit, he explains it in this manner.

That is, since this is so, Rabbi Elazar had to say that he does not collect even from unencumbered property. For the borrower denies the loan completely.

And since he had to conclude and say: “But when the debtor admits, everyone agrees that he shall return it,” Rabbi Elazar therefore said that we are not concerned about repayment or collusion.

For if there is concern for this, even when both of them admit, he should not return it.

And now the Gemara returns to explain the objections from the beraita.

A refutation of Shmuel on two counts:

One,

one objection,

as

like the objection that we raised against

Rabbi Elazar. For

Shmuel too

establishes our Mishna as referring to a case in which the debtor does not admit ,

and if so, according to Rabbi Meir, a document in which there is no liability does not collect even from unencumbered property. Yet in the beraita we learned that it collects from unencumbered property!

And one —

for Shmuel said: If one finds a document of acquisition in the marketplace —

he shall return it to the owners, and we are not concerned about repayment,

even when the borrower does not admit. For if he had repaid him, he would have immediately torn the document.

And

a refutation

of his words from the beraita,

for it teaches here: Even though both of them admit —

he shall not return it to either this one or that one. It follows,

it is proven from here, that

we are concerned about repayment. And all the more so here,

in our Mishna,

where the borrower does not admit, we are concerned about repayment!

And this objection is not difficult for Rabbi Elazar, because according to his view, when the debtor does not admit, he shall not return any document by which one is fit to collect. And what Rabbi Meir said in our Mishna, that he shall return it, is because it is impossible to collect with this document even from unencumbered property .

Shmuel said: What is the reason of the Sages,

who say that a document in which there is no liability collects even from encumbered properties —

Because

they hold

that when a document comes before us in which

liability

was not written, we say that it is a

mistake

of the

scribe,

that he erred and did not write liability in the document. But certainly the lender intended to lend only with liability, for no person throws away his money for nothing .

Rava bar Itti said to Rav Idi bar Avin: Did Shmuel really say this?

But Shmuel said:

One who sells a field to his fellow and comes to the scribe so that he should write for him a document of sale, then with regard to

appreciation, improvement, and lien,

that is, accepting liability for the sale, so that if a creditor of the seller comes and seizes the land, the purchaser collects the principal [this is “lien”], and also the appreciation that he caused the land to appreciate before the creditor seized it [this is “appreciation”], from the choicest of the seller’s properties [this is “improvement”] ,

the scribe must

the seller

consult

whether he indeed accepts these matters upon himself.

For there is a person who sells without any liability at all. And there is one who indeed sells with liability, but does not accept upon himself to pay even the appreciation. And there is one who accepts even this upon himself, but not to pay from his choicest properties, rather from intermediate-quality property.

It is proven from here that it is possible that the writer of the document did not accept liability upon himself, and we do not say that it is a scribal error!

Shall we say that the one who says this

in the name of Shmuel, that liability is a scribal error,

did not say that

appreciation, improvement, and lien require consultation, but one amora said this in his name, and another amora said the opposite!?

And we reject this:

It is not difficult. Here,

what Shmuel said, that liability is a scribal error, refers to

a loan document, for a person does not give money for nothing

[a person does not give his money for nothing]. And therefore it is impossible that he lent money without liability, for it is possible that the borrower will sell his properties, and the lender will have no means from which to collect his debt.

But

here,

what Shmuel said, that appreciation, improvement, and lien require consultation, refers to

purchase and sale, for

indeed it is possible that a creditor will come and seize the land, but nevertheless

a person may buy land for his day

[a person may purchase land even for one day], for it is possible that they will not seize it from him at all. And even if in the end they seize the land, in the meantime, until they seize it, he eats the produce from it.

Like that

[as we find, that such an incident occurred],

for Avuha bar Ihi bought an upper story from his sister

[he bought an upper story, a second floor, from his sister].

A creditor came and seized it from him

[he seized the upper story from Avuha bar Ihi].

Avuha bar Ihi came

to

before Mar Shmuel.

He said to him

Shmuel: Did

your sister write you

for you

liability

in the document?

He said to him: No.

He said to him: If so, go in peace

[go in peace]. For you have no claim concerning it.

Avuha bar Ihi said to him:

:

But you are the one who said

[but is it not you who says] that

liability is a scribal error!

He said to him: These words apply —

to loan documents. But with sale-and-purchase documents —

no. For a person may buy land for his day,

as has been explained.

Abaye said: If Reuben sold a field to Simeon with liability, and Reuben’s creditor came and is seizing it from him

[and seized the field from Simeon],

the law is that Reuben may go and conduct litigation with him

[Reuben may come and litigate with that creditor] , for he can say to him: “I repaid you!” Or he can say to him: “I have another claim against you, and I am withholding this debt in its place.”

And

although for now he seemingly is not a party to the matter, since the field is not being seized from him, nevertheless

the creditor cannot

say

say to him

Reuben:

You are not a party to my litigation,

for I am not taking anything from you, but rather from Simeon. And if you have a claim against me, sue me in court!

Because

he says to him

Reuben:

What you take from him —

returns upon me

[what you now take from him, you will claim back from me], for I sold him the field with liability.

There are those who say: Even

if he sold the field to Simeon

without liability, also

Reuben can stand against him in court, because

he says to him

to the creditor: If you seize the field from Simeon, although he cannot return and collect from me, nevertheless he will be angry with me, and

I do not desire that Simeon should have resentment against me.

And Abaye said: If Reuben sold a field to Simeon without liability, and claimants emerged against it

[those who raise objections], and now Simeon wishes to withdraw from the purchase, the law is as follows: