Bava Metzia 14b — the Talmud in English

Before he took possession of it

Shimon was in the field -

he can

can

retract

from the sale.

But

once he took possession of it -

he can no longer retract,

because an act of acquisition by possession over the land has already been performed .

For he said to him

Reuven:

a bundle of knots [

a sack full of knots ]

you considered and accepted.

That is to say, you knowingly acquired something subject to doubt, without a guarantee.

And you resemble a person who acquired a sack full of knots, which appears as though there is something important inside it, but he did not examine what was in it. And in the end, when he opened the sack, he found that there was nothing in it. For he cannot make the claim of a mistaken sale, because since he did not open and examine the contents of the sack, he considered and accepted it as it was.

From when is it an act of possession,

so that if he performed it, he can no longer retract?

From when he works the boundaries [

from the time that he repairs and raises the boundaries of the field].

And there are those who say: even if

he sold the field

with a guarantee,

and performed an act of acquisition over it, and claimants appeared against it,

also

he cannot retract.

And the buyer cannot say to the seller: Behold, the claimants will take it from me, and consequently I will return and collect my money from you. Now that the money is still in my possession, I will withhold it, and the sale will be undone!

Because

he said to him

the seller to the buyer:

Show me your document of dispossession [

show me the document of dispossession that the judge wrote for you, stating that they dispossessed you of the field, and I am obligated to pay you]

, and

then

I will pay you.

But as long as they have not brought you to judgment and dispossessed you of the field, I am not afraid of them.

It was stated: If one sells a field to his fellow, and

in the end

it is found that it is not his [

that the field did not belong to the seller], but it had been stolen and was in his possession, and the one from whom it had been stolen came and took it from the buyer,

Rav said: He has

from the seller

money,

for the seller must return to him the money that he paid for the field .

And

if the buyer enhanced the field, for example, by fertilizing it or surrounding it with a fence,

he has

also the value of the

enhancement

from the seller .

And Shmuel said: Money

indeed

he has,

but

enhancement -

he does not have.

And the reason for the matter will be explained below in the Gemara.

They asked Rav Huna:

If, when he sold the field,

he specified to him

the buyer that if they dispossessed him of it, he would collect

the enhancement, what is the law?

And the sides of the doubt are:

Is

the reason of Shmuel,

who said that he does not collect the enhancement,

because he did not specify

that he would give him

the enhancement

if they dispossessed him of it,

but here he did specify it to him,

and if so, he should give him the enhancement.

Or perhaps: the reason of Shmuel is that, since he does not have

the seller

land.

That is to say, since it became clear that the land was not the seller’s at all, it follows that there was no sale here, and the sale money was in the seller’s possession as a loan. And if so, if he gives the buyer the enhancement, it follows that he is returning to him more than he gave him for the purchase - and

it appears like interest .

He said to them: Yes,

indeed, in such a case he has the enhancement.

And

afterward he said to them:

No,

he does not have the enhancement.

And it remained unresolved in his hands [

the matter was uncertain in his hands], for he did not know the reason for the matter.

It was stated: Rav Nahman said in the name of Shmuel: He has money.

But

he does not have enhancement, even though he specified the enhancement to him.

What is the reason?

Since

it became clear that

he has no land

the seller, it emerges that if the buyer takes the enhancement -

he stands and takes the wage of his money [

that is to say, he receives payment for the money that he lent to the seller], and this appears like interest, as was explained.

Rava raised an objection to Rav Nahman

from the Mishna in Tractate Gittin. For so we learned there:

One does not collect for the consumption of produce, or for the enhancement of land, or for the sustenance of the woman and the daughters [

it is a condition of the marriage settlement that the woman and her daughters be supported from his property after his death, until they marry],

from encumbered properties, for the betterment of the world.

And the reason for the enactment is that if they were to dispossess buyers for these matters, you would have no person who would buy a field from his fellow. For each one would fear buying, lest they dispossess him of the field, since there is no person upon whom these obligations of the sustenance of the woman and the daughters do not rest, and these obligations are not fixed, so that the buyer could estimate whether free properties sufficient for payment of his debts remained in the seller’s possession, since it is impossible to know when they will marry and stop taking sustenance. And likewise, while they are taking sustenance, it is impossible to know how much they will eat.

And likewise, for the consumption of produce and the enhancement of land there is no fixed amount, since it is not known how much produce the field will yield and how much it will be enhanced.

Therefore they enacted that one does not collect from encumbered properties for these matters.

This is not so with a debt from a loan, for it is known exactly how much the borrower owes the lender. The buyers can take care not to buy lands from the borrower if free properties sufficient for the amount of the loan did not remain in his possession. And if free properties did remain, he can buy without concern, because one does not collect from encumbered properties where free properties exist [and even if the borrower subsequently sells the properties that remained in his possession, collection is first made from the buyers who acquired them].

It follows that specifically

from encumbered properties -

it is not

that we collect [

we do not collect].

But from free properties -

we do collect. And in any event it teaches

among those matters:

“for the enhancement of land.” Is it not

the case

of a buyer

of a

from a robber,

who enhanced it, and the person from whom it had been stolen came and dispossessed him of it, so that the buyer returns to the seller and collects the principal even from encumbered properties, meaning properties that the seller sold after he sold this field to him, since his document preceded their documents and there was a guarantee in it, whereas the enhancement that he effected he collects only from free properties, for the betterment of the world, since the enhancement was not fixed at the time of the sale, when he accepted responsibility for it?

This proves from here that the buyer has enhancement from a robber!?

And we reject this:

No.

It is not speaking of a stolen field that the person from whom it was stolen took from the buyer, but

of a

case in which

a creditor

took the field from the buyer for a debt that the seller owed him.

And in such a case, certainly the buyer has enhancement, for this was a complete sale as long as they had not dispossessed him of it. And if the borrower had paid the debt to his creditor, the creditor would have had no claim against the buyers. Therefore, when the seller gives the buyer the enhancement, and it emerges that he is paying him more than the buyer gave for the purchase, this does not appear as though he is paying him wages for the postponement of his money with him; rather, it is as though the seller is now buying back the field that he sold to him. Therefore the buyer can collect the enhancement from the seller from free properties.

And we raise an objection:

If it is a creditor -

say

what we learned in the

beginning,

at the beginning of the Mishna:

“One does not collect for the consumption of produce” [

from encumbered properties]. And the Gemara now understands that the meaning is that if they dispossessed the buyer of a field full of produce, one does not collect it from the seller.

And if

it is speaking

of a creditor, does a creditor have produce?

Does a creditor dispossess him of produce in the field that no longer requires the land?

But Shmuel said: A creditor collects

the land together with

the enhancement

that the buyer effected. It follows:

enhancement -

yes,

indeed he collects it.

But produce -

no!

Rather, it is obvious

that in the beginning it is speaking

of a robber and the person robbed,

for example, that he robbed a field together with its produce and sold it, in which case certainly the person robbed also dispossesses him of the produce. Or he sold a stolen field without produce, and produce grew while in the buyer’s possession, in which case the person robbed dispossesses him of the land together with the produce, because he claims: My land produced the enhancement!

And since the beginning

is speaking

of a robber and the person robbed -

it is reasonable that the

end also,

the enhancement of land, is speaking

of a robber and the person robbed!

And we reject this:

Is it necessarily so?

Is it necessary that the end speaks in the same manner as the beginning? It is not so. It can be said that

this,

the beginning, is

as it stands,

as it is, that it speaks of a robber and the person robbed.

And this,

the end, is

as it stands,

with a creditor.

And we raise an objection:

But it did not teach this way,

as you explained, that what we learned, “and for the enhancement of land,” speaks of a creditor!

For so we learned in a beraita explaining the words of the Mishna:

“For the enhancement of land” -

how so?

If one robbed a field from his fellow, and behold, it is emerging from his possession

of the robber through the court,

when he collects -

he collects the principal from encumbered properties, and the enhancement he collects from free properties.

And now,

what are the circumstances,

how is the beraita speaking?

If you say

that it is speaking

as it teaches,

according to the simple meaning of the beraita, that the person robbed took the land from the robber, and then the robber collects the principal from encumbered properties and so on, it cannot be explained this way. For

a robber -

from whom does he collect?

From whom is the robber supposed to collect anything in payment for his robbery?!

Rather, is it not

necessarily speaking

of a case where he robbed a field

from his fellow, sold it to another, and he enhanced it,

the buyer? And it is proven that a buyer from a robber has enhancement!

He said to him:

But

did you not merely provide an explanation?

Were you not required to explain and establish the beraita not according to its simple meaning, that the robber collects, but as referring to a buyer from a robber?!

And since this is so, that according to your method too you must emend the words of the beraita,

also provide an explanation

and establish the beraita as not speaking of a robber at all, but

of a creditor .

Come and hear

from a beraita explaining the beginning of the words of the Mishna:

“For the consumption of produce” -

how so?

If one robbed a field from his fellow, and behold, it is emerging from his possession. When he collects, he collects the principal from encumbered properties, and produce he collects from free properties.

What are the circumstances?

If you say as it teaches,

as the beraita is set before us, the matter is puzzling:

a robber -

from whom does he collect?!

Rather, is it not

necessarily speaking

of a case where he robbed

a person’s

field from his fellow, sold it to another, and enhanced it,

the field, and it produced fully ripened produce [that no longer required the field], in which case the person robbed collects it together with its produce [because he claims: “My land produced the enhancement”]. And the buyer returns to the seller and collects the principal from encumbered properties, and the produce, which in this case is the enhancement, from free properties. This proves from here that the buyer has the enhancement!

Rava said

In truth, it is not speaking of the robber selling it to another. And what we learned, “when he collects,” is not speaking of the robber, but of the person robbed.

And if you ask: why does the person robbed need to collect the principal, that is, the land itself, from encumbered properties, when the land is before him and he can take it as it is?!

Here, with what are we dealing? With a case in which he robbed a field from his fellow

when it was

full of produce, and he ate the produce, and dug in it [

in the field]

pits, cisterns, and caves,

and through this reduced the value of the land.

The law is then as follows:

When

the

person

robbed comes to collect

from the robber the

principal,

that is, what the robber damaged in the land,

he collects from encumbered properties.

And when

the person robbed comes to collect

the

produce -

he collects from free properties [

because they are not fixed ].