Bava Metzia 14b (יד:) — the Talmud in English

Before he took possession of it

Shimon in the field -

he can

can

retract

from the sale.

But

once he took possession of it -

he can no longer retract

because an acquisition by means of possession of the land has already been effected .

For he said to him

Reuven:

a bundle of knots [

a sack full of knots ]

you considered and accepted.

That is, you knowingly acquired an object whose status was uncertain, without a guarantee.

You resemble a person who bought a sack full of knots, which appeared to have something valuable inside it, but he did not check what it contained. In the end, when he opened the sack, he found that it contained nothing. He cannot claim that the sale was mistaken, because since he did not open the sack and examine its contents, he considered and accepted it as it was.

From when is possession effected,

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

From when he treads the boundaries [

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

And some say: Even if

he sold the field

with a guarantee,

performed an act of acquisition with regard to it, and claimants came forward against it,

also

he cannot retract.

The buyer cannot say to the seller: They will seize it from me, and I will then return and collect my money from you. Since the money is still in my possession, I will withhold it, and the sale will be annulled!

Because

the seller says to him

the buyer:

Show me your writ of seizure [

show me the writ of seizure that the judge wrote for you, stating that they seized the field from you, and I am obligated to pay you]

, and

then

I will pay you.

But as long as they have not brought you to court and seized the field from you, I am not concerned about them.

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

eventually

it is found not to be his [

the field did not belong to the seller], but it was stolen property in his possession, and the owner came and took it from the buyer,

Rav said: He has

the buyer from the seller

money,

as the seller must return to him the money 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: The money

indeed

he has,

but

enhancement -

he does not have.

The reason for this will be explained later in the Gemara.

They asked Rav Huna:

If, when he sold the field,

he specified to him

the buyer that if they seized it from him, he would collect

the enhancement, what is the halakha?

The sides of the uncertainty are:

Does

Shmuel's reason,

for saying that he does not collect the enhancement, consist

in the fact that he did not specify

that he would give him

the enhancement

if they seized it from him,

but here he did specify it to him,

and therefore he should give him the enhancement?

Or perhaps: Shmuel's reason is that, since he has no

land,

the seller.

That is, since it became clear that the land did not belong to the seller at all, it turns out that there was no sale here, and the sale money was in the seller's possession as a loan. If so, if he gives the buyer the enhancement, it turns out that he is returning more than the amount he received from him for the purchase - and it

appears to be 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 he was uncertain about it [

the matter remained unresolved in his hands], as he did not know the reason for the ruling.

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

But

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

What is the reason?

Since

it became clear that

the seller has no land,

if the buyer takes the enhancement,

he is standing and taking payment for his money [

that is, he is receiving payment for the money he lent to the seller], and this appears to be interest, as explained.

Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman

from the Mishna in tractate Gittin. For this is what we learned there:

One does not collect payment for produce consumed, for enhancement of land, or for the sustenance of a wife and daughters [

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

from encumbered property, for the betterment of the world.

The reason for the enactment is that if these claims could be collected from purchasers, no one would purchase a field from another. For each person would fear buying, lest the field be seized from him, since there is no person who is not subject to these obligations of supporting his wife and daughters, and these obligations are not fixed, so that the buyer could assess whether the seller retained unencumbered property for payment of his debts; for it is impossible to know when they will marry and cease receiving support. Likewise, while they are receiving support, it is impossible to know how much they will consume.

Nor is there a fixed amount for produce consumed or for enhancement of land, since it is not known how much produce the field will yield or how much it will be enhanced.

Therefore, the Sages enacted that these claims cannot be collected from encumbered property.

This is not so with a loan debt, where it is known exactly how much the borrower owes the lender. The purchasers can take care not to purchase land from the borrower if he has not retained unencumbered property in the amount of the loan. And if he did retain such property, he can purchase without concern, because one does not collect from encumbered property when unencumbered property is available [even if the borrower subsequently sells the property he retained, collection is first made from the purchasers who bought it].

It follows that specifically

from encumbered property -

it is not the case that

we collect [

we do not collect].

But from unencumbered property -

we do collect. And in any event it teaches

among those matters:

for enhancement of land. Is it not,

that it is referring to

a buyer

of a

field from a robber,

who enhanced it, and the owner came and seized it from him, so that the buyer returns to the seller and collects the principal even from encumbered property, meaning property that the seller sold after selling this field to him, since his deed predates their deeds and included a guarantee, whereas he collects the enhancement that he made only from unencumbered property, for the betterment of the world, because the enhancement was not fixed at the time of the sale, when he accepted the guarantee?

This proves that a buyer does receive the enhancement from a robber!?

And we reject this:

No.

It is not referring to a stolen field that the owner seized from the buyer, but

to

a case in which

a creditor

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

In such a case, the buyer certainly does have the enhancement, since this was a complete sale as long as it had not been seized from him. Had the borrower paid his debt to his creditor, he would have had no claim against the purchasers. Therefore, when the seller gives the buyer the enhancement, and it turns out that he is paying him more than the buyer gave for the purchase, this does not appear as though he is paying him for keeping his money with him; rather, it is as though the seller is now buying back the field that he had sold him. Therefore, the buyer can collect the enhancement from the seller out of unencumbered property.

And we challenge this:

If it is referring to a creditor -

say

that what we learned in the

first clause,

at the beginning of the Mishna:

“One does not collect payment for produce consumed” [

from encumbered property]. The Gemara now understands that this means that if a field full of produce was seized from the buyer, he cannot collect it from the seller.

And if

it is referring

to a creditor, does a creditor have produce?

Does a creditor seize produce in a field that no longer requires the land?

But didn’t Shmuel say: A creditor collects

the land together with

the enhancement

that the buyer made? It follows that

enhancement

yes,

indeed he collects it.

But produce -

no!

Rather, it is obvious

that the first clause is referring

to a robber and the owner,

for example, he robbed a field together with its produce and sold it, in which case the owner certainly seizes the produce as well. Or he sold a stolen field without produce, and produce grew while it was in the buyer's possession, in which case the owner seizes the land together with the produce, because he claims: My land produced the enhancement!

And since the first clause

is referring

to a robber and the owner -

it is reasonable that the

last clause as well,

“enhancement of land,” is referring

to a robber and the owner!

And we reject this:

Is it necessarily so?

Is it unavoidable that the last clause speaks in the same manner as the first clause? It is not so. It can be said that

this,

the first clause,

is as it stands,

as it refers to a robber and the owner.

And this,

the last clause,

is as it stands,

referring to a creditor.

And we challenge this:

But it does not teach it that way,

as you explained it, that what we learned, “and for enhancement of land,” refers to a creditor!

For this is what we learned in a beraita that explains the words of the Mishna:

“For enhancement of land” -

how so?

If one robbed a field from another, and it is removed from his possession

the robber's, through the court,

when he collects -

he collects the principal from encumbered property, and the enhancement he collects from unencumbered property.

And now,

what are the circumstances,

how is the beraita speaking?

If you say

that it is referring

as it teaches,

according to the beraita's simple meaning, that the owner removed the land from the robber, and then the robber collects the principal from encumbered property 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 exchange for his robbery?!

Rather, is it not

necessarily referring

to a case in which he robbed a field

from another, sold it to someone else, and he enhanced it

the buyer? This proves that a buyer from a robber does have the enhancement!

He said to him:

But

did you not merely resolve it?

Were you not forced 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, according to your own view, you too must emend the wording of the beraita,

resolve it as well

and establish that the beraita is not referring to a robber at all, but

to a creditor .

Come and hear

from a beraita that explains the beginning of the Mishna:

“For produce consumed” -

how so?

If one robbed a field from another, and it is removed from his possession. When he collects, he collects the principal from encumbered property, and produce from unencumbered property.

What are the circumstances?

If you say, as it teaches,

according to the wording of the beraita before us, the matter is perplexing:

a robber -

from whom does he collect?!

Rather, is it not

necessarily referring

to a case in which he robbed

a person

of a field from another, sold it to someone else, and he enhanced it

the field, and it produced fully ripened produce [which no longer required the field]. In that case, the owner 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 property, and the produce, which in this case is the enhancement, from unencumbered property. This proves that the buyer does have the enhancement!

Rava said

In fact, it is not referring to a case in which the robber sold it to someone else. And when it teaches, “when he collects,” it is not referring to the robber, but to the owner.

And if you ask: Why does the owner need to collect the principal, meaning the land itself, from encumbered property? The land is before him, so let him take it as it is!

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

when it was

full of produce, consumed the produce, and dug in it [

in the field]

pits, trenches, and caves,

thereby reducing the value of the land.

The law is then as follows:

When

the

owner

comes to collect

the

principal

from the robber, meaning what the robber damaged in the land,

he collects from encumbered property.

And when

the owner comes to collect

the

produce -

he collects from unencumbered property [

because its amount is not fixed ].