Bava Metzia 15b — the Talmud in English

Here,

what we learned in the beraita, that the creditor gives the outlay, is speaking

of improvement ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

that reaches the shoulders.

That is, that the produce is ready to be harvested, except that it still requires the soil. This produce is considered fully developed produce, and a creditor does not collect it without paying the outlay.

But

here,

what Shmuel said, that a creditor collects the improvement and does not pay the outlay, is speaking

of improvement that does not reach the shoulders.

And we raise the difficulty:

but

we see

cases

of seizure of improvement in Shmuel’s court

every day, and Shmuel collects

all the improvement,

even improvement that reaches the shoulders!

Rather,

it is not difficult: this,

what Shmuel said, that a creditor collects the improvement, is speaking

when he is owed

a debt that is

the measure of the land and the improvement [the measure of the land and the improvement].

that is, equal to the value of the land and its improvement.

But

this,

what we learned in the beraita, that he does not collect the improvement, is speaking

when he is not owed

by the creditor

more than the measure of the land [that he is owed only the measure of the land],

that is, he is owed only the value of the land,

for

then the creditor seizes the land, and

gives him [returns to him]

the purchaser

his improvement,

for the improvement does not belong to him,

and removes him [and removes him from the field with this payment].

that is, removes him from the field through this payment.

And the reason the tanna stated the wording “and the outlay from the creditor,” and did not state, “he takes corresponding to the debt from the owner of the land, and the remainder [the improvement] from the creditor,” is to inform us that if the outlay was greater than the improvement, he takes from the improvement only corresponding to his expenses, and does not take the entire improvement.

And we raise a difficulty:

this works according to the one who says

that even

if he has money [if he has money]

that is, if he has money

the purchaser

to repay the debt,

he cannot remove the creditor

from the land by repaying the debt, but must give him the land, because the creditor has precedence—

properly.

It is understandable that in our case, where the land was improved and is now worth more than the debt, the creditor gives the purchaser money corresponding to the improvement, and the purchaser cannot demand land corresponding to the improvement, because the creditor argues against him: the entire land was mine, since it was mortgaged to me, and you descended upon it without permission!

But according to the one who says: when the purchaser has money—

he can remove the creditor, let him say to him

the purchaser to the creditor:

if I had money [if I had money]

corresponding to the value of the entire land—

I would remove you from the whole land [I would give it to you and remove you from the entire land].

that is, I would give it to you and remove you from the entire land.

Now that I do not have money—

give me a clod of land in the land, the measure of my improvement [give me a piece of land in the field, corresponding to the improvement that I produced], and take the rest of the land for your debt!

that is, give me a piece of land in the field equal to the improvement I made, and take the rest of the land in payment of your debt!”

And we resolve it:

what are we dealing with here—

for example, he made it

the borrower to the creditor [the field]

an apotiki. For he said to him: you shall have no repayment—

except from

the field

this one.

And since this is so, everyone agrees that the purchaser cannot remove him with money.

If he recognized it

the purchaser in the field

that it was not his [that it did not belong to the seller], but rather it was stolen in his possession,

that is, it did not belong to the seller, but was stolen and in his possession,

and

nevertheless

bought it,

and in the end it was seized from the purchaser, does he return and collect money from the seller, or not?

Rav said: the money

corresponding to what he paid for the land—

he has

the purchaser from the seller. But

improvement—

he does not have ,

because from the outset the land had not been acquired by him.

And Shmuel said: he does not even have the money.

In what do they disagree?

Rav holds: a person knows that he has no land,

that the land does not belong to the seller, and certainly it will be seized from him,

and resolved

in his mind

and gave

the money to the seller

as a deposit .

Therefore, now that they seized the field from him, he collects the deposit that he deposited with the seller.

And we raise a difficulty: if he intended to deposit it with the seller, why did he do so indirectly?

And let him say to him

explicitly that he was giving him the money

as a deposit!

And we explain:

he thought

the purchaser that if he gave it to him explicitly as a deposit,

he would not accept [the seller would not be willing to accept it from him],

because he did not want to guard another person’s property.

And Shmuel holds: a person knows that he has no land, and resolves and gives

the money

as a gift.

And we raise a difficulty:

and let him say to him

explicitly that he was giving him the money

as a gift!

And we explain:

the matter is embarrassing for him [the recipient is embarrassed]

to accept a gift explicitly. Therefore the purchaser was clever and gave him a gift in this manner, so that he would not understand that from the outset he intended to give the money as a gift.

And we raise a difficulty:

but they already disagreed about it

Rav and Shmuel concerning this matter

once!

For it was stated: concerning one who betroths his sister, Rav said:

since the betrothal does not take effect,

the money

of the betrothal

returns

to the betrother.

And Shmuel said:

The

the money

remains with the sister as

a gift.

And the explanation of their disagreement is:

Rav said: the money returns,

because

a person knows that betrothal does not take hold with his sister, and resolves and gives

her the money

as a deposit.

And let him say to her

that he is giving her money

as a deposit?

He thought: she would not accept it from him.

And Shmuel said:

The

the money is a gift,

because

a person knows that betrothal does not take hold with his sister, and resolves and gives

her the money

as a gift.

And let him say to her

that he is giving her money

as a gift!

It is embarrassing for her.

If so, for what purpose did Rav and Shmuel disagree in two places over the same disagreement?

And we resolve it:

it is necessary! For if it were stated

that their disagreement was only

in this,

in the case where he recognized that it was not his, we would have thought that specifically

in this Rav said

that the money is a deposit,

for

indeed

people do not customarily give gifts to a stranger [people do not customarily give gifts to non-Jews, to people who are not their relatives and acquaintances].

that is, people do not generally give gifts to those who are neither their relatives nor their acquaintances.

But concerning his sister, say that Rav concedes to

Rav

to Shmuel

that the money is a gift! Therefore it was necessary for Rav to say concerning one who betroths his sister that here too the money is a deposit.

And if it were stated in that one,

concerning one who betroths his sister, we would have thought that specifically

in that one Shmuel said

that the money is a gift, because it is customary for a person to give gifts to his relatives.

But in this,

in the case where he recognized that it was not his,

say that he concedes to Rav

that the money is not a gift, but a deposit; therefore

it is necessary [they needed to disagree in both matters].

that they disagree in both cases.

And we raise a difficulty: if this is indeed the reason for the disagreement of Rav and Shmuel, it is difficult:

both according to Rav who says

that the money is

a deposit, and according to Shmuel who says

that the money is

a gift, this

the purchaser,

with what right does he descend to the land [by what right does he descend to the land],

that is, by what right does he enter the land,

and how does he eat the produce [and how does he eat from its produce]? After all, he did not intend at all to acquire it!

that is, how does he consume its produce? After all, he did not intend to acquire it at all!

And we explain:

he thought

the purchaser in his heart:

I shall descend to the land, and work it [and work it],

that is, work it,

and eat within it [and eat from it],

that is, eat from it,

just as he had been working [as the robber had been doing until now].

that is, just as the robber had been working it until then.

And

when the owner of the land comes [and when the owner of the land comes and takes it from my possession], then

that is, when the owner of the land comes and takes it from my possession, then

my money will be [my money will be] with the seller as a deposit or a gift.

that is, my money will be with the seller as a deposit or a gift.

According to the

method of

Rav, who says

that a person intends to give his money as

a deposit—

the money will be

a deposit.

And

according to Shmuel, who says a gift—

a gift.

Rava said: The halakha: 1. He has the money and he has the improvement, even though he did not stipulate the improvement .

2.

If he recognized that it was not his, and bought it, he has the money; the improvement—

he does not have.

3.

Liability is a scribal error. Both in loan documents and in purchase-and-sale documents.

Shmuel asked Rav:

if

the robber returned

the robber

and bought it [the field]

the field

from the original owners

after he had sold it to the purchaser—

what is

the law, can he now remove the field from the purchaser, as the owners would have done, or not?

He said to him: What did the first one sell to the second [the robber]

the robber

to the second [to the purchaser]? Not only the field as it now is, but also

the purchaser? Not only the field as it presently was, but also

every right that would come into his possession

in the field afterward. And certainly when he later acquired it from the owners, he intended that the purchase remain established in the purchaser’s possession.

And we inquire about it: if so,

what is the reason?

Why did the robber return and acquire it from the owners?

Mar Zutra said: it was pleasing to him

in this manner, because

the purchaser would not call him a robber [so that the purchaser would not call him a robber when the dispossessed owner comes and seizes it from him].

that is, so that the purchaser would not call him a robber when the dispossessed owner came and seized the field from him.

Rav Ashi said: it was pleasing to him that he should stand by his trustworthiness [it was pleasing to him in order that he be considered a trustworthy person].

that is, it was preferable to him so that he would be considered a trustworthy person.

What difference is there between them?

There is a difference between them if the purchaser dies

after the robber acquired it from the owners. And now the robber comes to remove it from the purchaser’s sons.