Bava Metzia 15b (טו:) — the Talmud in English

Here,

the statement that we learned in the beraita, that the creditor must pay the expenses, is referring to

produce

precise page location

that has reached the stage when it can be carried on the shoulders.

That is, the produce is ready to be harvested , but it still requires the soil. Such produce is considered fully developed produce, and a creditor may not collect it without paying the expenses .

Whereas

here,

the statement of Shmuel that a creditor collects the appreciation without paying the expenses is referring to

appreciation that has not reached the stage when it can be carried on the shoulders.

We raise an objection:

But

we see

cases

like these, in which appreciation is seized, in Shmuel’s court,

every day, and Shmuel collects

all the appreciation,

even appreciation that has reached the stage when it can be carried on the shoulders!

Rather,

this is not difficult: Here,

the statement of Shmuel that a creditor collects the appreciation is referring to a case

where he is owed a debt

a debt that is

equivalent to the value of the land and its appreciation that is, equivalent to the value of the land and the appreciation.

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

Whereas

there,

the statement that we learned in the beraita, that he does not collect the appreciation, is referring to a case

where the lender is owed

by the borrower

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

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

For

then the creditor seizes the land, and

he gives him returns to the purchaser

that is, returns to the purchaser

its appreciation,

since the appreciation is not owed to him,

and removes him from it removes him from the field through this payment.

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

And the reason the tanna stated: “and the expenses from the creditor,” rather than stating: “He takes from the owner of the land an amount corresponding to the debt, and the remainder [the appreciation] from the creditor,” is to teach us that if the expenses exceeded the appreciation, he takes from the appreciation only an amount corresponding to his expenses, and he does not take all the appreciation.

We challenge this:

This works according to the one who says

that even

if he has money if the purchaser has money

that is, if he has money

to

repay the debt,

he cannot remove the creditor

from the land by repaying the debt; rather, he must give him the land, because the creditor has priority—is that

well.

It is understandable that in our case, where the land appreciated and is now worth more than the debt, the creditor gives the purchaser money corresponding to the appreciation, and the purchaser cannot claim land equivalent to the appreciation, because the creditor can argue to him: The entire land was mine, as it was liened to me, and you entered it without authorization!

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 equal to the value of the entire land,

equal to the value of the entire land,

I would remove you from the entire 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 plot of land within the field equal to my appreciation give me a piece of land in the field equal to the appreciation 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!”

We answer:

What are we dealing with here?

For example, he made it

the borrower made the field for the creditor

an apotiki, saying to him: “You shall have repayment

only from

this field

.”

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

If he recognized it

the purchaser recognized the field

as not belonging to him as not belonging to the seller, but as having been stolen and being in his possession,

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

and

nevertheless

purchased it,

and it was ultimately 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

for the purchaser from the seller. But

the appreciation—

he does not have it ,

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

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

With regard to what do they disagree?

Rav holds: A person knows that he does not own land,

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

and he resolved

in his mind

and gave

the money to the seller

as a deposit .

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

We object: If he intended to deposit it with the seller, why did he do so indirectly?

Let him say to him

explicitly that he is giving him the money

as a deposit!

We explain:

He reasoned

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

he would not accept it the seller would not be willing to accept it from him, since he does not want to safeguard another person’s money.

that is, the seller would not be willing to accept it from him, because he did not want to safeguard another person’s money.

And Shmuel holds: A person knows that he does not own land, and he resolved and gave

the money

as a gift.

We object:

Let him say to him

explicitly that he is giving him the money

as a gift!

We explain:

He would be embarrassed by the matter the recipient is embarrassed to accept a gift explicitly. Therefore, the purchaser cleverly gave him the gift in this manner, so that he would not realize that from the outset he intended to give him the money as a gift.

that is, the recipient would be embarrassed to accept a gift explicitly. Therefore, the purchaser cleverly gave him the gift in this manner, so that he would not understand that from the outset he intended to give him the money as a gift.

We challenge this:

But they already disagreed about this

Rav and Shmuel in this matter

once!

As it was stated: With regard to 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

money

remains with the sister as a

gift.

And the explanation of their dispute is:

Rav said: The money returns,

because

a person knows that betrothal does not take effect with his sister, and he resolved and gave

her the money

as a deposit.

Let him say to her

that he is giving her money

as a deposit?

He reasoned: She would not accept it from him.

And Shmuel said: The

money is

a gift, because

a person knows that betrothal does not take effect with his sister, and he resolved and gave

her the money

as a gift.

Let him say to her

that he is giving her money

as a gift!

She would be embarrassed by the matter.

She would be embarrassed by the matter.

If so, why did Rav and Shmuel disagree in two places over the same dispute?

We answer:

It is necessary. For if their dispute had been stated

only

in this case,

where he recognized that it did not belong to him, we would have thought that specifically

in this case Rav said

that the money is a deposit,

for

after all,

people do not ordinarily give gifts to a stranger people do not ordinarily give gifts to non-Jews, to people who are not their relatives or acquaintances.

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

But with regard to his sister, say that Rav concedes

Rav

to Shmuel

that the money is a gift! Therefore, it was necessary for Rav to state, with regard to one who betroths his sister, that here too the money is a deposit.

And if their dispute had been stated in that case,

with regard to one who betroths his sister, we would have thought that specifically

in that case Shmuel said

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

But in this case,

where he recognized that it did not belong to him,

say that he concedes to Rav

that the money is not a gift but a deposit. Therefore,

it is necessary for them to disagree in both matters.

that they disagree in both cases.

We challenge this: If this is indeed the reason for the dispute between Rav and Shmuel, it is difficult:

According to both Rav, who says

that the money is a

deposit, and Shmuel, who says

that the money is a

gift, this

purchaser,

by what right does he enter the land with what legal basis does he enter the land,

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

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

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

We explain:

He reasoned

the purchaser in his heart:

I will enter the land and work it and cultivate it,

that is, work it,

and eat from it and consume its produce,

that is, eat from it,

just as he had been doing as the robber had been doing until then .

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

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

with the seller as either a deposit or a gift.

According to the position of

the

Rav who said

that a person intends to give his money as a

deposit—the money will be

a

deposit. And

according to Shmuel, who said that it is a gift—it will be a

gift.

A gift.

Rava said: The halakha is: a. He has the money and he has the appreciation, even though he did not explicitly stipulate the appreciation .

b.

If he recognized that it was not his and purchased it, he has the money; the appreciation—

he does not have it.

c.

The guarantee of liability is an omission of the scribe, both in loan documents and in documents of sale and purchase.

Shmuel asked Rav:

If

the robber returned

the robber

and purchased 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 seller sell him the robber

the robber

to the second to the purchaser? Not only the field as it currently was, but also

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

every right that would subsequently come into his possession

in the field. And certainly, when he subsequently purchased it from the owners, he intended that the sale remain in force for the purchaser .

We inquire: If so,

what is the reason?

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

Mar Zutra said: It was pleasing to him

to do so, because

he did not want the purchaser to call him a robber so that the purchaser would not call him a robber when the dispossessed owner came and seized 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 uphold his trustworthiness it was advantageous to him, so that he would be considered a trustworthy person.

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

What is the difference between them?

The difference between them is a case where the purchaser dies

after the robber purchased it from the owners . And now the robber comes to remove it from the purchaser’s heirs.