Bava Batra 169
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף שִׁטְרֵי מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר אֵין כּוֹתְבִין. וְכֵן הָיָה רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הַנּוֹתֵן מַתָּנָה לַחֲבֵרוֹ, וְהֶחְזִיר לוֹ אֶת הַשְּׁטָר – חָזְרָה מַתְּנָתוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מַתְּנָתוֹ קַיֶּימֶת.
The baraita continues: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The court may not write a replacement document even for deeds of buying and selling land. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says as well: With regard to one who gives a gift of land to another, and the recipient returned the deed to him, his gift of land returns to him as well. But the Rabbis say: His gift of land remains in the possession of the recipient.
אָמַר מָר: חוּץ מֵאַחְרָיוּת שֶׁבּוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא?
The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master says in the baraita: With regard to deeds of buying and selling land, the court may write a replacement document, excluding the guarantee that was in the first document. What is the reason that the guarantee may not be written?
אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין שְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת עַל שָׂדֶה אַחַת; דִּלְמָא אָזֵיל בַּעַל חוֹב טָרֵיף לֵיהּ לְהַאי, וְאָזֵיל הַאי וּמַפֵּיק חַד – וְטָרֵיף לָקוֹחוֹת, וְאָמַר לֵיהּ לְבַעַל חוֹב: ״שׁוּף לִי דְּאֵיקוּם בַּהּ, וַהֲדַר תָּא טִירְפַן״. וּמַפֵּיק אַחֲרִינָא, וַהֲדַר אָזֵיל טָרֵיף לָקוֹחוֹת אַחֲרִינֵי.
Rav Safra says: It is because the court may not write two deeds of sale for the same sale of one field, lest a creditor of the seller go and repossess the field sold to this purchaser, and that purchaser go and take out one deed, and in accordance with the guarantee clause of the sale, repossess land from other purchasers who purchased land from the same seller at a later date, and say to the creditor: Remain quiet [shof ] about this matter for a few years, while I become established in the property I repossessed. And then, come and claim your loan again, and then you will repossess this property from me. And then, after it is taken from him a second time, the purchaser will then take out the other document of sale, the replacement that the court had written for him, and then go and repossess land from other purchasers who purchased land from the same seller. In short, a replacement document with a guarantee will enable double collection on that guarantee.
וְכֵיוָן דִּקְרַעְנֵיהּ לִשְׁטָרָא דְמַלְוֶה, בְּמַאי הָדַר טָרֵיף לַהּ?
The Gemara asks with regard to Rav Safra’s scenario: How would it be possible for this to occur? But once the creditor repossessed the land the first time as payment of the debt, we, the court, tore the promissory note of the seller’s creditor; with what document could the creditor repossess the purchaser’s land again?
וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּלָא קְרַעְנֵיהּ, וְהָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כֹּל טִירְפָא דְּלָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״קְרַעְנֵיהּ לִשְׁטָרָא דְמַלְוֶה״ – לָאו טִירְפָא הוּא. וְכׇל אַדְרַכְתָּא דְּלָא כְּתִיב בַּהּ: ״קְרַעְנֵיהּ לְטִירְפָא״ – לָאו אַדְרַכְתָּא הִוא. וְכׇל שׁוּמָא דְּלָא כְּתִיב בַּיהּ: ״קְרַעְנֵיהּ לְאַדְרַכְתָּא״ – לָאו שׁוּמָא הִיא.
And if you would say that we did not tear the creditor’s promissory note in the course of the first collection, that cannot be. But doesn’t Rav Naḥman say that any document of authorization to repossess liened property from its purchaser in which it is not written: We have torn the creditor’s promissory note, is not a valid document of authorization to repossess liened property; and any document of authorization used to seize a debtor’s property in which it is not written: We have torn the creditor’s document of authorization to repossess liened property, is not a valid document of authorization; and any document of appraisal of an article’s value in which it is not written: We have torn the creditor’s document of authorization, is not a valid document of appraisal.
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּקָאָתֵי מִכֹּחַ אֲבָהָתֵיהּ.
The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to explain Rav Safra’s case as follows: The concern is not that a creditor will repossess the field, but that someone will come to repossess it based on his claim to the land as the property of his ancestors. That is, he proved that the field had belonged to his ancestors, and by extension belongs to himself as their heir, and the one who sold the field was in fact a thief. It was for this reason that he repossessed the field from the purchaser, and the concern is that the purchaser will seek reimbursement, as stipulated in the guarantee, from other property sold subsequently by the seller. If the purchaser has two deeds of sale with guarantees, he can collect payment twice.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: וּלְמָה לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר לֵיהּ לְבַעַל חוֹב: ״שׁוּף לִי בְּהַאי אַרְעָא וְאֵיקוּם בַּהּ״? תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּכֵיוָן דְּנָקֵיט תְּרֵי שְׁטָרֵי – טָרֵיף וַהֲדַר טָרֵיף!
The Gemara presents another question pertaining to Rav Safra’s case. Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: And why did Rav Safra have to include in his case that the purchaser will say to the creditor: Remain quiet about this matter for a few years while I become established in this land I repossessed, and then come and claim your loan again? Why did he devise a case in which the seller’s creditor collects payment twice? Let the problem derive from the fact that since the purchaser holds two deeds he will be able to repossess land based on his guarantee once and then repossess land again, even if the creditor does not collect his debt twice.
אִם כֵּן, נְפִישִׁי עֲלֵיהּ בַּעֲלֵי דִינִין.
Ravina answered: If so, if the purchaser attempts to repossess land twice based on a single repossession of the creditor, he will have too many litigants to deal with at once, and his dishonest dealings will be discovered.
וְלִכְתּוֹב לְהַאי שְׁטָרָא מְעַלְּיָא, וְלִכְתּוֹב תְּבָרָא לְמוֹכֵר: ״כֹּל שְׁטָרֵי דְּיִפְּקוּן עַל אַרְעָא דָּא – פְּסוּלִין, לְבַר מִן דְּיִפּוֹק בְּזִמְנָא דָּא״!
The Gemara asks further: But let the court write a proper bill of sale, one that includes a guarantee, for this purchaser, and then let the court write a receipt for the seller, stating: All documents that are issued with regard to the purchase of this field are not valid, except for the one issued on this date, referring to the replacement document written by the court. This will prevent double collection, as if the purchaser attempts to collect on his guarantee with a second document, the seller will foil this attempt by showing this receipt.
אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת, אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר.
The Rabbis said before Rav Pappa in response to this question, and some say it was said before Rav Ashi: Is that to say that the tanna of the baraita holds that in general the court does not write a receipt in such cases?
אֲמַר לְהוּ: בְּעָלְמָא כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר, וְהָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא – דְּדִלְמָא אָזֵיל בַּעַל חוֹב וְטָרֵיף מִינֵּיהּ דְּלוֹקֵחַ, וְאָזֵיל אִיהוּ וְטָרֵיף לָקוֹחוֹת, וְשׁוֹבָר גַּבֵּי לָקוֹחוֹת לֵיכָּא.
Rav Pappa or Rav Ashi said to them: Do not draw this conclusion. It is possible that the tanna of the baraita holds that generally the court writes a receipt when a creditor has lost his promissory note. And here, this is the reason that it does not write a receipt: As, perhaps the creditor, i.e., the one from whom the property was stolen, will go and repossess property from the purchaser who bought the stolen land, and the purchaser, seeking reimbursement in accordance with the guarantee, will go and repossess property from other purchasers who had later bought property from the same seller. And the receipt will not help, because it is not with the purchasers who bought property from the seller, but is in the possession of the seller himself. The purchasers, who are the ones who will suffer from the double collection, have no protection; they will in fact not even be aware that they are the victims of a double collection.
סוֹף סוֹף, לָקוֹחוֹת לָאו אַמָּרֵי דְאַרְעָא הָדְרִי?
The Gemara asks: Ultimately, don’t these purchasers go back to the owner, i.e., the seller, of the land to demand reimbursement? At that point the seller will produce the receipt, exposing the double collection, and the entire process will be reversed, so that ultimately the purchaser who suffered from the unjust collection will obtain possession of his property.
אַדְּהָכִי וְהָכִי שָׁמֵיט וְאָכֵיל פֵּירֵי.
The Gemara answers: While it is true that ultimately the deception will be discovered, in the interim, between the time the land was unjustly repossessed from the purchaser and the time when the injustice is reversed, the one who repossessed the land seizes the land and consumes its produce, i.e., he enjoys the profits produced by the land, and it will be difficult to receive full reimbursement for this stolen produce.
אִי נָמֵי, לְלוֹקֵחַ שֶׁלֹּא בְּאַחְרָיוּת.
Alternatively, the reason the option of writing a receipt for the seller of the land is not pursued here is that there is a concern about one who purchases land without a guarantee. As such a purchaser knows that he has no recourse to be reimbursed from the seller if the land he bought is repossessed, he will never contact the seller and discover that the seller has a receipt and that he has been the victim of an unjust double collection.
אִי הָכִי, שְׁטָרֵי הַלְוָאָה נָמֵי!
The Gemara asks: If so, the same concern should be taken into consideration in the case of promissory notes as well. And yet Rav Pappa, or Rav Ashi, said that the tanna of the baraita concedes that a receipt may be written for the debtor to enable the collection of a debt in the event of the loss of the promissory note. Why are the aforementioned concerns not applicable to the case of debt collection?
הָתָם, דְּזוּזֵי מַסֵּיק – אָמְרִי: פַּיְּיסֵיהּ בַּעַל חוֹב בְּזוּזֵי. הָכָא, דְּאַרְעָא מַסֵּיק – מִידָּע יָדְעִי דְּמַאן דְּמַסֵּיק אַרְעָא, בְּזוּזֵי לָא מִפַּיַּיס.
The Gemara answers: There, where the debtor owes money, when the creditor seeks to repossess sold land, the purchaser of that land will say to himself: There is a possibility that the debtor appeased the creditor by paying him money, since debts are usually settled with money. I will therefore investigate the matter with the debtor before allowing the creditor to repossess my land. At that point the receipt, held by the debtor, will be discovered, and double collection will be prevented. Here, where he owes land, as the issue is that the claim is based on reimbursement for having bought stolen land, the purchaser knows that it is not common for one who is owed land to be appeased with money in such cases. The purchaser will therefore allow his land to be repossessed and will seek reimbursement at a later time.
אָמַר מָר: חוּץ מִן הָאַחְרָיוּת שֶׁבּוֹ. הֵיכִי כָּתְבִינַן? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, דְּכָתְבִי הָכִי: ״שְׁטָרָא דְּנַן דְּלָא לְמִיגְבֵּי בֵּיהּ לָא מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי וְלָא מִבְּנֵי חָרֵי, אֶלָּא כִּי הֵיכִי דְּתֵיקוּם אַרְעָא בִּידֵיהּ דְּלוֹקֵחַ״.
§ The Gemara returns to the baraita and analyzes one of its statements. The Master says in the baraita: With regard to deeds of buying and selling land, the court may write a replacement document, excluding the guarantee that was in the first document that if the field is repossessed the seller will compensate the purchaser for his loss. How do we write a bill of sale in such a way that it does not include this guarantee? Rav Naḥman said that the case is one in which the court writes as follows: Our deed is not intended to enable the collection of reimbursement in event of repossession, neither collection from liened property that has been sold nor collection from unsold property; rather, it is intended merely to ensure that the land is established in the possession of the purchaser.
אָמַר רַפְרָם, זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת: אַחְרָיוּת – טָעוּת סוֹפֵר הוּא; טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב לֵיהּ הָכִי, הָא לָא כְּתַב לֵיהּ הָכִי – גָּבֵי.
Rafram says: This statement of Rav Naḥman serves to say that the omission of the guarantee of the sale from a document is a scribal error. That is, it is assumed that when one purchases land he expects to have his purchase guaranteed, and that if such a clause is not stated in the document it is presumed to be a mere scribal oversight, and a guarantee is in effect. Rav Naḥman said, in explaining the baraita, that the only reason a land purchase would not have a guarantee is that the scribe wrote this for him, i.e., he wrote that there is no guarantee, explicitly in the deed; this indicates that if the scribe did not write this explicitly for the purchaser, but left out the subject of the guarantee altogether, the purchaser would nevertheless have the guarantee and would be able to collect reimbursement from the seller in the event of repossession.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אַחְרָיוּת – לָאו טָעוּת סוֹפֵר הוּא, וּמַאי ״חוּץ מֵאַחְרָיוּת שֶׁבּוֹ״ – דְּלָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ אַחְרָיוּת.
Rav Ashi disagrees and says: The omission of the guarantee of the sale from a document is not a scribal error. Accordingly, if mention of a guarantee is omitted from a bill of sale, there is in fact no guarantee. And what does the baraita mean when it says: Excluding the guarantee that was in the first document? It means simply that in this case there was no clause about a guarantee written in it at all.
הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא דִּיהַבָה לֵיהּ זוּזֵי לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא לְמִיזְבַּן לַהּ אַרְעָא, אֲזַל זְבַן לַהּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּאַחְרָיוּת. אָתְיָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן,
The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who gave money to a certain man to act as her agent and purchase land for her. The agent went and purchased land for her, but he conducted the purchase in such a way that it was without a guarantee. The woman wanted to take action against the agent and came before Rav Naḥman to ask what recourse she had.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לְתַקּוֹנֵי שַׁדַּרְתָּיךָ, וְלָא לְעַוּוֹתֵי. זִיל זִבְנַהּ מִינֵּיהּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּאַחְרָיוּת, וַהֲדַר זַבְּנַהּ נִיהֲלַהּ בְּאַחְרָיוּת״.
Rav Naḥman said to the agent: The principle with regard to an agent is that if he acts to the detriment of the one who appointed him, the one who appointed him can say: I sent you to act for my benefit and not to my detriment. Therefore, the entire agency is null and void, thereby negating the purchase. Nevertheless, you agreed to purchase the land without a guarantee. Therefore, go yourself and purchase the land from him without a guarantee, and then sell it to this woman with a guarantee that you will reimburse her in the event the land is repossessed.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הַנּוֹתֵן מַתָּנָה לַחֲבֵירוֹ, וְהֶחְזִיר לוֹ אֶת הַשְּׁטָר – חָזְרָה מַתְּנָתוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מַתְּנָתוֹ קַיֶּימֶת. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל? אָמַר רַב אַסִּי, נַעֲשָׂה כְּאוֹמֵר לוֹ: שָׂדֶה זוֹ נְתוּנָה לְךָ כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהַשְּׁטָר בְּיָדְךָ.
§ The baraita teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In the case of one who gives a gift of land to another, and the recipient returned the deed to him, his gift of land returns to him as well. But the Rabbis say: His gift of land remains in the possession of the recipient. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? Rav Asi says: It becomes as if the giver said to the recipient: This field is given to you only as long as the deed remains in your possession. Therefore, by returning the deed to the giver, the recipient is canceling the gift.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבָּה: אִי הָכִי, נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד נָמֵי!
Rabba objects to this: If that is so that these are the conditions of the gift, then when the deed is stolen from or lost by the recipient, the gift should also be canceled.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה: בְּאוֹתִיּוֹת נִקְנוֹת בִּמְסִירָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי – רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: אוֹתִיּוֹת נִקְנוֹת בִּמְסִירָה, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: אֵין אוֹתִיּוֹת נִקְנוֹת בִּמְסִירָה.
Rather, Rabba said a different explanation: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis disagree about whether or not the letters, i.e., the contents of a promissory note, are acquired by merely transferring the document from one holder of the document to another. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the letters are acquired by transferring the document. Therefore, if the recipient returns the bill of sale to the giver, the land returns to the giver as well. And the Rabbis hold that the letters are not acquired by transferring the document.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַבָּא לִידּוֹן בִּשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה, נִידּוֹן בִּשְׁטָר; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: בַּחֲזָקָה.
The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to one who comes to court to be judged over a claim that land that is in his possession belongs to another, if he claims ownership based on a deed, i.e., a bill of sale, and claims further that he is the owner based on presumptive ownership of the land, as it was in his uncontested possession for three years, and he therefore does not need the deed as proof, his claim is judged based on the deed. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: His claim is judged based on his presumptive ownership.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר: בְּאוֹתִיּוֹת נִקְנוֹת בִּמְסִירָה קָא מִיפַּלְגִי –
The Gemara analyzes the baraita: With regard to what do Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagree? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: They disagree about whether or not letters are acquired by transferring the document from one holder of the document to another.
