Bava Metzia - Daf 15

• בעל חוב גובה את השבח

Shmuel said: בעל חוב גובה את השבח – the seller’s creditor collects the improvements the buyer made to the land and does not pay for them. Rava demonstrates this from the fact that the seller initially writes that he accepts to compensate the buyer for any loss of the field, his expenditures in the field, and its improvements. Because the buyer will be compensated for the improvements, the creditor can collect them without paying for them. Rav Chiya bar Avin asked Rava that if so, then regarding a gift, which does not usually include this guarantee, would we say that the creditor cannot collect the improvements, since the recipient will not be compensated for them? Rava agreed, and when Rav Chiya bar Avin asked him if it is possible that a gift’s strength should be greater than a sale’s, he replied: אין יפה ויפה – yes, it is definitely stronger regarding this law.

• One who bought property knowing the seller did not own it

The Gemara says: הכיר בה שאינה שלו ולקחה – if [the buyer] recognized that [the property] was not [the seller’s], Rav says: מעות יש לו שבח אין לו – he has a right to demand the money he paid for the property but does not have a right to compensation for improvements he made in the field. Shmuel says: אפילו מעות אין לו – he does not even have the right to demand the money he paid for it. Rav holds the buyer knows the sale is ineffective, and he gave the money to be a פקדון by the seller. He did not say so explicitly, because he thought the seller would not agree to guard it. Shmuel holds that because the buyer knows the sale is ineffective, we assume he gave the money as a gift to the seller (without saying so explicitly, because he thought the seller would not accept it). Rav and Shmuel argue similarly regarding money given as “kiddushin” to one’s sister, and the Gemara explains the novelty of each machlokes. The Gemara then explains how the buyer, who knows the seller did not own the field, takes the liberty to work it and consume its produce.

• If the robber purchased the field from the owner after “selling” it

Shmuel asked Rav: חזר ולקחה מבעלים הראשונים מהו – if [the robber], after “selling” the field, came back and purchased it from its original owner, what is the halachah? Can he take possession of the land from the purchaser, just like the legitimate owner could have done? He replied: מה מכר לו ראשון לשני – What did the first (the robber) sell to the second (the purchaser)? כל זכות שתבא לידו – Any right which will come into his possession. His subsequent purchase of the property was intended to obtain it for the purchaser. Two reasons are given. Mar Zutra says: ניחא ליה דלא נקרייה גזלנא – He wants that [the purchaser] should not call him a robber for selling him stolen land, so he bought it for him. Rav Ashi says: ניחא ליה דליקו בהמנותיה – he wants to keep his credibility. The Gemara eventually says a practical difference would be where he originally gave the stolen land as a gift to someone. Here, too, he would want to maintain his reputation for honesty, but he is not concerned about being called a robber, since he caused no loss to the recipient, who did not pay for it.