Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) COMPENSATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS

(a) Question (Beraisa): Compensation for improvements: Yehudah stole David's field; when it is taken, he collects principal (what he paid) even from sold property, and improvements from unsold property.

1. Question: What is the case?

i. If as it says - who should pay the thief?!

2. Answer: Rather, Yehudah stole David's field and sold it to Moshe; who improved it.

(b) Answer (Rav Nachman): The Beraisa must be corrected - we can correct it to speak of a creditor!'
(c) Support (Beraisa): Evaluation of produce: Yehudah stole David's field; behold, it leaves his hand - he collects principal from sold property, and produce from unsold property.

1. Question: What is the case?

i. If as it says - who should pay the thief?!

2. Answer: Rather, Yehudah stole David's field and sold it to Moshe; who improved it.

(d) Rejection #1 (Rava): The case is, Yehudah stole David's field laden with produce; he ate the produce and dug pits in the field. David collects principle (the decreased value of the land on account of the pits) even from sold property, and the value of the produce from unsold property.
(e) Rejection #2 (Rabah bar Rav Huna): The case is, extortionists took the field from Yehudah (the thief). David collects principal (the value of the land) even from property that Yehudah sold, and the value of the produce from Yehudah's unsold property.

1. Rava did not say as Rabah - 'Behold, it leaves his hand' connotes, legally.
2. Rabah did not say as Rava - 'Behold, it leaves his hand' connotes, as it was originally.

(f) Rejection #2 (Rav Ashi): The laws of the Beraisa apply to different people: Yehudah stole David's field and sold it to Moshe; Moshe collects principal (what he paid) from Yehudah's sold property, David (gets back his field and) is compensated for produce from Yehudah's unsold property.
(g) Question: According to both Rava and Rabah bar Rav Huna, why does David collect from sold property - Yehudah's debt is as an oral loan (there is no document, people who bought from Yehudah did not know to beware)!
(h) Answer: The case is, before Yehudah sold his land, Beis Din ruled that Yehudah must pay (such a debt is as a loan with a document).
(i) Question: If so, also compensation for produce should be from sold property!
(j) Answer: Beis Din only ruled on the land itself, not on the produce.
(k) Question: The Beraisa did not specify - why should we assume it speaks of such a case?
(l) Answer: Normally, people first claim the principal before claiming produce
(m) Question: Does Shmuel really hold that one who buys from a thief is not compensated for improvements?

1. But Shmuel told Chinena bar Shilas to consult with the seller and to write in the document (that if the land is taken from the buyer, he will collect from the seller's) Idis, and for improvements, and for produce.
2. Question: In what case do these apply?

i. If when a creditor takes the land - but Shmuel said that a creditor receives improvements (implying - but not produce)!

3. Answer: Rather, when it is found that the seller had stolen the land!

(n) [Version #1 - Answer (Rav Yosef): The case is, the seller has land (with which he pays the buyer, so it looks like a sale, not like usury; Shmuel says that he pays for produce in this case).
(o) Question (Abaye): If the lender has land, does this permit lending a volume of wheat on condition to return the same volume? (This is forbidden, lest the price of wheat rises!)
(p) Answer (Rav Yosef): Lending is forbidden - here, he sold land.]
(q) [Version #2 - Answer (Rav Yosef): The case is, at the time of the sale the buyer acquired (through Chalipin) compensation for improvements (if the field will be taken from him - this does not look like usury).
(r) Question (Abaye): Does an initial Chalipin permit lending a Se'ah on condition to return a Se'ah?!
(s) Answer (Rav Yosef): Lending is forbidden - here, he sold land.]

(a) (Shmuel): A creditor collects improvements (on the land he collects).
(b) Support (Rava): Surely, this is true - a seller writes (in the sale document) 'I will silence any claims against this sale - the land, money invested in it and improvements'.
(c) Question (R. Chiya bar Avin): If so - by a gift, by which the giver does not write this, a creditor does not collect improvements?
(d) Answer (Rava): That is correct.
(e) Question (R. Chiya bar Aba): Does one who receives a gift have more privileges than one who buys?!
(f) Answer (Rava): Yes!
(g) Rav Nachman: A Beraisa supports Shmuel - but not the way Rav Huna establishes it.

1. (Beraisa): Reuven sold a field to Shimon; it was taken from Shimon - he collects principle from sold property, improvements from unsold property.
2. (Rav Huna): The case is, Reuven sold a field he stole.

(h) (Beraisa): Reuven sold a field to Shimon, who improved it; Reuven's creditor took it. If the increased value exceeds the expenditures - Shimon collects his expenditures from the creditor, and the increased value above his expenditures from Reuven;

1. If the expenditures exceed the improvements, the creditor pays Shimon the improvement.

(i) Question: How will Shmuel establish the Beraisa?

1. If the 'creditor' is really the true owner (i.e. Reuven stole the field) - but Shmuel says that one who buys from a thief is not compensated for improvements!
2. If it is a normal creditor - but Shmuel says that a creditor collects the improvements (without paying for them)!

(j) Answer #1: The 'creditor' is the true owner; Shimon collects improvements from the thief for one of the following reasons.

1. Answer #1A: Reuven has land.
2. Answer #1B: Shimon acquired compensation for improvements at the time of the sale.

(k) Answer #2: It is a normal creditor;

1. Shmuel says that a creditor must pay for improvements (produce) if they are almost ready to be harvested (Rashi - for then they are considered as produce; Tosfos - Shmuel says that he must pay for improvements that came through exertion).

(l) Question: But in many cases, Shmuel ruled that a creditor collects such improvements for free!
(m) Answer: That is when he was owed the value of the land and the improvements; not if he is only owned the value of the land.
(n) We can understand this according to the opinion that the creditor can collect the land even if the buyer wants to pay the debt and keep the land.
(o) Question: According to the opinion that if the buyer wants to pay the debt and keep the land, he can do so - he should be able to say, if I had money, you would not get the land - even now that I have no money, the improvements should be considered as money to pay part of the debt, and you must leave me land corresponding to the money!
(p) Answer: The case is, the land was an Apotiki, i.e. they stipulated that the loan will only be collected only from it.

(a) (Rav): Reuven bought a field from Shimon, even though he knew that Shimon had stolen it. He gets back what he paid, but not improvements.
(b) (Shmuel): He does not even get back what he paid.
(c) Question: On what do they argue?
(d) Answer: Rav says, Reuven intended that the money should be a deposit;

1. Question: If so, he should say that he gives a deposit!
2. Answer: He thinks that Shimon would not accept to guard it.

(e) Shmuel says, he gave the money as a gift.

1. Question: If so, he should say that he gives a gift!
2. Answer: No, that would embarrass Shimon.

(f) Question: They already argued by this - why must they argue by it again?

1. (Rav): Reuven was Mekadesh his sister with money - she must return the money;
2. (Shmuel): The money is a gift.

i. Rav says, Reuven intended that the money should be a deposit; he does not directly say this, because he thinks that she would not accept to guard it.
ii. Shmuel says, he gave the money as a gift; he does not directly say this, for this would embarrass her.

(g) We need to hear both cases.

1. If we only learned this Halachah with regard to stolen land - one might have thought, only there Rav says it is a deposit, for people normally don't give gifts to strangers - but he would admit, by his sister he gives a gift.
2. If we only learned this Halachah with regard to Kidushin - one might have thought, only there Shmuel says it is a gift - but by buying land he admits, for people normally don't give gifts to strangers.

(h) Question: According to both Rav and Shmuel - why may Reuven use the land and eat the produce?
(i) Answer: He reasons, I will use the land as the thief would have used it - when the owner comes, I will return the land; (and according to Rav, get back my money).
(j) (Rava): The law is, (one who buys a field without knowing that it was stolen) gets back his money and is compensated for improvements, even though he never stipulated;

1. If he knew that it was stolen, he gets back his money but not the improvements;
2. Achrayus (if omitted from a document) is a mistake of the scribe (and there is Achrayus), whether by a loan or sale.