Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A THIEF THAT LATER BOUGHT THE FIELD

(a) Question (Shmuel): What if after buying from the thief, the thief bought it from the owner?
(b) Answer (Rav): One who sells, he sells all rights he will obtain in the matter (the buyer keeps it).
(c) Question: Why is this?
(d) Answer #1 (Mar Zutra): The thief does not want to be called a thief.
(e) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): A person wants to conduct his dealings faithfully.
(f) Question: What is the difference between the answers?
(g) Answer #1: If the buyer died.

1. There is no concern of being called a thief - but (Rav Ashi would say), he wants to conduct his dealings faithfully with the heirs.

(h) Rejection: If he does not justify himself, the heirs will call him a thief!
(i) Answer #2: The thief died.

1. He is not concerned about being called a thief after his death - but he wants that his dealings were faithful.

(j) Rejection: He does not want that people will call his children 'children of a thief'!
(k) Answer #3: He never sold the stolen field, rather he gave it as a gift.

1. There is no concern of being called a thief - but he wants to conduct his dealings faithfully

(l) (Reuven stole Levi's field and sold it to Shimon.) Obviously, if Reuven sold or gave it to Yehudah and then bought it from Levi, he did not buy it so Shimon should keep it (therefore, Shimon gets his money back, but not the land);

1. If Reuven inherited it - he did not do anything to show that he wants Shimon to keep it.
2. If Reuven collected the field as payment of a debt - if Levi had other fields and Reuven requested specifically this one, this shows that he wanted Shimon to keep it;

i. If this was Levi's only field, we have no such indication.

3. (Rav Acha or Ravina): If Levi gave it to Reuven as a gift - this is as an inheritance (Reuven did nothing);
4. (The other of Rav Acha and Ravina): If Levi gave it to Reuven as a gift - we assume that he requested this (to conduct his dealings faithfully).

(m) Question: Until how long will we assume that Reuven acted in order to conduct his dealings faithfully?
(n) Answer #1 (Rav Huna): Until Shimon brings him to trial.
(o) Answer #2 (Chiya bar Rav): Until Shimon receives an Adrachta.
(p) Answer #3 (Rav Papa): Until the days of announcing (that Beis Din is selling Reuven's property).

(a) Question (Rami bar Chama): (When we say that Reuven bought it for Shimon to keep) - how did Shimon acquire the field?

1. The document he received is worthless (Reuven did not own it at the time)!

(b) Answer (Rava): The case is, Shimon trusted Reuven to give him the field; with the pleasure that Shimon relies on him, Reuven transfers the field.
(c) Question (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa): Levi sold to Yehudah 'What I will inherit from my father' or 'what will be caught in my trap' -this is void;

1. If he said 'What I will inherit from my father today' or 'what will be caught in my trap today' -this is valid.
We learn that one cannot sell something wich is not yet in his possession

(d) Answer (Rava): By the stolen field, the buyer relied on the seller, he has Gemiras Da'as (the resolve needed for an acquisition); by inheritance, the buyer is not confident of receiving anything.

1. By the stolen field, the buyer relies on the seller to get the field for him so he will not be called a thief - this does not apply by inheritance.

(e) [Version #1 (Rashi) R. Aba bar Zavda: This question is too difficult, we cannot answer it.
(f) Rava: We can answer it (as above).]
(g) [Version #2 (Ga'onim) R. Aba bar Zavda: This is a simple question.
(h) Rava: It is very difficult!

1. By the stolen field, the buyer relied on the seller, by inheritance, he lacks resolve.]

(i) A case occurred in Pumbadisa. Rav Yosef said as R. Aba bar Zavda, Abaye said as Rava.
(j) Question: In the Beraisa of inheritance and the trap - what difference does it make when he says 'today'?
(k) Answer (R. Yochanan): The case when he says 'today' is that his father is about to die; he sells his inheritance in order to be able to honor his father with a proper burial;

1. By the trap, Chachamim enacted than the sale is valid to help the trapper support himself.

(l) (Rav Huna citing Rav): Reuven told Shimon 'The field I will buy - when I buy it, it is acquired to you from now' - Shimon acquires it.
(m) Rava: Presumably, this is when Reuven did not specify a particular field - if he did, Shimon would lack resolve, perhaps the seller will not want to sell it;

1. But I swear, Rav said this even by a specific field!
2. Rav rules in accordance with R. Meir, who says that a person can acquire something that is not yet in the world.

i. (Beraisa): Levi told Leah that she should be Mekudeshes to him (when this will be possible, i.e.): after he or she converts, or after he or she is freed, or when her husband or sister (if Levi is married to her sister) will die; or, after Leah does Chalitzah - even after this, she is not Mekudeshes;
ii. R. Meir says, she is Mekudeshes.

3. (Some cases of) a woman are like a field (e.g. her husband's death is beyond their control), yet R. Meir says that it takes effect!

(a) (Shmuel): One who finds a Hakna'ah document (that Shimon owes Reuven) should return it to Reuven.

1. We are not concerned that the loan was never given - Shimon obligated himself in any case!
2. We are not concerned that it was paid, for then Shimon would have torn it up.

(b) Rav Nachman: My father was a scribe in Shmuel's Beis Din; as a boy, I recall announcements that Hakna'ah documents found in the market should be returned to the lender.
(c) Support (Rav Anan - Mishnah): All documents of actions of Beis Din should be returned.

1. This shows that we are not concerned that they were paid.

(d) Rejection #1 (R. Zeira): The Mishnah speaks of Chaltasa documents (saying that a lender collected a field as payment), or Adrachta - payment does not apply to such documents.
(e) Objection (Rava): Payment applies to them!

1. (Chachamim of Nehardai): If Beis Din allowed a lender to collect a field as payment, the borrower can recover his field if he pays the debt within 1 year.
2. (Ameimar): I am from Nehardai - I hold, he can always redeem his field!

(f) Rejection #2 (Rava): By such documents, we are not concerned for payment - if the borrower later paid, he caused his own loss by not tearing the document, or demanding a document of (re)sale of his field from the lender.

1. Letter of the law, the lender need not return the field - Chachamim obligated him to return it on account of "You will do what is straight and good in the eyes of Hash-m";

i. This is as a new sale, it is fitting that a new document be written.

2. But by loan documents, perhaps the borrower is not at fault;

i. Perhaps the lender promised to return the document at his next opportunity, or was holding it until the borrower paid the scribe's fee!