## Bava Batra Daf 157a

###### Bava Batra 157a:1
[Bava Batra 157a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/157a:1)

אוֹמֵר: בַּחוֹל אָמְרוּ, וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר לַשַּׁבָּת. כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ – זָכִין לַגָּדוֹל, וְאֵין זָכִין לַקָּטָן; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: בְּגָדוֹל אָמְרוּ, קַל וָחוֹמֶר לַקָּטָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**says: With regard to weekdays** the Sages **stated** that the verbal instruction of person on his deathbed is valid, even though it is permitted to write. **And** one may infer ***a fortiori*** that the same applies **with regard to Shabbat,** when writing is prohibited. **Similarly, one can acquire** property **on behalf of an adult,** as he is able to effect acquisition himself, **but one cannot acquire** property **on behalf of a minor;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says:** The Sages **stated** this *halakha* **with regard to an adult,** even though he can effect acquisition himself. One may infer ***a fortiori*** that this also applies **with regard to a minor,** who cannot effect acquisition himself.


###### Bava Batra 157a:2
[Bava Batra 157a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/157a:2)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בַּשַּׁבָּת – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִכְתּוֹב; אֲבָל לֹא בַּחוֹל. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: בַּשַּׁבָּת אָמְרוּ, קַל וָחוֹמֶר בַּחוֹל. כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ – זָכִין לַקָּטָן וְאֵין זָכִין לַגָּדוֹל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לַקָּטָן אָמְרוּ, קַל וָחוֹמֶר לַגָּדוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda says that Rabbi Eliezer says: On Shabbat,** the verbal **statement of** a person on his deathbed **stands due to** the fact **that he cannot write. But** a verbal instruction does **not stand on a weekday. Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to Shabbat** the Sages **stated** that his verbal instruction stands, even though writing is prohibited. One may infer ***a fortiori*** that the same applies **with regard to a weekday,** when writing is permitted. **Similarly, one can acquire** property **on behalf of a minor, but one cannot acquire** property **on behalf of an adult,** since he can effect the acquisition himself; this is **the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says:** The Sages **stated** this *halakha* **with regard to a minor,** and one may infer ***a fortiori*** that this also applies **with regard to an adult.**


###### Bava Batra 157a:3
[Bava Batra 157a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/157a:3)

**מַתְנִי׳** נָפַל הַבַּיִת עָלָיו וְעַל אָבִיו, אוֹ עָלָיו וְעַל מוֹרִישָׁיו, וְהָיְתָה עָלָיו כְּתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה וּבַעַל חוֹב, יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב אוֹמְרִים: הַבֵּן מֵת רִאשׁוֹן, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת הָאָב; וּבַעֲלֵי הַחוֹב אוֹמְרִים: הָאָב מֵת רִאשׁוֹן, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת הַבֵּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **A house collapsed on** a son **and upon his father, or upon** a certain person **and upon those** from **whom he stands to inherit,** and it is unknown who died first. If the son **bore** the responsibility to pay the **marriage contract of** his **wife and** to pay **a creditor,** and the son had no money with which to pay them except that which he might inherit from his father, and **the father’s heirs say: The son died first and afterward the father died,** and therefore the son did not inherit property from his father, **and the creditors say: The father died first and afterward the son died,** resulting in the son’s inheriting his father’s property, enabling the creditors to collect payment from the property even after the son’s death, there is a dispute with regard to how to rule.


###### Bava Batra 157a:4
[Bava Batra 157a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/157a:4)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: יַחְלוֹקוּ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: נְכָסִים בְּחֶזְקָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since it cannot be determined who died first, **Beit Shammai say: They divide** the property between them so that the father’s heirs receive half of his property and the son’s creditors receive the other half. **And Beit Hillel say:** The **property** retains **its** previous ownership **status.** Since the last known owner of the property was the father, the property is given to the father’s heirs.


###### Bava Batra 157a:5
[Bava Batra 157a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/157a:5)

**גְּמָ׳** תְּנַן הָתָם: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ בִּשְׁטָר – גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים. עַל יְדֵי עֵדִים – גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **We learned** in a mishna **elsewhere** (175a): **One who lends** money **to another with** a promissory **note can collect** the debt even **from liened property** that has been sold. If one lends money only **with witnesses, he can collect** the debt only **from unsold property.**


###### Bava Batra 157a:6
[Bava Batra 157a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/157a:6)

בָּעֵי שְׁמוּאֵל: ״דְּאִיקְנֵי״, וְקָנָה; מַהוּ? אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם – לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּוַדַּאי קָנָה. אֶלָּא כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ – אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: אֵין אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel raises a dilemma:** If the borrower wrote in the promissory note: The property **that I will acquire** in the future shall be liened to this debt, **and he** subsequently **acquired** property, **what is** the *halakha*? Is the property liened or not? The Gemara clarifies the dilemma: **According to** the opinion **of Rabbi Meir, who says: A person can transfer** ownership of **an entity that has not** yet **come into the world, you should not raise the dilemma, as** the lender **certainly acquires,** i.e., places a lien, on the property. **Rather, when should you raise the dilemma?** Raise it **according to** the opinion **of the Rabbis, who say: A person cannot transfer** ownership of **an entity that has not** yet **come into the world.**


###### Bava Batra 157a:7
[Bava Batra 157a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/157a:7)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: תָּא שְׁמַע, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: זֶה הָיָה פִּיקֵּחַ שֶׁמָּכַר לוֹ אֶת הַקַּרְקַע, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לְמַשְׁכְּנוֹ עָלָיו!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said: Come** and **hear** proof from a mishna (*Ketubot* 110a): If one produces a promissory note against another, and the borrower produced a bill of sale dated after the promissory note that states that the lender sold him a field of his, Admon says that the borrower can say: Were I really indebted to you, you should have collected the loan when you sold me the field. **And the Rabbis say:** This does not prove anything. It is possible that **this** lender **was perspicacious, as he sold** the borrower **the land** for a good reason, **because** now **he can take** the field **as collateral from him** in lieu of the outstanding loan. This mishna indicates that even property acquired by the borrower after the promissory note is written is liened.


###### Bava Batra 157a:8
[Bava Batra 157a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/157a:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מִינֵּיהּ קָאָמַר?! מִינֵּיהּ – אֲפִילּוּ מִגְּלִימָא דְּעַל כַּתְפֵּיהּ! כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן, ״דְּאִיקְנֵי״ – קָנָה וּמָכַר, ״דְּאִיקְנֵי״ – קָנָה וְהוֹרִישׁ, מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to** Rav Yosef: **Do** you **speak** of a case where the debt is collected **from** the debtor? With regard to collecting the debt **from him,** the debt is collected from any property currently in his possession, **even from** the **cloak that is upon his shoulders. When the dilemma was raised to us,** it was with regard to a case where the borrower wrote: The property **that I will acquire** shall be liened, and he subsequently **acquired** property **and sold** it to others. The dilemma also pertains to a case where the borrower wrote: The property **that I will acquire** shall be liened, and he subsequently **acquired** property **and bequeathed** it to his heirs. In these cases, **what** is the *halakha*? Can the lender repossess the property from the buyer or heir?


###### Bava Batra 157a:9
[Bava Batra 157a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/157a:9)

אָמַר רַב חָנָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: נָפַל הַבַּיִת עָלָיו וְעַל אָבִיו, עָלָיו וְעַל מוֹרִישָׁיו; וְהָיְתָה עָלָיו כְּתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה וּבַעַל חוֹב; יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב אוֹמְרִים: הַבֵּן מֵת רִאשׁוֹן וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת הָאָב, וּבַעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת אוֹמְרִים: הָאָב מֵת רִאשׁוֹן כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥana said: Come** and **hear** a proof from the mishna: In a case where **the house collapsed on** a son **and upon his father, or upon** a certain person **and upon those** from **whom he stands to inherit,** and it is unknown who died first, the *halakha* depends on the circumstances. If the son **bore** the responsibility to pay the **marriage contract of** his **wife and** to pay **a creditor,** and the son had no money with which to pay them except that which he might inherit from his father, and **the father’s heirs say: The son died first and afterward the father died,** and therefore the son did not inherit property from his father, **and the creditors say: The father died first** and afterward the son died, there is a dispute with regard to how to rule. In this case, the creditors claim that the son inherited his father’s property, and therefore they have a lien upon the property.


###### Bava Batra 157a:10
[Bava Batra 157a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/157a:10)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ ״דְּאִיקְנֵי״ – קָנָה וּמָכַר, ״דְּאִיקְנֵי״– קָנָה וְהוֹרִישׁ, לָא מִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד; נְהִי נָמֵי דְּאָב מָיֵת בְּרֵישָׁא, ״דְּאִיקְנֵי״ הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **And if it enters your mind** to say that when the borrower writes: The property **that I will acquire** shall be liened, and he **acquires** property **and sells** it to others, it is not liened, and that when he writes: The property **that I will acquire** shall be liened, and he **acquires** property **and bequeaths** it to his heirs, **it is not liened,** then the mishna is difficult. **Although the father indeed died first,** this case **is** comparable to one where the borrower writes: The property **that I will acquire** shall be liened, as the son acquired the property after receiving the loan. This indicates that a lien can be placed upon property that one will acquire in the future.


###### Bava Batra 157a:11
[Bava Batra 157a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/157a:11)

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב נַחְמָן, זְעֵירָא חַבְרִין תַּרְגְּמַהּ: מִצְוָה עַל הַיְּתוֹמִים לִפְרוֹעַ חוֹבַת אֲבִיהֶן. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: מִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה הוּא, וְרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה – אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה לֹא מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין וְלֹא מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said to** the Sages: Rabbi **Zeira, our colleague, interpreted** the mishna as follows: In this case, the creditors do not claim the property because it is liened. Rather, they claim it because it is **a mitzva** incumbent **upon the orphans to repay their father’s debt. Rav Ashi objects to this:** If the promissory note does not place a lien on the property, **this is** considered **a loan by oral** agreement, **and Rav and Shmuel both say: A loan by oral** agreement **cannot be collected, neither from the heirs nor from the buyers.**