## Bava Batra Daf 169a

###### Bava Batra 169a:1
[Bava Batra 169a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/169a:1)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 169a:2
[Bava Batra 169a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/169a:2)

אָמַר מָר: חוּץ מֵאַחְרָיוּת שֶׁבּוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Bava Batra 169a:3
[Bava Batra 169a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/169a:3)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Batra 169a:4
[Bava Batra 169a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/169a:4)

וְכֵיוָן דִּקְרַעְנֵיהּ לִשְׁטָרָא דְמַלְוֶה, בְּמַאי הָדַר טָרֵיף לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Bava Batra 169a:5
[Bava Batra 169a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/169a:5)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Bava Batra 169a:6
[Bava Batra 169a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/169a:6)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּקָאָתֵי מִכֹּחַ אֲבָהָתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 169a:7
[Bava Batra 169a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/169a:7)

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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 169a:8
[Bava Batra 169a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/169a:8)

אִם כֵּן, נְפִישִׁי עֲלֵיהּ בַּעֲלֵי דִינִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 169a:9
[Bava Batra 169a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/169a:9)

וְלִכְתּוֹב לְהַאי שְׁטָרָא מְעַלְּיָא, וְלִכְתּוֹב תְּבָרָא לְמוֹכֵר: ״כֹּל שְׁטָרֵי דְּיִפְּקוּן עַל אַרְעָא דָּא – פְּסוּלִין, לְבַר מִן דְּיִפּוֹק בְּזִמְנָא דָּא״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 169a:10
[Bava Batra 169a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/169a:10)

אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת, אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?