## Bava Batra Daf 169b

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

אֲמַר לְהוּ: בְּעָלְמָא כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר, וְהָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא – דְּדִלְמָא אָזֵיל בַּעַל חוֹב וְטָרֵיף מִינֵּיהּ דְּלוֹקֵחַ, וְאָזֵיל אִיהוּ וְטָרֵיף לָקוֹחוֹת, וְשׁוֹבָר גַּבֵּי לָקוֹחוֹת לֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa or Rav Ashi **said to** them: Do not draw this conclusion. It is possible that the *tanna* of the *baraita* holds that **generally** the court **writes a receipt** when a creditor has lost his promissory note. **And here, this is the reason** that it does not write a receipt: **As, perhaps the creditor,** i.e., the one from whom the property was stolen, will **go and repossess** property **from the purchaser** who bought the stolen land, **and** the purchaser, seeking reimbursement in accordance with the guarantee, will **go and repossess** property from other **purchasers** who had later bought property from the same seller. **And the receipt** will not help, because it **is not with the purchasers** who bought property from the seller, but is in the possession of the seller himself. The purchasers, who are the ones who will suffer from the double collection, have no protection; they will in fact not even be aware that they are the victims of a double collection.


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

סוֹף סוֹף, לָקוֹחוֹת לָאו אַמָּרֵי דְאַרְעָא הָדְרִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Ultimately, don’t** these **purchasers go back to the owner,** i.e., the seller, **of the land** to demand reimbursement? At that point the seller will produce the receipt, exposing the double collection, and the entire process will be reversed, so that ultimately the purchaser who suffered from the unjust collection will obtain possession of his property.


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

אַדְּהָכִי וְהָכִי שָׁמֵיט וְאָכֵיל פֵּירֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: While it is true that ultimately the deception will be discovered, **in the interim,** between the time the land was unjustly repossessed from the purchaser and the time when the injustice is reversed, the one who repossessed the land **seizes** the land **and consumes** its **produce,** i.e., he enjoys the profits produced by the land, and it will be difficult to receive full reimbursement for this stolen produce.


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

אִי נָמֵי, לְלוֹקֵחַ שֶׁלֹּא בְּאַחְרָיוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** the reason the option of writing a receipt for the seller of the land is not pursued here is that there is a concern **about one who purchases** land **without a guarantee.** As such a purchaser knows that he has no recourse to be reimbursed from the seller if the land he bought is repossessed, he will never contact the seller and discover that the seller has a receipt and that he has been the victim of an unjust double collection.


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

אִי הָכִי, שְׁטָרֵי הַלְוָאָה נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** the same concern should be taken into consideration in the case of **promissory notes as well.** And yet Rav Pappa, or Rav Ashi, said that the *tanna* of the *baraita* concedes that a receipt may be written for the debtor to enable the collection of a debt in the event of the loss of the promissory note. Why are the aforementioned concerns not applicable to the case of debt collection?


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

הָתָם, דְּזוּזֵי מַסֵּיק – אָמְרִי: פַּיְּיסֵיהּ בַּעַל חוֹב בְּזוּזֵי. הָכָא, דְּאַרְעָא מַסֵּיק – מִידָּע יָדְעִי דְּמַאן דְּמַסֵּיק אַרְעָא, בְּזוּזֵי לָא מִפַּיַּיס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There, where** the debtor **owes money,** when the creditor seeks to repossess sold land, the purchaser of that land **will say** to himself: There is a possibility that the debtor **appeased the creditor by** paying him **money,** since debts are usually settled with money. I will therefore investigate the matter with the debtor before allowing the creditor to repossess my land. At that point the receipt, held by the debtor, will be discovered, and double collection will be prevented. **Here, where he owes land,** as the issue is that the claim is based on reimbursement for having bought stolen land, the purchaser **knows that** it is **not** common for one **who** is **owed land** to be **appeased with money** in such cases. The purchaser will therefore allow his land to be repossessed and will seek reimbursement at a later time.


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

אָמַר מָר: חוּץ מִן הָאַחְרָיוּת שֶׁבּוֹ. הֵיכִי כָּתְבִינַן? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, דְּכָתְבִי הָכִי: ״שְׁטָרָא דְּנַן דְּלָא לְמִיגְבֵּי בֵּיהּ לָא מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי וְלָא מִבְּנֵי חָרֵי, אֶלָּא כִּי הֵיכִי דְּתֵיקוּם אַרְעָא בִּידֵיהּ דְּלוֹקֵחַ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to the *baraita* and analyzes one of its statements. **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 that if the field is repossessed the seller will compensate the purchaser for his loss. **How do we write** a bill of sale in such a way that it does not include this guarantee? **Rav Naḥman said** that the case is one in **which** the court **writes as follows: Our deed is not** intended **to enable** the **collection** of reimbursement in event of repossession, **neither** collection **from liened** property that has been sold **nor** collection **from unsold** property; **rather,** it is intended merely to ensure **that the land is established in the possession of the purchaser.**


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

אָמַר רַפְרָם, זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת: אַחְרָיוּת – טָעוּת סוֹפֵר הוּא; טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב לֵיהּ הָכִי, הָא לָא כְּתַב לֵיהּ הָכִי – גָּבֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rafram says: This** statement of Rav Naḥman serves **to say** that the omission of the **guarantee** of the sale from a document **is a scribal error.** That is, it is assumed that when one purchases land he expects to have his purchase guaranteed, and that if such a clause is not stated in the document it is presumed to be a mere scribal oversight, and a guarantee is in effect. Rav Naḥman said, in explaining the *baraita*, that **the** only **reason** a land purchase would not have a guarantee **is that** the scribe **wrote this for him,** i.e., he wrote that there is no guarantee, explicitly in the deed; **this** indicates that if the scribe **did not write this** explicitly **for** the purchaser, but left out the subject of the guarantee altogether, the purchaser **would** nevertheless have the guarantee and would be able to **collect** reimbursement from the seller in the event of repossession.


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

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אַחְרָיוּת – לָאו טָעוּת סוֹפֵר הוּא, וּמַאי ״חוּץ מֵאַחְרָיוּת שֶׁבּוֹ״ – דְּלָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ אַחְרָיוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi** disagrees and **says:** The omission of the **guarantee** of the sale from a document **is not a scribal error.** Accordingly, if mention of a guarantee is omitted from a bill of sale, there is in fact no guarantee. **And what** does the *baraita* mean when it says: **Excluding the guarantee that** was **in** the first document? It means simply **that** in this case there was **no** clause about a **guarantee written in it** at all.


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

הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא דִּיהַבָה לֵיהּ זוּזֵי לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא לְמִיזְבַּן לַהּ אַרְעָא, אֲזַל זְבַן לַהּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּאַחְרָיוּת. אָתְיָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: There was **a certain woman who gave money to a certain man to** act as her agent and **purchase land for her.** The agent **went** and **purchased** land **for her,** but he conducted the purchase in such a way that it was **without a guarantee.** The woman wanted to take action against the agent and **came before Rav Naḥman** to ask what recourse she had.


###### Bava Batra 169b:11
[Bava Batra 169b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/169b:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לְתַקּוֹנֵי שַׁדַּרְתָּיךָ, וְלָא לְעַוּוֹתֵי. זִיל זִבְנַהּ מִינֵּיהּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּאַחְרָיוּת, וַהֲדַר זַבְּנַהּ נִיהֲלַהּ בְּאַחְרָיוּת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **said to** the agent: The principle with regard to an agent is that if he acts to the detriment of the one who appointed him, the one who appointed him can say: **I sent you** to act **for my benefit and not to my detriment.** Therefore, the entire agency is null and void, thereby negating the purchase. Nevertheless, you agreed to purchase the land without a guarantee. Therefore, **go** yourself and **purchase** the land **from him without a guarantee, and then sell it to** this woman **with a guarantee** that you will reimburse her in the event the land is repossessed.


###### Bava Batra 169b:12
[Bava Batra 169b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/169b:12)

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הַנּוֹתֵן מַתָּנָה לַחֲבֵירוֹ, וְהֶחְזִיר לוֹ אֶת הַשְּׁטָר – חָזְרָה מַתְּנָתוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מַתְּנָתוֹ קַיֶּימֶת. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל? אָמַר רַב אַסִּי, נַעֲשָׂה כְּאוֹמֵר לוֹ: שָׂדֶה זוֹ נְתוּנָה לְךָ כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהַשְּׁטָר בְּיָדְךָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The *baraita* teaches that **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:** In the case of **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. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for the opinion **of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? Rav Asi says: It becomes as** if the giver **said to** the recipient: **This field is given to you** only **as long as the deed** remains **in your possession.** Therefore, by returning the deed to the giver, the recipient is canceling the gift.


###### Bava Batra 169b:13
[Bava Batra 169b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/169b:13)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבָּה: אִי הָכִי, נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba objects to this: If that is so** that these are the conditions of the gift, then when the deed is **stolen** from **or lost** by the recipient, the gift should **also** be canceled.


###### Bava Batra 169b:14
[Bava Batra 169b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/169b:14)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה: בְּאוֹתִיּוֹת נִקְנוֹת בִּמְסִירָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי – רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: אוֹתִיּוֹת נִקְנוֹת בִּמְסִירָה, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: אֵין אוֹתִיּוֹת נִקְנוֹת בִּמְסִירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rabba said** a different explanation: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis **disagree about** whether or not the **letters,** i.e., the contents of a promissory note, **are acquired by** merely **transferring** the document from one holder of the document to another. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds** that the **letters are acquired by transferring** the document. Therefore, if the recipient returns the bill of sale to the giver, the land returns to the giver as well. **And the Rabbis hold** that the **letters are not acquired by transferring** the document.


###### Bava Batra 169b:15
[Bava Batra 169b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/169b:15)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַבָּא לִידּוֹן בִּשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה, נִידּוֹן בִּשְׁטָר; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: בַּחֲזָקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who comes** to court **to be judged** over a claim that land that is in his possession belongs to another, if he claims ownership **based on a deed,** i.e., a bill of sale, **and** claims further that he is the owner **based on presumptive ownership** of the land, as it was in his uncontested possession for three years, and he therefore does not need the deed as proof, his claim is **judged based on** the **deed.** This is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:** His claim is judged **based on** his **presumptive ownership.**


###### Bava Batra 169b:16
[Bava Batra 169b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/169b:16)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר: בְּאוֹתִיּוֹת נִקְנוֹת בִּמְסִירָה קָא מִיפַּלְגִי –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the *baraita*: **With regard to what do** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel **disagree? When Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he **said: They disagree** about whether or not **letters are acquired by transferring** the document from one holder of the document to another.