## Bava Batra Daf 44b

###### Bava Batra 44b:1
[Bava Batra 44b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/44b:1)

בִּסְתָמָא דְּלָא מִשְׁתַּעְבְּדָא לֵיהּ, מַאי טַעְמָא? מִטַּלְטְלֵי נִינְהוּ, וּמִטַּלְטְלֵי לְבַעַל חוֹב לָא מִשְׁתַּעְבְּדִי – וְאַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתַב לֵיהּ מִגְּלִימָא דְּעַל כַּתְפֵּיהּ, הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּאִיתַנְהוּ בְּעֵינַיְיהוּ, אֲבָל לֵיתַנְהוּ בְּעֵינַיְיהוּ – לָא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**in** a case where he sold a cow or cloak **without specification, where it is not liened to** the creditor. **What is the reason** for this? It is because these items **are movable property, and movable property is not liened to a creditor. And even though** it is so **that** the debtor **wrote to** the creditor that he can collect the debt even **from** the **cloak that is on his shoulders, that matter** applies only **when it is as is** and in the possession of the debtor, **but** if **it is not as is,** since it is in the possession of the buyer, then **no,** the creditor cannot collect from movable property. Therefore, the debtor can testify on behalf of the buyer.


###### Bava Batra 44b:2
[Bava Batra 44b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/44b:2)

אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ עֲשָׂאוֹ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי – נָמֵי לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? כִּדְרָבָא – דְּאָמַר רָבָא: עָשָׂה עַבְדּוֹ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי וּמְכָרוֹ – בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִמֶּנּוּ. שׁוֹרוֹ וַחֲמוֹרוֹ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי וּמְכָרוֹ – אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה הֵימֶנּוּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **But even** in a case where he **set** the cow or cloak **aside** as **designated repayment [*apoteiki*],** the creditor **cannot** collect from it. **What is the reasoning?** It is **in accordance with** the statement **of Rava, as Rava says:** If a master **set aside his slave** as **designated repayment** of a debt **and** then **sold him,** the master’s **creditor collects** the debt **from** the proceeds from the sale of the slave. But if one set aside **his ox or his donkey** as **designated repayment and** then **sold it,** the **creditor does not collect** the debt **from** the proceeds of the sale of the ox or the donkey.


###### Bava Batra 44b:3
[Bava Batra 44b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/44b:3)

מַאי טַעְמָא? הַאי אִית לֵיהּ קָלָא, וְהָא לֵית לֵיהּ קָלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason** for this distinction? **This** setting aside of the slave as designated repayment generates **publicity, and that** setting aside of the ox or donkey as designated repayment does **not** generate **publicity.** Therefore, when the slave had been set aside as designated repayment, the buyer would have been aware of this. Since he bought the slave while having this knowledge, the slave can be seized from him by the seller’s creditor. By contrast, the buyer of the cow or cloak would not have been aware that it had been set aside as designated repayment, so the seller’s creditor cannot seize it from him.


###### Bava Batra 44b:4
[Bava Batra 44b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/44b:4)

וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא אַקְנִי לֵיהּ מִטַּלְטְלֵי אַגַּב מְקַרְקְעֵי! דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: אִי אַקְנִי לֵיהּ מִטַּלְטְלֵי אַגַּב מְקַרְקְעֵי – קָנֵי מְקַרְקְעֵי קָנֵי מִטַּלְטְלֵי. וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: וְהוּא דִּכְתַב לֵיהּ: ״דְּלָא כְּאַסְמַכְתָּא וּדְלָא כְּטוּפְסָא דִשְׁטָרֵי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But let** there be **a concern** that **perhaps** the debtor **transferred** the **movable property to** the creditor, not for him to own, but for him to have a lien on the movable property, **by means of,** i.e., together with, an acquisition of **land, as Rabba said: If** the debtor **transferred movable property to** the creditor as liened property **by means of** an acquisition of **land,** the creditor **acquires the land** and **acquires** the **movable property,** i.e., a lien is created with regard to both. **And Rav Ḥisda said: And that is** the *halakha* only **where** the debtor **wrote to** the creditor: This lien is **not like a transaction with inconclusive consent [*ke’asmakhta*],** which does not effect acquisition, **and not like the template [*ketofesa*] for documents,** which are not actually used to collect debts. Rather, it is a legally binding document.


###### Bava Batra 44b:5
[Bava Batra 44b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/44b:5)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁלָּקַח, וּמָכַר לְאַלְתַּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where** the debtor had **purchased** the movable property **and immediately sold** it, and there was no opportunity for him to have it become liened to a creditor. Therefore, there is no possibility of his being biased in his testimony due to a desire to repay his debt.


###### Bava Batra 44b:6
[Bava Batra 44b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/44b:6)

וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא ״דְּאֶיקְנֵי״ הוּא! שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ: ״דְּאֶיקְנֵי״; קָנָה וּמָכַר, קָנָה וְהוֹרִישׁ – לֹא מִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But let** there be **a concern** that **perhaps it is** a case in which the debtor wrote to the creditor: I will repay you even from **that** which **I will acquire** in the future, which would presumably mean that the creditor can collect from the buyer even though the debtor purchased the item after taking the loan. From the fact that this is not a concern, do **you learn from it** that even if the debtor wrote: I will repay you even from that which **I will acquire** in the future, and he then **purchased and sold** property or **purchased and bequeathed** it, that which he purchases is **not liened** to his creditor? This would seem to settle what is otherwise assumed to be an unresolved question.


###### Bava Batra 44b:7
[Bava Batra 44b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/44b:7)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּקָאָמְרִי עֵדִים: יָדְעִינַן בֵּיהּ בְּהַאי דְּלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ אַרְעָא מֵעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **No,** one need not reach that conclusion, as it is **necessary** to teach the *halakha* in a case **where witnesses say: We know about this** one who sold these items **that he never had** any **land.** Therefore, it cannot be that the creditor acquired a lien on the movable property by means of an acquisition of land.


###### Bava Batra 44b:8
[Bava Batra 44b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/44b:8)

וְהָאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, אַף עַל גַּב דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן: הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּאַחְרָיוּת, וּבָא בַּעַל חוֹב וּטְרָפָהּ – אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר עָלָיו; נִמְצֵאת שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ – חוֹזֵר עָלָיו!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But doesn’t Rav Pappa say** that **even though the Sages said:** In the case of **one who sells a field to another without a guarantee, and a creditor came and repossessed it,** the buyer **cannot return to** the seller, i.e. the debtor, who sold him the field, to claim reimbursement; but if it is **found that** the field **was not** the seller’s in the first place, the buyer can **return to** the seller to claim reimbursement. In this case, if the claimant establishes that the cow or cloak is his and was not the seller’s, the buyer will be able to claim reimbursement. The seller is therefore biased in his testimony, and should not be able to testify on behalf of the buyer.


###### Bava Batra 44b:9
[Bava Batra 44b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/44b:9)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּמַכִּיר בָּהּ שֶׁהִיא בַּת חֲמוֹרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing **with** a case where the buyer admits that he **recognizes that this** is the **offspring of** the seller’s **donkey,** and will not claim in court that the seller had no right to sell it.


###### Bava Batra 44b:10
[Bava Batra 44b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/44b:10)

וְרַב זְבִיד אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ נִמְצֵאת שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ – אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר עָלָיו, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְהָכִי זַבֵּינִי לָךְ שֶׁלֹּא בְּאַחְרָיוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to the statement of Rav Pappa and comments: **But** in contrast to the opinion of Rav Pappa, **Rav Zevid says: Even** if it is **found that** the field **was not** the seller’s, the buyer **cannot return to** the seller to claim reimbursement, **as** the seller can **say to** the buyer: It is **for this** reason that **I sold it to you without a guarantee,** i.e., so that if it is taken from you, I will not bear liability.


###### Bava Batra 44b:11
[Bava Batra 44b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/44b:11)

גּוּפָא – אָמַר רָבִין בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּאַחְרָיוּת – אֵין מֵעִיד לוֹ עָלֶיהָ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידָהּ בִּפְנֵי בַּעַל חוֹבוֹ. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to Shmuel’s statement, in order to examine **the** matter **itself. Ravin bar Shmuel says in the name of Shmuel: One who sells a field to another** even **without a guarantee** that if the field will be repossessed the seller will compensate the buyer for his loss **cannot testify with regard to** ownership of that field **on behalf of** the buyer, **because** he is **establishing** the field **before his creditor.** The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of this *halakha*?