## Bava Kamma Daf 8a

###### Bava Kamma 8a:1
[Bava Kamma 8a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/8a:1)

עִידִּית וְזִיבּוּרִית – נִזָּקִין בְּעִידִּית, וּבַעַל חוֹב וּכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה בְּזִיבּוּרִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If he has only **superior-quality and inferior-quality** land, **damages** are paid **from** the **superior-quality** land, **and** payments owed to **a creditor and** payments of **a woman’s marriage contract** are made **from** the **inferior-quality** land.


###### Bava Kamma 8a:2
[Bava Kamma 8a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/8a:2)

קָתָנֵי מִיהָא מְצִיעָא: בֵּינוֹנִית וְזִיבּוּרִית – נִזָּקִין וּבַעַל חוֹב בְּבֵינוֹנִית, וּכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה בְּזִיבּוּרִית. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּשֶׁלּוֹ הֵן שָׁמִין; תֵּעָשֶׂה בֵּינוֹנִית שֶׁלּוֹ – כְּעִידִּית, וְיִדְחֶה בַּעַל חוֹב אֵצֶל זִיבּוּרִית!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains how this *baraita* poses a challenge: **In any event,** the *baraita* **teaches** in the **middle clause:** If he owns only **intermediate-quality and inferior-quality** land, payments for **damages and** payments owed to **a creditor** are made **from** the **intermediate-quality** land, **and** payments of **a woman’s marriage contract** are made **from** the **inferior-quality** land. This clause demonstrates that the quality of land is appraised objectively based on the standard of the world at large. The reason for this is that **if you say** that the court **appraises** land **based on** the quality of the land of the one liable for the damage, **let his intermediate-quality** land **be classified as superior-quality** land, as that is the best land he owns, **and** consequently, the **creditor should be directed to** collect the debt from the **inferior-quality** land.


###### Bava Kamma 8a:3
[Bava Kamma 8a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/8a:3)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ עִידִּית, וּמְכָרָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **With what are we dealing here?** This is a case **where** at the time the borrower took the loan **he** also **had superior-quality** land **and he** subsequently **sold it.** Accordingly, no matter how land is appraised, at the time that the loan was given his intermediate-quality land would be classified as being of intermediate quality. Consequently, the creditor’s lien on the borrower’s land, which took effect from the moment the loan was given, takes effect with regard to the intermediate-quality land. Therefore, the creditor retains his right to collect from that land, regardless of the fact that by the time of collection it was the borrower’s best land and at that point could be reclassified as land of superior quality.


###### Bava Kamma 8a:4
[Bava Kamma 8a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/8a:4)

וְכֵן אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ עִידִּית, וּמְכָרָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And so says Rav Ḥisda:** The *baraita* deals with a case **where** at the time he took the loan **he** also **had superior-quality** land **and he** subsequently **sold it.**


###### Bava Kamma 8a:5
[Bava Kamma 8a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/8a:5)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא – מִדְּקָתָנֵי אַחֲרִיתִי: בֵּינוֹנִית וְזִיבּוּרִית – נִזָּקִין בְּבֵינוֹנִית, בַּעַל חוֹב וּכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה בְּזִיבּוּרִית. קַשְׁיָין אַהֲדָדֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **This too stands to reason, from** the fact **that another** *baraita* **teaches:** If a debtor has only **intermediate-quality and inferior-quality** land, **damages** are collected **from** the **intermediate-quality** land, while payments to **a creditor and** payments of **a woman’s marriage contract** are made from the **inferior-quality** land. These two *baraitot* **are difficult,** as they contradict **each other.** The *baraita* above teaches that in this case the creditor collects the debt from the intermediate-quality land, whereas this *baraita* teaches that he collects the debt from the inferior-quality land.


###### Bava Kamma 8a:6
[Bava Kamma 8a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/8a:6)

אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: כָּאן שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ עִידִּית וּמְכָרָהּ, כָּאן – שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לוֹ עִידִּית וּמְכָרָהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** must one **not conclude from it** that **here,** in the *baraita* above, it is a case where **he** also **had superior-quality** land at the time that he took the loan **and** he subsequently **sold it,** while **there,** in the *baraita* subsequently cited, it is a case where **he did not have superior-quality** land **and** he did not **sell it.** In such a case, since his intermediate-quality land was his best land, it is classified as superior-quality land and accordingly, no lien took effect with regard to it.


###### Bava Kamma 8a:7
[Bava Kamma 8a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/8a:7)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לוֹ עִידִּית וּמְכָרָהּ; וְלָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּשָׁוְיָא בֵּינוֹנִית שֶׁלּוֹ כְּעִידִּית דְּעָלְמָא, וְכָאן דְּלָא שָׁוְיָא בֵּינוֹנִית שֶׁלּוֹ כְּעִידִּית דְּעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that the contradiction between the *baraitot* can be resolved differently: Both **this** *baraita* **and that** *baraita* concern cases where the borrower **did not have superior-quality** land **and sell it. And** it **is not difficult** because **this** second *baraita* concerns a case where **his intermediate-quality** land **is equivalent** in quality **to the superior-quality** land **of the world** at large; therefore, it is classified as superior-quality land and the creditor has no right to collect from it. **And here,** the first *baraita* concerns a case in **which his intermediate-quality** land **is not equivalent** in quality **to the superior-quality** land **of the world at large** but is similar to the intermediate-quality land of the world at large; consequently, the creditor has a claim to it.


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

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה בֵּינוֹנִית שֶׁלּוֹ כְּבֵינוֹנִית דְּעָלְמָא, וְהָכָא בְּהָא פְּלִיגִי – מָר סָבַר: בְּשֶׁלּוֹ הֵן שָׁמִין. וּמָר סָבַר: בְּשֶׁל עוֹלָם הֵן שָׁמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead: Both **this** *baraita* **and that** *baraita* concern a case **where** the borrower’s **intermediate-quality** land, which is the best land he owns, **is equivalent** in quality **to the intermediate-quality** land **of the world** at large, **and here,** the *baraitot* **disagree about this:** One **Sage,** the *tanna* of the second *baraita*, **holds** that the court **appraises** the debtor’s land **based on** the quality of **his** other land, so that his best land is classified as superior-quality land and the creditor has no claim on it. And the other **Sage,** the *tanna* of the first *baraita*, **holds** that the court **appraises** the debtor’s land **based on** the quality of land in **the world** at large, so that his land is classified as intermediate-quality land and the creditor is entitled to claim it.


###### Bava Kamma 8a:9
[Bava Kamma 8a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/8a:9)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: בִּדְעוּלָּא פְּלִיגִי – דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה – בַּעַל חוֹב בְּזִיבּוּרִית, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בַּחוּץ תַּעֲמוֹד, וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה נֹשֶׁה בוֹ יוֹצִיא אֵלֶיךָ אֶת הַעֲבוֹט הַחוּצָה״ – מָה דַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם לְהוֹצִיא לַחוּץ – פָּחוּת שֶׁבַּכֵּלִים. וּמָה טַעַם אָמְרוּ בַּעַל חוֹב בְּבֵינוֹנִית – כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּנְעוֹל דֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי לֹוִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said:** Another resolution to the contradiction between the *baraitot* is that the *baraitot* **disagree with regard to** the opinion of **Ulla, as Ulla says: By Torah law, a creditor** collects **from inferior-quality** land, **as it is stated: “You shall stand outside, and the man you have a claim against will bring his collateral out to you”** (Deuteronomy 24:11). One can infer: **What** item would **a person typically** choose **to bring out** for use as collateral and potential payment? Certainly it is the **most inferior of his utensils.** The verse thereby indicates that a creditor collects from inferior-quality land. **But** if so, for **what reason** did the Sages **say** that **a creditor** collects **from intermediate-quality** land? They instituted this ordinance **so as not to lock the door in the face of** potential **borrowers,** as, if creditors were limited to collecting from inferior-quality land they would be hesitant to offer loans in the first place.


###### Bava Kamma 8a:10
[Bava Kamma 8a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/8a:10)

מָר אִית לֵיהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא דְּעוּלָּא, וּמָר לֵית לֵיהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא דְּעוּלָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ravina explains: One **Sage,** the *tanna* of the first *baraita*, **is of** the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the **ordinance** cited **by Ulla** that a creditor collects from intermediate-quality land. **And** the other **Sage,** the *tanna* of the second *baraita*, **is not of** the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the **ordinance** cited **by Ulla,** so the creditor has a right to collect from only inferior-quality land, in accordance with Torah law.


###### Bava Kamma 8a:11
[Bava Kamma 8a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/8a:11)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מָכַר לְאֶחָד אוֹ לִשְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם כְּאֶחָד – כּוּלָּן נִכְנְסוּ תַּחַת הַבְּעָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in the *Tosefta* (*Ketubot* 12:3): If one owes money to pay damages, repay a loan, and pay a woman’s marriage contract, and he owns inferior-quality, intermediate-quality, and superior-quality land, and he sells all of his land, then if he **sold** all of the land **to one** person **or to three people simultaneously, all** the buyers **replace the** land’s prior **owner** with regard to repayment of his debts. At the time when each debt was created, each creditor gained a lien on the plots of the debtor’s land, from which they have a right to collect. As a lien remains in effect even if the land is sold, then even after the sale, each creditor can collect from the plots of land upon which they have a lien. Accordingly, damages are collected from the superior-quality land, the loan is repaid from the intermediate-quality land, and the marriage contract is paid from the inferior-quality land.


###### Bava Kamma 8a:12
[Bava Kamma 8a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/8a:12)

בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה – כּוּלָּן גּוֹבִין מִן הָאַחֲרוֹן. אֵין לוֹ – גּוֹבֶה מִשֶּׁלְּפָנָיו, אֵין לוֹ – גּוֹבֶה מִשֶּׁלִּפְנֵי פָנָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If he sold his plots of land **one after the other, all** the creditors **collect from the last** buyer, regardless of the quality of the land he purchased. If that buyer **does not have** sufficient land purchased from the debtor to pay all the debts, the creditors take the land he has and **collect** the remaining sums **from** the one **who** purchased land **before him,** and if he also **does not have** sufficient land, they **collect** the rest **from** the one **before** the one **before him,** i.e., the first buyer. The Sages instituted that creditors may not collect from land that a debtor sold, even though it is technically still liened to them, as long as the debtor still has sufficient means with which to repay the debt (see *Gittin* 48b). Accordingly, after the sale of the first plot of land, the creditors’ rights to collect are restricted to the land that remains in the possession of the debtor, and consequently they gain a lien on it, irrespective of its quality. Therefore, even if that land is subsequently sold, their rights to collect are restricted to that land, and only if the value of that land is insufficient to cover the cost of the debt may they utilize the original liens they had on the plots of land that were sold first.


###### Bava Kamma 8a:13
[Bava Kamma 8a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/8a:13)

״מְכָרָן לְאֶחָד״ הֵיכִי דָּמֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: With regard to the first case in the *baraita*, where he **sold** all the land **to one** person, **what are the circumstances?**


###### Bava Kamma 8a:14
[Bava Kamma 8a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/8a:14)

אִילֵימָא בְּבַת אַחַת – הַשְׁתָּא לִשְׁלֹשָׁה, דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ קָדֵים, אָמְרַתְּ כּוּלָּן נִכְנְסוּ תַּחַת הַבְּעָלִים; מְכָרָן לְאֶחָד מִיבַּעְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If we say** that he **simultaneously** sold all of the land to one person, that is difficult. **Now** that the *baraita* teaches that if he sold the land **to three** different people simultaneously, **where it is possible to say** that the sale to **one of them preceded** the other sales, yet **you say** the *halakha* is that **all** the buyers **replace the** land’s prior **owner** equally, and the possibility that one might have proceeded the other is disregarded, **is** it **necessary** to teach that the *halakha* is the same in a case where all the plots of land were simultaneously **sold to one** person?


###### Bava Kamma 8a:15
[Bava Kamma 8a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/8a:15)

אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא – בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it **is obvious** that the *baraita* is referring to a case where the plots of land were sold **one after the other.**


###### Bava Kamma 8a:16
[Bava Kamma 8a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/8a:16)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא שְׁלֹשָׁה – דְּכֹל חַד וְחַד אָמַר לֵיהּ: הִנַּחְתִּי לְךָ מָקוֹם לִגְבּוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But what is different** about the latter clause of the *baraita*, where the plots of land were sold to **three** buyers, one after the other, and the creditors collect only from the last buyer? It is different in **that each one** of the first two buyers **can say to** any creditor who tries to seize the land they purchased: Do not collect my land, as **I left a place for you,** a plot of land in the debtor’s possession, **from which to collect.** In other words, when the first two buyers purchased their land a plot of land remained with the debtor, and therefore the creditor’s rights of collection are restricted to that land.


###### Bava Kamma 8a:17
[Bava Kamma 8a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/8a:17)

הַאי נָמֵי – אַכֹּל חַד וְחַד לֵימָא לֵיהּ: הִנַּחְתִּי לְךָ מָקוֹם לִגְבּוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues its question: In **this** case **as well,** where all the plots of land were sold to a single buyer, **with regard to each one** of the first two plots of land that were sold, **let** the buyer **say to** any creditor who tries to collect: With my purchase of the first two plots of land, **I left a place for you,** a plot of land in the debtor’s possession, **from which to collect.** Therefore, even though the debtor subsequently sold the buyer all of the land, the creditor’s rights of collection are restricted to the last plot of land the debtor sold the buyer, irrespective of its quality. Why then does the *baraita* rule that in this case each creditor collects from the land that was originally liened to him?


###### Bava Kamma 8a:18
[Bava Kamma 8a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/8a:18)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁלָּקַח עִידִּית בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה. וְכֵן אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: כְּגוֹן שֶׁלָּקַח עִידִּית בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **With what are we dealing here?** This is a case **where** the individual buyer **purchased** the **superior-quality** land **last.** Accordingly, the buyer is satisfied with allowing each creditor to collect from the land that was previously liened to him, rather than having them each collect from the superior-quality land. **And so says Rav Sheshet:** It is a case **where** the individual buyer **purchased** the **superior-quality** land **last.**


###### Bava Kamma 8a:19
[Bava Kamma 8a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/8a:19)

אִי הָכִי, לֵיתוֹ כּוּלְּהוּ וְלִיגְבּוֹ מֵעִידִּית!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so, let them all come and collect from** the **superior-quality** land, as their rights to collect should be restricted to it, since it was purchased last.


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

מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר לְהוּ: אִי שָׁתְקִיתוּ וְשָׁקְלִיתוּ כְּדִינַיְיכוּ – שָׁקְלִיתוּ, וְאִי לָא – מַהְדַּרְנָא שְׁטָרָא דְּזִיבּוּרִית לְמָרֵיהּ, וְשָׁקְלִיתוּ כּוּלְּכוּ מִזִּיבּוּרִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Because he can say** the following threat **to them: If you are silent** and do not insist on collecting from the superior-quality land, **and take** the land of a quality that is due to you **according to your** standard **legal rights,** as in a case where you collect directly from the debtor, i.e., the injured party will collect from the superior-quality land, the creditor from the intermediate-quality land, and the woman will collect her marriage contract from the inferior-quality land, then **take** that land and I will allow you to do so. **But if not,** and you insist on taking the superior-quality land that I purchased last, then **I will return the bill** of sale **of the inferior-quality** land **to its** prior **owner,** i.e., the debtor, **and you will all** be forced to collect **from** the **inferior-quality** land, because whenever the debtor has land in his possession you are able to collect the debts only from him.


###### Bava Kamma 8a:21
[Bava Kamma 8a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/8a:21)

אִי הָכִי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** that this is the reason for the ruling in the *baraita*,