## Bava Kamma Daf 9a

###### Bava Kamma 9a:1
[Bava Kamma 9a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9a:1)

וְיָצְאוּ עָלֶיהָ עֲסִיקִין; עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְזִיק בָּהּ – יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ, מִשֶּׁהֶחְזִיק בָּהּ – אֵין יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and claimants [*asikin*] come forth about** the ownership of the land, disputing Reuven’s prior ownership, **as long as** Shimon **has not yet taken possession** of the land, **he can retract** his agreement to the transaction and is not required to pay for the land. **Once he has taken possession** of the land, **he cannot retract** his agreement to the transaction.


###### Bava Kamma 9a:2
[Bava Kamma 9a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9a:2)

מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: חַיְיתָא דְּקִטְרֵי סְבַרְתְּ וְקַבֵּלְתְּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason** that he cannot retract his agreement to the transaction once he has taken possession? **As** Reuven **says to him:** The purchase of the land was like purchasing **a tied bag [*ḥayta*]** whose contents are unknown and might not have any value. Since **you were aware** of **and accepted** that possibility, as you purchased it without a guarantee, you cannot retract your agreement.


###### Bava Kamma 9a:3
[Bava Kamma 9a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9a:3)

מֵאֵימַת הֲוַאי חֲזָקָה? מִכִּי דָיֵישׁ אַמִּצְרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From when is it** considered that he has **taken possession** of the property? He takes possession **from** the time **that he walks upon the boundaries** of the land to inspect it.


###### Bava Kamma 9a:4
[Bava Kamma 9a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9a:4)

וְדַוְקָא שֶׁלֹּא בְּאַחְרָיוּת, אֲבָל בְּאַחְרָיוּת – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And** this is referring **specifically** to a case where the field was sold **without a guarantee. But** where it was sold **with a guarantee** this is **not** so, and Shimon can retract his agreement and refuse to pay for the land even after taking possession of it. The reason is that if the claimants succeed with their claims and seize the land, Reuven will then have to return the sum Shimon paid for it. In order to minimize judicial proceedings, the court allows Shimon to claim that there is no point in paying Reuven now only to have his money returned to him later. Therefore, he can retract his agreement to the transaction.


###### Bava Kamma 9a:5
[Bava Kamma 9a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9a:5)

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֲפִילּוּ בְּאַחְרָיוּת נָמֵי, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַחְוִי טִירְפָךְ וַאֲשַׁלֵּם לָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there are** those **who say** that **even** where the field was sold **with a guarantee,** Shimon is unable to retract his agreement to the transaction, **as** Reuven has the legal right to **say to him:** First **show me the claim authorization document,** which a court provides to a buyer when the land he purchased is seized from him by a third party who proved that he had a lien on the land, **and** only then **I will pay you.** Consequently, Shimon cannot claim that there is no point in paying Reuven now, after he agreed to the sale but before a third party seized the land, as even if the land will be seized it does not automatically follow that Reuven will have to reimburse Shimon.


###### Bava Kamma 9a:6
[Bava Kamma 9a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9a:6)

רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: אוֹ כֶּסֶף אוֹ מֵיטַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to its earlier discussion concerning the form of the payment of damages: **Rav Huna says:** Damages are paid **either** with **money or** with one’s best-quality land.


###### Bava Kamma 9a:7
[Bava Kamma 9a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9a:7)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְרַב הוּנָא: ״יָשִׁיב״ – לְרַבּוֹת שָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף, אֲפִילּוּ סוּבִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman raised an objection to Rav Huna** from a *baraita*: The verse states: **“He shall recompense** money to its owner” (Exodus 21:34), which serves **to include** items **worth money, even bran,** a relatively inferior commodity, as valid forms of payment.


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

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בִּדְלֵית לֵיהּ. אִי דְּלֵית לֵיהּ, פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: זִיל טְרַח זַבֵּין, וְאַיְיתִי לֵיהּ כְּסַף; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Huna replied: **With what are we dealing here** in the *baraita*? We are dealing with a case **where he does not have** any money or land. The Gemara asks: **If he does not have** any other means with which to pay, isn’t it **obvious** that he can pay using what he has? The Gemara explains: **Lest you say** that **we** would **say to him: Go** to the **trouble** of **selling** whatever commodity you own, **and** thereby **bring him money** as payment for the damage, the *baraita* **teaches us** that it is unnecessary to sell one’s possessions and pay with money.


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

אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: כְּסָפִים הֲרֵי הֵן כְּקַרְקַע. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אִילֵּימָא לְעִנְיַן מֵיטַב – הַיְינוּ דְּרַב הוּנָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Asi says: Money is equivalent to land.** The Gemara asks: **With regard to what *halakha*** are they equivalent? **If we say** that it is **with regard to** fulfilling the requirement of paying with one’s best-quality land, meaning that he can choose to pay with money instead, **this is** precisely the ruling **of Rav Huna;** and yet the ruling of Rav Asi is presented as an independent ruling.


###### Bava Kamma 9a:10
[Bava Kamma 9a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9a:10)

אֶלָּא לִשְׁנֵי אַחִים שֶׁחָלְקוּ, וְנָטַל אֶחָד קַרְקַע וְאֶחָד כְּסָפִים, וּבָא בַּעַל חוֹב וְנָטַל קַרְקַע; דְּאָזֵיל הַאי, וְשָׁקֵיל פַּלְגָא בִּכְסָפִים בַּהֲדֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Rav Asi is referring **to** a case of **two brothers who divided** their inheritance, **and one took land and** the other **one** took **money, and** subsequently their father’s **creditor came and took** the **land,** as it was liened to his loan. Rav Asi’s ruling teaches **that this** brother whose land was taken can **go and take a half** share **of the money together with** his brother.


###### Bava Kamma 9a:11
[Bava Kamma 9a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9a:11)

פְּשִׁיטָא! הַאי בְּרָא וְהַאי לָאו בְּרָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this explanation: Isn’t that **obvious?** Is **this** one **a son and that** one **not a son?** Since they are both sons and equally inherited the estate of their father, they share responsibility for their father’s debts. If the creditor takes repayment of the debt from one brother, the other one must reimburse him.


###### Bava Kamma 9a:12
[Bava Kamma 9a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9a:12)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי אַדְּרַבָּה, לְאִידַּךְ גִּיסָא – דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְהָכִי שְׁקַלִי כְּסָפִים, דְּאִי מִגַּנְבִי – לָא מִשְׁתַּלַּמְנָא מִינָּךְ; וּלְהָכִי שָׁקְלַתְּ אַרְעָא – דְּאִי מִטַּרְפָא, לָא מִשְׁתַּלְּמָא לָךְ מִידֵּי מִינַּאי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** that the Gemara rejects this explanation not because it is obvious, but **on the contrary,** because it is incorrect. As, one could look at it **from the opposite direction,** saying **that** one brother **could say to** the other: It was **with this** understanding that **I took the money, that if it would be stolen** from me **I would not be reimbursed from your** land, **and** it was **with this** understanding that **you took the land, that if it would be seized** from you by a creditor **you would not be reimbursed from my** money.


###### Bava Kamma 9a:13
[Bava Kamma 9a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9a:13)

אֶלָּא לִשְׁנֵי אַחִים שֶׁחָלְקוּ, וּבָא בַּעַל חוֹב וְנָטַל חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Rav Asi is referring **to** a case of **two brothers who divided** the land they inherited from their father, **and** their father’s **creditor came and took** the **portion of one of them.** Since the brothers carry joint responsibility for their father’s debt, the one whose portion was seized has a right to be reimbursed by his brother. Rav Asi’s ruling teaches that this may be done either by redistributing the remaining portion of land or by reimbursing him with money.


###### Bava Kamma 9a:14
[Bava Kamma 9a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9a:14)

וְהָא אַמְרַהּ רַב אַסִּי חֲדָא זִימְנָא – דְּאִיתְּמַר: הָאַחִים שֶׁחָלְקוּ, וּבָא בַּעַל חוֹב וְנָטַל חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן, רַב אָמַר: בָּטְלָה מַחְלוֹקֶת. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: וִיתֵּר. וְרַב אַסִּי אָמַר: נוֹטֵל רְבִיעַ בְּקַרְקַע, וּרְבִיעַ בְּמָעוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But didn’t Rav Asi** already explicitly **say that** ruling **once before?** Therefore, this cannot be the explanation of this ruling. **As it was stated:** In a case of **brothers who divided** the land they inherited from their father, **and** their father’s **creditor came and took** the **portion of one of them, Rav says** that the initial **division** of the land is **voided** and any remaining land is divided equally between the brothers. **Shmuel says** that each brother, upon taking his portion, **relinquished [*viter*]** any rights to be reimbursed if his portion were lost. **And Rav Asi says** that the brother whose portion was seized has a right to receive half of the remaining inheritance: **He takes a quarter in land, and** he takes the other **quarter in money.**


###### Bava Kamma 9a:15
[Bava Kamma 9a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9a:15)

רַב אָמַר: בָּטְלָה מַחְלוֹקֶת – קָסָבַר: הָאַחִים שֶׁחָלְקוּ, כְּיוֹרְשִׁים הָווּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the rationale behind each opinion: **Rav says** that the initial **division** of the land is **voided.** This is because **he holds** that **brothers who divided** their inheritance **are** considered to still be **similar to heirs** with respect to the inheritance, and therefore they continue to share joint responsibility for their father’s debts. Consequently, any remaining land is divided equally between the brothers.


###### Bava Kamma 9a:16
[Bava Kamma 9a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9a:16)

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: וִיתֵּר – קָסָבַר: הָאַחִים שֶׁחָלְקוּ לָקוֹחוֹת, וּכְלוֹקֵחַ שֶׁלֹּא בְּאַחְרָיוּת דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel says** that each brother, upon taking his portion, **relinquished** any rights to be reimbursed if his portion were lost, as **he holds** that **brothers who divided** their inheritance are considered to be like **buyers** of their respective portions, **and** each one is considered to be **similar to a buyer** who bought his portion **without a guarantee** that would have provided him with a right to be reimbursed if his portion were seized by a creditor.


###### Bava Kamma 9a:17
[Bava Kamma 9a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9a:17)

וְרַב אַסִּי אָמַר: נוֹטֵל רְבִיעַ בְּקַרְקַע וּרְבִיעַ בְּמָעוֹת – מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי כְּיוֹרְשִׁין דָּמוּ אִי כְּלָקוֹחוֹת דָּמוּ, הִלְכָּךְ נוֹטֵל רְבִיעַ בְּקַרְקַע, וּרְבִיעַ בְּמָעוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Asi says** that the brother whose portion was seized has the right to receive half the remaining inheritance. **He takes a quarter in land and** he takes the other **quarter in money.** This is because **he is uncertain** as to **whether they are similar to heirs,** in which case the remaining land should be redistributed between them, or **whether they are similar to buyers** who bought their portions with a guarantee, in which case the brother whose portion was taken should be reimbursed by his brother with a sum of money equal to the value of the land that was seized from him. **Therefore, he takes a quarter in land and** he takes the other **quarter in money.**


###### Bava Kamma 9a:18
[Bava Kamma 9a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9a:18)

אֶלָּא: מַאי ״הֲרֵי הֵן כְּקַרְקַע״ – לְעִנְיַן מֵיטַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
As Rav Asi had already stated the *halakha* of brothers who divided their inheritance, the Gemara suggests another explanation of his statement. **Rather,** with regard to **what** did Rav Asi state that money **is equivalent to land?** He stated it **with regard to** the requirement of paying with one’s best-quality land, and is teaching that one may choose to pay with money instead of land.


###### Bava Kamma 9a:19
[Bava Kamma 9a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9a:19)

אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּרַב הוּנָא! אֵימָא: וְכֵן אָמַר רַב אַסִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara repeats its original rejection of this suggestion: **If so,** then **this is** precisely the ruling **of Rav Huna,** and yet Rav Asi is presented as an independent ruling. The Gemara resolves the problem: Emend the statement and **say: And similarly, Rav Asi said.**


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

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בְּמִצְוָה – עַד שְׁלִישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Zeira says** that **Rav Huna says: For** the purchase of an object with which to fulfill **a mitzva,** one should spend **up to one-third.**


###### Bava Kamma 9a:21
[Bava Kamma 9a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9a:21)

מַאי שְׁלִישׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: To **what** does this **one-third** refer?