## Bava Metzia Daf 14a

###### Bava Metzia 14a:1
[Bava Metzia 14a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/14a:1)

חֲדָא הוּא, דְּחַד טַעַם הוּא, דְּמִשּׁוּם דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשֶׁאֵין חַיָּיב מוֹדֶה – הוּא מְתָרֵץ הָכִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **It is** actually **one** element, **as** both elements have the same **one reason; because Rabbi Elazar says that** the **dispute** in the mishna is **in** a case **when** the **liable party does not admit** his debt, **he explains** Rabbi Meir’s opinion **in this manner,** i.e., that a promissory note that does not include a property guarantee cannot be used to collect the debt even from unsold property.


###### Bava Metzia 14a:2
[Bava Metzia 14a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/14a:2)

תְּיוּבְתָּא דִשְׁמוּאֵל בְּתַרְתֵּי: חֲדָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּהָא מוֹקֵי מַתְנִיתִין בְּשֶׁאֵין חַיָּיב מוֹדֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates on the statement that the *baraita* serves as **a conclusive refutation of two** elements **of** the opinion **of Shmuel: One** element is **like** the element of the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar** that was refuted, **as** Shmuel also **establishes** the dispute in **the mishna** as referring **to** a case **when** the **liable party does not admit** to the debt, and the *baraita* states that in such a case there is no dispute.


###### Bava Metzia 14a:3
[Bava Metzia 14a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/14a:3)

וַחֲדָא דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מָצָא שְׁטַר הַקְנָאָה בַּשּׁוּק – יַחְזִיר לַבְּעָלִים, וְלָא חָיְישִׁינַן לְפֵרָעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the other **one** is **that** which **Shmuel says:** If one **found a deed of transfer in the marketplace,** in which it is stipulated that the debtor transfers the rights to his property from the date that the document was signed, **he must return** it **to** its **owner, and we do not suspect** that there was **repayment** and that there is collusion between the creditor and the debtor.


###### Bava Metzia 14a:4
[Bava Metzia 14a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/14a:4)

תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּקָתָנֵי הָכָא: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם מוֹדִים לֹא יַחְזִיר לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה, אַלְמָא חָיְישִׁינַן לְפֵרָעוֹן, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן הָכָא דְּלָא מוֹדֵה לֹוֶה – דְּחָיְישִׁינַן לְפֵרָעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
There is **a conclusive refutation** of that statement as well, **as** the *baraita* **here teaches: Even if they both agree, he should return** it **neither to this** person **nor to that** person. **Apparently, we suspect** that there was **repayment. And all the more so here,** in the case of a deed of transfer, **when the liable party does not admit** that he owes money, the deed should certainly not be returned, **as we suspect** that there was **repayment.**


###### Bava Metzia 14a:5
[Bava Metzia 14a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/14a:5)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן? סָבְרִי אַחְרָיוּת טָעוּת סוֹפֵר הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Shmuel said: What is the reason for** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who say that one can collect a debt from liened property even if the promissory note does not include a property guarantee? **They hold** that omission of the property **guarantee** from the promissory note **is a scribal error,** as one would certainly not lend money without a property guarantee.


###### Bava Metzia 14a:6
[Bava Metzia 14a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/14a:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא בַּר אִיתַּי לְרַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין: וּמִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שֶׁבַח, שֶׁפֶר וְשִׁעְבּוּד – צָרִיךְ לִימָּלֵךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava bar Ittai said to Rav Idi bar Avin: Did Shmuel** actually **say this;** i.e., that the omission of this clause is considered a scribal error? **But doesn’t Shmuel say** that **enhancement, superior-quality land, and a lien require consultation?** When a scribe writes a deed of sale for a field he must ask the seller whether to write explicitly that if there is a lien on the field, and the field is then is repossessed from the buyer, in which case the seller must compensate the buyer for any enhancement of the value of the field that occurred while it was in his possession, that this compensation will be made from superior-quality land, and that he liens all of his land as security for this sale. This indicates that Shmuel holds that a property guarantee is not written in every promissory note.


###### Bava Metzia 14a:7
[Bava Metzia 14a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/14a:7)

לֵימָא מַאן דְּאָמַר הָא לָא אָמַר הָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Shall we say** that **the one who says this** statement quoting Shmuel **does not say that** statement quoting Shmuel? Perhaps it is a dispute between the *amora’im* who transmitted the statements of Shmuel.


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

לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בִּשְׁטַר הַלְוָאָה, דְּלָא יָהֵיב אִינָשׁ זוּזֵי בִּכְדִי. כָּאן בְּמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר, דְּעָבֵיד אִינָשׁ דְּזָבֵין אַרְעָא לְיוֹמֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult. Here,** where Shmuel said that the omission of a property guarantee is a scribal error, it was **with regard to a promissory note, as a person does not give** away **his money for nothing.** When one lends his money, he requires a property guarantee. **There,** by contrast, where Shmuel said that a scribe must consult with the seller with regard to writing a property guarantee, it is **with regard to** a case of **buying and selling** land, **as a person is apt to purchase land for a day.** It is conceivable that the buyer is willing to risk that there is a prior lien on the land, thinking that even if he owns the property only for one day he can earn a profit.


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

כִּי הָהִיא דַּאֲבוּהּ בַּר אִיהִי זְבַין עִלִּיתָא מֵאֲחָתֵיהּ, אֲתָא בַּעַל חוֹב טַרְפַהּ מִינֵּיהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּתַבָה לָךְ אַחְרָיוּת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם כֵּן, זִיל לִשְׁלָמָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְהָא מָר הוּא דְּאָמַר אַחְרָיוּת טָעוּת סוֹפֵר הוּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּשְׁטָרֵי הַלְוָאָה, אֲבָל בִּשְׁטָרֵי מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר – לָא, דַּעֲבִיד אִינָשׁ דְּזָבֵין אַרְעָא לְיוֹמֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
As evidence of this distinction, the Gemara gives an example: It is **like that** incident in **which Avuh bar Ihi purchased a loft from his sister.** Her **creditor came and repossessed** the loft **from him. He came before Mar Shmuel** to file a claim against his sister. Shmuel **said to him: Did she write you a guarantee** in the deed of sale? **He said to** Shmuel: **No.** Shmuel **said to** him: **If so, go to peace** (see *Berakhot* 64a), as there is nothing that can be done. He **said to** Shmuel: **But wasn’t it** you, **Master, who said** that omission of the **guarantee** of the sale from the document **is a scribal error?** Shmuel **said to him: This statement** applies only **to promissory notes, but with regard to deeds of buying and selling** it does **not** apply, **as a person is apt to purchase land for a day.**


###### Bava Metzia 14a:10
[Bava Metzia 14a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/14a:10)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רְאוּבֵן שֶׁמָּכַר שָׂדֶה לְשִׁמְעוֹן בְּאַחְרָיוּת, וּבָא בַּעַל חוֹב דִּרְאוּבֵן וְקָא טָרֵיף לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ, דִּינָא הוּא דְּאָזֵיל רְאוּבֵן וּמִשְׁתַּעֵי דִּינָא בַּהֲדֵיהּ, וְלָא מָצֵי אָמַר לֵיהּ: לָאו בַּעַל דְּבָרִים דִּידִי אַתְּ, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: דְּמַפְּקַתְּ מִינֵּיהּ, עֲלַי דִּידִי הָדַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Abaye said:** Consider the case of **Reuven, who sold a field to Shimon with** a property **guarantee, and Reuven’s creditor came and repossessed** the field **from** Shimon, as he had a prior lien on the property. **It is the *halakha* that Reuven can go and litigate with** the creditor, **and** the creditor **cannot say to him: I am not legally answerable to you** since I am taking the field from Shimon. This is **because** Reuven can **say to** his creditor: That **which you take from him comes back to me,** as I sold the field to Shimon with a guarantee, so you cannot claim that I am not a legal party in this matter.


###### Bava Metzia 14a:11
[Bava Metzia 14a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/14a:11)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּאַחְרָיוּת נָמֵי, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: לָא נִיחָא לִי דְּלֶיהְוֵי לְשִׁמְעוֹן תַּרְעוֹמֶת עֲלַי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** that Abaye said: **Even** if Reuven sold the field to Shimon **without** a property **guarantee,** Reuven can dispute the legal claim in court, **as he can say to** the creditor: **It is not amenable to me that Shimon would have a grievance against me** for selling him property that was subsequently repossessed.


###### Bava Metzia 14a:12
[Bava Metzia 14a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/14a:12)

וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רְאוּבֵן שֶׁמָּכַר שָׂדֶה לְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁלֹּא בְּאַחְרָיוּת, וְיָצְאוּ עָלֶיהָ עֲסִיקִין, עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְזִיק בָּהּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Abaye said:** Consider the case of **Reuven, who sold a field to Shimon without** a property **guarantee, and disputants emerged** disputing Reuven’s prior ownership of the field. **As long as** Shimon **has not** yet **taken** actual **possession** of the land,