## Bava Metzia Daf 14b

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

יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ, מִשֶּׁהֶחְזִיק בָּהּ – אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: חַיְיתָא דְקִטְרֵי סְבַרְתְּ וְקַבֵּלְתְּ. מֵאֵימָתַי הָוְיָא חֲזָקָה? מִכִּי דָיֵישׁ אַמִּצְרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**he can withdraw** from the transaction and is not required to pay for the land. **Once he has taken possession** of the land, **he cannot withdraw, as** Reuven, the seller, can **say to him:** The purchase of the land was like purchasing **a tied sack** whose content is unknown and might not be worth anything. Since **you were aware** of that **and accepted** it, as you purchased it without a guarantee, you cannot withdraw your purchase. **From when is it** that he has taken **possession?** It is **from when he walks along the borders** of the field to inspect them.


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

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אֲפִילּוּ בְּאַחְרָיוּת נָמֵי, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: אַחְוִי טִרְפָךְ וַאֲשַׁלֵּם לָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there are** those **who say: Even** if he bought the field **with** a property **guarantee,** the buyer cannot withdraw from the sale, **as** the seller can **say to him: Show me your** document of **authorization to repossess,** which a court provides to a buyer when the land he purchased is seized from him by a third party who demonstrated that it did not belong to the seller, **and** then **I will pay you.** I do not wish to cancel the sale and reimburse you unless it is clear that the field is being taken from you legally.


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

אִיתְּמַר: הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְנִמְצֵאת שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ. רַב אָמַר: יֵשׁ לוֹ מָעוֹת וְיֵשׁ לוֹ שֶׁבַח. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מָעוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ, שֶׁבַח אֵין לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated** that with regard to a case of **one who sells a field to another and it is found** subsequently **that it did not belong to** the seller, and the rightful owner repossesses the field from the buyer and the buyer then demands reimbursement from the seller, **Rav says** that the buyer **has** the right to be repaid the **money** that he paid for the field, **and** he also **has** the right to compensation for the **enhancement** of the value of the field while it was in his possession. **And Shmuel says** that **he has** the right to the **money, but he does not have** the right to compensation for the **enhancement.**


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

בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַב הוּנָא: פֵּירֵשׁ לוֹ אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח מַהוּ? טַעְמָא דִשְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא פָּירֵשׁ שְׁבָחָא, וְהָכָא הָא פָּירֵשׁ לֵהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא טַעְמֵיהּ דִשְׁמוּאֵל: כֵּיוָן דְּלֵית לֵיהּ קַרְקַע, מִחֲזֵי כְּרִיבִּית. אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִין וְלָאו, וְרַפְיָא בִּידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The students **raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: What is** the *halakha* if the seller **specified** that the buyer would receive payment for any **enhancement** in the value of the field in the event that the field is taken by the rightful owners? Is **the reason for** the opinion **of Shmuel because** the seller **did not specify** that the buyer would receive **the enhancement** when he sold him the field, **but here,** in this case, **he did specify it? Or perhaps Shmuel’s reason is** that **since** the buyer is reimbursed but the seller **does not have** the right to the **land,** i.e., he is not given back the land, the transaction appears to have been a loan, and therefore payment for enhancement of the field **appears to be interest.** Rav Huna **said to them: Yes and no, and** the matter was **unclear to him.**


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

אִיתְּמַר, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מָעוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ, שֶׁבַח אֵין לוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁפֵּירַשׁ לוֹ אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח. מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דְּקַרְקַע אֵין לוֹ, שְׂכַר מְעוֹתָיו עוֹמֵד וְנוֹטֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **was stated** that **Rav Naḥman says** that **Shmuel says** that **he has** the right to the **money,** but **he does not have** the right to the value of the **enhancement, even if** the seller **specified** in the deed of sale that he would compensate the buyer for the value of the **enhancement** in the event that the field was repossessed. **What is the reason? Since** the seller **does not have** the right to the **land,** the buyer appears to be **standing and taking payment for** the right to use **his money,** which is interest.


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

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: אֵין מוֹצִיאִין לַאֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת, וְלִשְׁבַח קַרְקָעוֹת, וְלִמְזוֹן הָאִשָּׁה וְהַבָּנוֹת מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים, מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised an objection to** the statement of **Rav Naḥman:** It is taught in a mishna (*Gittin* 48b) that **one cannot appropriate liened property** that has been sold as payment **for consuming produce or for enhancement of land,** cases that will be explained later, **or for the sustenance of** a man’s **wife and** his **daughters** after his death, to which he committed in his marriage contract. This is despite the fact that each of these financial liabilities or commitments predated the sale of the land. These ordinances were instituted by the Sages **for the betterment of the world,** as these liabilities are not of a fixed amount, and the purchaser of the liened property cannot assess the risk he is assuming should some other person come to collect compensation from that property.


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

מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי הוּא דְּלָא מַפְּקִינַן, הָא מִבְּנֵי (חוֹרִין) – [חָרֵי] מַפְּקִינַן, וְקָתָנֵי מִיהָא לִשְׁבַח קַרְקָעוֹת, מַאי לָאו בְּלוֹקֵחַ מִגַּזְלָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna indicates that **we do not appropriate liened** property for these purposes, **but we do appropriate unsold** property. **And in any event, it is taught** in the mishna that one of these purposes is **for** the **enhancement of land. What, is it not** referring **to** a case where one **purchases** a field **from a robber,** in which case the field did not belong to the seller? And it says that the seller must pay the buyer the value of the field’s enhancement, provided he has unsold property.


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

לָא בְּבַעַל חוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No,** it is referring **to** a case of **a creditor,** where one sold a field and his creditor subsequently repossessed it from the buyer due to the seller’s prior debt to him. In that case, the sale of the land was valid, and it does not appear to have been a loan. Therefore, the seller’s payment of the enhancement does not appear to be interest.


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

אִי בְּבַעַל חוֹב, אֵימָא רֵישָׁא: אֵין מוֹצִיאִין לַאֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת, וְאִי בְּבַעַל חוֹב, בַּעַל חוֹב מִי אִית לֵיהּ פֵּירֵי? וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח. שֶׁבַח – אִין, אֲבָל פֵּירוֹת – לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** this mishna is referring **to** the case of **a creditor, say the first clause** of the mishna: **One cannot appropriate** liened property **for consuming produce.** This is apparently referring to a case where the field was full of unharvested produce and was appropriated from the buyer along with the produce. The buyer then claims payment for the value of the produce as well. **And if** the reference is **to** the case of **a creditor, does a creditor have** the right to appropriate **produce** from the buyer? **But doesn’t Shmuel say** that **a creditor collects** the value of **the enhancement** of the field? This indicates that he **does** collect the value of **enhancement, but** he does **not** collect the **produce.**


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

אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בְּגוֹזֵל וְנִגְזָל. וּמִדְּרֵישָׁא בְּגוֹזֵל וְנִגְזָל, סֵיפָא נָמֵי בְּגוֹזֵל וְנִגְזָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is **obvious** that the mishna is referring **to** the case of **a robber,** who stole the field and sold it, **and a robbery victim,** who recovers his field, including the produce, from the buyer. **And from** the fact **that the first clause** is referring **to a robber and a robbery victim, the latter clause,** i.e., the case of the enhancement of land, is **also** referring **to a robber and a robbery victim.** Rava’s objection to Shmuel’s opinion remains.


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

מִידֵּי אִרְיָא?! הָא כִּדְאִיתָא וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects the premise: **Are the cases comparable? This** case, with regard to consuming produce, is **as it is, and that** case, with regard to the enhancement of land, is **as it is.** The former case is referring to a case of robbery and the latter case is referring to the case of a creditor.


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

וְהָא לָא תָּנֵי הָכִי: לְשֶׁבַח קַרְקָעוֹת כֵּיצַד? הֲרֵי שֶׁגָּזַל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וַהֲרֵי הִיא יוֹצְאָה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ, כְּשֶׁהוּא גּוֹבֶה – גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים, וְשֶׁבַח – גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But it is not taught that way** in a *baraita* that elaborates on the mishna, stating: **What** is the case in which one appropriates property **for enhancement of land?** It is a case where **one robbed another of a field and it is appropriated** by the court **from his possession. When he collects** payment, **he collects the principal,** i.e., the value of the field itself, **from liened property, and he collects** the **enhancement from unsold property.**


###### Bava Metzia 14b:13
[Bava Metzia 14b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/14b:13)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא כִּדְקָתָנֵי, גַּזְלָן מִמַּאן גָּבֵי? אֶלָּא לָאו: כְּגוֹן שֶׁגָּזַל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וּמְכָרָהּ לְאַחֵר וְהִשְׁבִּיחָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of the case? **If we say** that the case is **as it is taught** in the *baraita*, which indicates that it is the robber who collects, **from whom does** the **robber collect?** Who owes him money? **Rather, is it not** referring to a case **where** one **robbed another of a field and sold it to another** person, i.e., to a third party, **and** that third party invested in the field and **enhanced it?** Accordingly, when the court appropriates the land from the purchaser, he collects the value of the enhancement from the unsold property of the robber who sold it to him. This interpretation poses a difficulty to Shmuel’s opinion.


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

אָמַר לָךְ: לָאו תָּרוֹצֵי קָא מְתָרְצַתְּ? תָּרֵיץ נָמֵי בְּבַעַל חוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Shmuel could have **said to you: Did you not explain** the *baraita* by adding information, i.e., that the robber sold the field to a third party? If so, you could **also explain** that rather than referring to a robber, it is referring **to a creditor.** This interpretation would accord with the opinion of Shmuel.


###### Bava Metzia 14b:15
[Bava Metzia 14b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/14b:15)

תָּא שְׁמַע: לַאֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת כֵּיצַד? הֲרֵי שֶׁגָּזַל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וַהֲרֵי הִיא יוֹצְאָה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ, כְּשֶׁהוּא גּוֹבֶה – גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים, וּפֵירוֹת גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** another *baraita* that elaborates on the mishna and poses a difficulty to the opinion of Shmuel: **What** is the case in which one appropriates property **for consuming produce?** It is the case of **one who robbed another of a field, and it is appropriated from his possession. When he collects** payment, **he collects the principal from liened property and he collects** the **produce from unsold property.**


###### Bava Metzia 14b:16
[Bava Metzia 14b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/14b:16)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא כִּדְקָתָנֵי, גַּזְלָן מִמַּאן גָּבֵי? אֶלָּא לָאו: כְּגוֹן שֶׁגָּזַל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וּמְכָרָהּ לְאַחֵר וְהִשְׁבִּיחָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances? If we say** that the case is **as it is taught** in the *baraita*, which indicates that it is the robber who collects, **from whom does** the **robber collect? Rather, is it not** referring to a case **where** one **robbed another of a field and sold it to** yet **another** person, **and** that third person **enhanced it?**


###### Bava Metzia 14b:17
[Bava Metzia 14b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/14b:17)

אָמַר רָבָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁגָּזַל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ, מְלֵאָה פֵּירוֹת, וְאָכַל אֶת הַפֵּירוֹת, וְחָפַר בָּהּ בּוֹרוֹת, שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת. בָּא נִגְזָל לִגְבּוֹת קֶרֶן – גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים, בָּא נִגְזָל לִגְבּוֹת פֵּירוֹת – גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: With what are we dealing here?** It is a case **where** one **stole a field full of produce from another, and** he **consumed the produce and dug pits, ditches, and caves in** the field, damaging it. When the **robbery victim comes to collect** the **principal,** the value of the field before it was damaged, **he collects** it **from** the robber’s **liened property.** When the **robbery victim comes to collect** the value of the **produce** from the robber, **he collects** it **from unsold property.**


###### Bava Metzia 14b:18
[Bava Metzia 14b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/14b:18)

רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba bar Rav Huna said:** It is a case **where**