## Bava Metzia Daf 15a

###### Bava Metzia 15a:1
[Bava Metzia 15a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/15a:1)

שֶׁנְּטָלוּהָ מַסִּיקִין, בָּא נִגְזָל לִגְבּוֹת קֶרֶן – גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים, בָּא נִגְזָל לִגְבּוֹת פֵּירוֹת – גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
gentile **thugs took** the field from the robber by force due to previous dealings between them. In that case, when the **robbery victim comes to collect** the **principal, he collects** it **from liened property,** and when the **robbery victim comes to collect** payment for the **produce,** he can **collect** only **from unsold property.**


###### Bava Metzia 15a:2
[Bava Metzia 15a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/15a:2)

רָבָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: ״הֲרֵי הִיא יוֹצְאָה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ״ – בְּדִינָא מַשְׁמַע. וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא לָא אָמַר כְּרָבָא: ״הֲרֵי הִיא יוֹצְאָה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ״ – בְּעֵינָא מַשְׁמַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Rava did not state** his explanation of the *baraita* **in accordance with** the explanation of **Rabba bar Rav Huna,** because the phrase: **It is appropriated from his possession, indicates** that the field was taken from him **legally** and not by thugs. **And Rabba bar Rav Huna did not state** his explanation of the *baraita* **in accordance with** the explanation of **Rava,** because the phrase: **It is appropriated from his possession, indicates** that the field is appropriated **in** its **unadulterated form,** and was not damaged.


###### Bava Metzia 15a:3
[Bava Metzia 15a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/15a:3)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לִצְדָדִין קָתָנֵי, כְּגוֹן שֶׁגָּזַל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ מְלֵאָה פֵּירוֹת וְאָכַל אֶת הַפֵּירוֹת וּמָכַר אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה, בָּא לוֹקֵחַ לִגְבּוֹת קֶרֶן – גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים. בָּא נִגְזָל לִגְבּוֹת פֵּירוֹת – גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi stated** that the *baraita* **teaches** its rulings **disjunctively.** According to Rav Ashi, the *baraita* is referring to a case **where one robbed another of a field** while it was **full of produce, and he consumed the produce and sold the field.** When, after the true owner recovers the field from purchaser, the **purchaser comes to collect** the **principal** from the robber, i.e., the amount that he paid for the field, **he collects** it **from** the robber’s **liened property.** When the **robbery victim comes to collect** payment for the **produce, he collects** only **from unsold property.**


###### Bava Metzia 15a:4
[Bava Metzia 15a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/15a:4)

בֵּין לְרָבָא בֵּין לְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא, מִלְוָה עַל פֶּה הוּא, וּמִלְוָה עַל פֶּה אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **According to both Rava and Rabba bar Rav Huna,** the money that the robber owes the robbery victim **has** the status of **a loan by oral** agreement, as it is not accompanied by documentation, **and** one who is owed **a loan by oral** agreement **cannot collect from liened property.**


###### Bava Metzia 15a:5
[Bava Metzia 15a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/15a:5)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּשֶׁעָמַד בַּדִּין וַהֲדַר זַבֵּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Here we are dealing with** a case **where** the robber **stood trial** for his robbery and was found guilty, **and he subsequently sold** the land. Since he sold it after his liability was well known, the debt is equivalent to one that is written in a promissory note, and can be collected from liened property.


###### Bava Metzia 15a:6
[Bava Metzia 15a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/15a:6)

אִי הָכִי, פֵּירוֹת נָמֵי! כְּשֶׁעָמַד בַּדִּין עַל הַקֶּרֶן, וְלֹא עָמַד בַּדִּין עַל הַפֵּירוֹת. וּמַאי פַּסְקָא? סְתָמָא דְמִילְּתָא כִּי תָּבַע אִינִישׁ – קַרְנָא תָּבַע בְּרֵישָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** the owner should collect payment for the **produce as well** from liened property. The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case **when** the robber **stood trial for the principal, but did not** yet **stand trial for the produce.** The Gemara asks: **And why** was it stated **without qualification?** According to this explanation, the distinction is not between the principal and the produce but rather between debts for which the robber stood trial and those for which he did not stand trial. The Gemara answers: **The normal** way **of things** is that **when a person files a claim, he first claims the principal** and only afterward does he file claims with regard to other property, such as produce.


###### Bava Metzia 15a:7
[Bava Metzia 15a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/15a:7)

וְסָבַר שְׁמוּאֵל לוֹקֵחַ מִגַּזְלָן לֵית לֵיהּ שְׁבָחָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara questions the statement that Rav Naḥman cited in Shmuel’s name: **But does Shmuel hold** that one who **buys** land **from a robber does not have** the right to the value of **the enhancement** of the land?


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

וְהָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב חִינָּנָא בַּר שִׁילַת: אִמְּלֵיךְ, וּכְתוֹב ״שׁוּפְרָא שְׁבָחָא וּפֵירֵי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But didn’t Shmuel say to Rav Ḥinnana bar Sheilat,** who was a scribe: When you write a deed of sale, **consult** with the parties, **and** if they agree, **write** that the seller commits to compensate the buyer, in the event that the land is appropriated from him, with **superior-quality** land, and for the value of the **enhancement** of the land **and** the **produce** as well? That was the standard formula for deeds of sale.


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

בְּמַאי? אִי בְּבַעַל חוֹב – מִי אִית לֵיהּ פֵּירֵי? וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח, שֶׁבַח – אִין, אֲבָל פֵּירוֹת – לָא. אֶלָּא לָאו, בְּלוֹקֵחַ מִגַּזְלָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **To what** case is this statement referring? **If** it is a case **where** the seller’s **creditor** repossesses the land, **does** a creditor **have** rights to the **produce? But doesn’t Shmuel say** that **a creditor collects** the value of **the enhancement** of the field, indicating that he **does** collect the value of the **enhancement, but** he does **not** collect the **produce? Rather,** is it **not** referring **to** a case of one who **buys** land **from a robber,** and the owner subsequently repossesses it? This contradicts Shmuel’s earlier statement that one who buys land from a robber does not have the right to the value of the enhancement.


###### Bava Metzia 15a:10
[Bava Metzia 15a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/15a:10)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קַרְקַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said: Here we are dealing with** a case **where** the robber **owns land,** which he can return to the buyer instead of paying him money. In that case, the transaction appears to be a sale and not payment of interest for a loan.


###### Bava Metzia 15a:11
[Bava Metzia 15a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/15a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְכִי מוּתָּר לִלְוֹת סְאָה בִּסְאָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קַרְקַע?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: But is it permitted** for one **to borrow a *se’a*** of grain **for** return of **a *se’a*** in a case **where he owns land?** The Sages render prohibited executing a loan of produce for return of the same amount of produce, lest the price rise in the interim, causing the debtor to return a higher value than he borrowed, which appears to be interest. This is the *halakha* even in a case where the borrower owns land. Similarly, in the case where the robber owns land, the payment of the value of the enhancement resembles the payment of interest.


###### Bava Metzia 15a:12
[Bava Metzia 15a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/15a:12)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָתָם הַלְוָאָה, הָכָא זְבִינֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef **said to him:** The distinction between the two cases is that **there,** with regard to borrowing a *se’a* and returning a *se’a*, the case in question involves **a loan,** whereas **here,** it is a case involving **a sale.** Since the field was bought from the robber, the additional value that the robber pays does not appear to be interest.


###### Bava Metzia 15a:13
[Bava Metzia 15a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/15a:13)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** that this is what **Rav Yosef said: Here we are dealing with** a case **where** the buyer **performed an act of acquisition** at the time he purchased the land **from** the robber’s **possession,** thereby formalizing a condition that should the field be appropriated from him, he will be reimbursed for any enhancement in its value. Since he acquired this right at the time of the purchase, it does not appear as though he is receiving interest.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְכִי מוּתָּר לִלְוֹת סְאָה בִּסְאָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: But is it permitted** for one **to borrow a *se’a* for a *se’a*** in a case **where he performed an act of acquisition** formalizing such a condition at the time he purchased the land **from** the lender’s **possession?** Isn’t it still considered to be interest and therefore prohibited?


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם הַלְוָאָה, וְהָכָא זְבִינֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef **said to him: There,** with regard to borrowing a *se’a* and returning a *se’a*, it is a case involving **a loan,** whereas **here** it is a case involving **a sale.** Buying at a low price and selling for a higher price is not considered to be interest.


###### Bava Metzia 15a:16
[Bava Metzia 15a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/15a:16)

גּוּפָא, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח. אָמַר רָבָא: תֵּדַע, שֶׁכָּךְ כּוֹתֵב לוֹ מוֹכֵר לַלּוֹקֵחַ: ״אֲנָא אֵיקוּם וַאֲשַׁפֵּי וַאֲדַכֵּי וַאֲמָרֵיק זְבִינֵי אִילֵּין, אִינּוּן וְעַמְלֵיהוֹן וּשְׁבָחֵיהוֹן, וְאֵיקוּם קֳדָמָךְ, וּצְבִי זָבֹינָא דְּנַן וְקַבֵּיל עֲלוֹהִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to discuss Shmuel’s statement **itself** that was mentioned above. **Shmuel says: A creditor collects** the value of **the enhancement** of the land. **Rava says: Know** that this is true, **as this** is the standard formulation that **the seller writes to the buyer** in a deed of sale: **I will stand and silence and purify and cleanse this sale,** i.e., I accept responsibility if the land is repossessed by my creditor. The text of the document continues: This applies to this property **itself, and the labor** invested **in it, and its enhancement; and I will present** its value **before you.** The witnesses then sign the document and attest: **And this seller consented and accepted upon himself** all of the commitments enumerated in the document. Evidently, a creditor can collect the value of the enhancement.


###### Bava Metzia 15a:17
[Bava Metzia 15a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/15a:17)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין לְרָבָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה מַתָּנָה דְּלָא כָּתֵיב לֵיהּ הָכִי, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא טָרֵיף שְׁבָחָא?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to Rava: If that is so,** in the case of **a gift, where** the owner **does not write this** formulation **to** the recipient in the deed of gift, would you **indeed** say **that** the creditor **does not repossess** the value of **the enhancement** of the land from the recipient of the gift? Rava **said to him: Indeed.**


###### Bava Metzia 15a:18
[Bava Metzia 15a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/15a:18)

וְכִי יָפֶה כֹּחַ מַתָּנָה מִמֶּכֶר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין יָפֶה וְיָפֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to Rava: **But is the** legal **power of a gift stronger than** that of **a sale,** as in the case of a sale the buyer loses the value of the enhancement if the land is repossessed? Rava **said to him: Yes, it is indeed stronger.** Since in a case of repossession, the recipient of the gift does not receive the value of the enhancement back from the one who gave him the gift, he is under no obligation to relinquish this value to the creditor.


###### Bava Metzia 15a:19
[Bava Metzia 15a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/15a:19)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הָא מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְמָר שְׁמוּאֵל, וְהוּנָא חַבְרִין מוֹקֵים לַהּ בְּמִילֵּי אַחֲרִינֵי. דְּתַנְיָא: הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ, וַהֲרֵי הִיא יוֹצְאָה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ, כְּשֶׁהוּא גּוֹבֶה – גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים, וְשֶׁבַח גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said: This** following ***baraita* supports** the opinion of **Mar Shmuel; but our colleague,** Rav **Huna, interprets it** as referring **to other matters,** so it does not support Shmuel’s opinion. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to a case of **one who sells a field to another, and it is appropriated from** the buyer’s **possession,** as it was liened to the seller’s debt, **when** the buyer then **collects** compensation from the seller, **he collects the principal from liened property, and he collects** the **enhancement from unsold property.** Evidently, the value of the enhancement is also repossessed by the creditor.


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

וְהוּנָא חַבְרִין מוֹקֵים לַהּ בְּמִילֵּי אַחֲרִינֵי, בְּלוֹקֵחַ מִגַּזְלָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But our colleague,** Rav **Huna, interprets it** as referring **to other matters,** i.e., **to** the case of one who **buys** a field **from a robber.** In that case, the robbery victim is certainly entitled to the value of the enhancement of the land.


###### Bava Metzia 15a:21
[Bava Metzia 15a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/15a:21)

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְהִשְׁבִּיחָהּ, וּבָא בַּעַל חוֹב וּטְרָפָהּ, כְּשֶׁהוּא גּוֹבֶה, אִם הַשֶּׁבַח יוֹתֵר עַל הַיְּצִיאָה – נוֹטֵל אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח מִבַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע, וְהַיְּצִיאָה מִבַּעַל חוֹב. וְאִם הַיְּצִיאָה יְתֵירָה עַל הַשֶּׁבַח – אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא הוֹצָאָה שִׁיעוּר שֶׁבַח מִבַּעַל חוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in **another** *baraita*: In a case of **one who sells a field to another,** and the buyer **enhances it, and** then **a creditor comes and repossesses** the field, in this case **when** the buyer **collects** compensation, the *halakha* is as follows: **If** the value of **the enhancement** of the field **is greater than the** buyer’s **expenses** in generating that enhancement, **he takes** the difference in value between **the enhancement** and the expenses **from the owner of the land,** i.e., the seller, **and** he is compensated for **the expenses by the creditor. And if the expenses were greater than the enhancement** of the field, **he** receives compensation for his **expenses, only** up **to the value of** the **enhancement, from the creditor.**


###### Bava Metzia 15a:22
[Bava Metzia 15a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/15a:22)

וְהָא שְׁמוּאֵל בְּמַאי מוֹקֵים לַהּ? אִי בְּלוֹקֵחַ מִגַּזְלָן – קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לוֹקֵחַ מִגַּזְלָן לֵית לֵיהּ שְׁבָחָא. אִי בְּבַעַל חוֹב – קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But how does Shmuel interpret** the *baraita*? **If** it is referring **to** one who **buys** a field **from a robber, the first clause** in the *baraita* poses **a difficulty** to Shmuel’s opinion, **as Shmuel says** that one who **buys** a field **from a robber does not have** the right to compensation for **the enhancement** of the field, and the *baraita* states that the buyer is entitled to compensation for the enhancement. **If** it is referring **to a creditor,** then both **the first clause and the latter clause** in the *baraita* pose **a difficulty** to Shmuel’s opinion, **as Shmuel says** that **a creditor collects the enhancement** of the field and needs to pay nothing.


###### Bava Metzia 15a:23
[Bava Metzia 15a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/15a:23)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּלוֹקֵחַ מִגַּזְלָן, כְּגוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קַרְקַע. אִי נָמֵי בְּשֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests two answers: **If you wish, say** that the *baraita* is referring **to** one who **buys** a field **from a robber,** in a case **where** the robber **owns land** with which he can compensate the buyer instead of paying him money. In that case, the compensation does not appear to be interest. **Alternatively,** it is referring **to** a case **where** the buyer **performed an act of acquisition** at the time he purchased the land **from** the robber’s **possession,** thereby formalizing a condition that should the field be appropriated from him, he will be reimbursed for any enhancement in its value. Since the buyer acquired the enhancement at the time he paid for the field, it does not appear as if he is receiving interest.


###### Bava Metzia 15a:24
[Bava Metzia 15a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/15a:24)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּבַעַל חוֹב. וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּשֶׁבַח

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If you wish, say** instead that it is referring **to a creditor, but** nevertheless **it** is **not difficult** according to the opinion of Shmuel. **Here,** in the *baraita*, the reference is **to enhancement**