## Tosafot on Bava Batra Daf 44b

###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 44b:2:1
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 44b:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/44b:2:1)

עשה עבדו אפותיקי ומכרו כו'. אפילו אי סבר רבא דעבדי כמקרקעי דמי נקט אפותיקי לאשמועינן בין בשטר בין בעל פה:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**עשה עבדו אפותיקי ומכרו כולי—He mortgaged his slave and sold him, etc.**

OVERVIEW
רבא ruled that if someone offered his slave as an אפותיקי for his creditor and then the borrower sold the slave, nevertheless the creditor can collect his debt by repossessing the slave for himself. תוספות explains the need for רבא to establish his ruling of a slave by an אפותיקי.¹
--------------------------------
**אפילו אי סבר רבא דעבדי כמקרקעי דמי² נקט אפותיקי לאשמועינן בין בשטר בין בעל³ פה:**
**Even if רבא maintains that slaves are considered land,** nevertheless **he mentions אפותיקי to inform us** that the מלוה can collect this עבד as payment for his loan, **whether** the loan was written in a **document, or whether** it was **an oral** loan

SUMMARY
One can collect from a sold עבד who was an אפותיקי even if it was a מלוה ע"פ.

THINKING IT OVER
It seems from תוספות that an אפותיקי is effective even by a מלוה ע"פ, only by an עבד, but not by קרקע.⁴ Why is there this difference; if there is a קול by an אפותיקי עבד, there should also be a קול by an אפותיקי קרקע?!⁵

footnotes:
¹ An אפותיקי is similar to a mortgage; meaning that the לוה designates something of value (either קרקע or an עבד), from which the מלוה can collect his debt if the לוה defaults on the loan. The word אפותיקי is a combination of three words אפה תהא קאי (the loan is based on this).
² It would seem from sרבא' statement that if the לוה did not make the עבד an אפותיקי, and sold him, the מלוה would not be able to collect the עכד as payment. However, if we assume that עבדים are like קרקע, then even if the עבד was not made an אפותיקי, the מלוה should still be able to collect from the עבד, since all קרקע is משועבד to the loan, and an עבד is considered קרקע. Therefore it is not understood why רבא mentions אפותיקי. [However if רבא would maintain עבדי כמטלטלי דמי, it is understood why רבא mentions אפותיקי, for only by an אפותיקי (of עבד) can the מלוה collect if he was sold, but not if he was not made an אפותיקי.]
³ By an oral loan the מלוה cannot collect anything from משעובדים (sold properties), unless he made it for an אפותיקי, in which case the מלוה can collect, [only] if the אפותיקי was an עבד (but not anything else). The reason is (as the גמרא states) that if one makes his עבד for an אפותיקי there is publicity (even though it was a מלוה ע"פ). See ‘Thinking it over’.
⁴ See footnote # 3.
⁵ See חידושי הב"ח על הש"ס.


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 44b:2:2
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 44b:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/44b:2:2)

שורו אפותיקי ומכרו כו'. הא דלא חשיב מכר בהדי הקדש דמפקיע מידי שעבוד משום דהקדש מפקיע אפי' אקני ליה מטלטלין אגב מקרקעי מה שאין כן במכר:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**שורו אפותיקי ומכרו כולי—His ox was mortgaged and he sold it, etc.**

OVERVIEW
רבא taught that if a borrower made his ox for an אפותיקי, and then sold it, the מלוה cannot take away this ox from the buyer to satisfy his debt. רבא ruled elsewhere¹ that הקדש, חמץ, ושחרור מפקיעין מידי שעבוד.²
-----------------------------
תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty:
**הא דלא חשיב מכר בהדי הקדש דמפקיע מידי שעבוד³ –
The reason** רבא **did not include ‘selling’ among הקדש** חמץ ושחרור, **who extract from a שעבוד –**
תוספות responds:
**משום דהקדש מפקיע אפילו אקני ליה מטלטלין אגב⁴ מקרקעי⁵ מה שאין כן במכר :**
**Because הקדש is מפקיע** from שעבוד, **even if he granted** the מלוה **the מטלטלין via קרקע, however by מכר it is not so.** Therefore רבא could not have included מכר with the others, since the הפקעה from שעבוד is not in the same manner.

SUMMARY
הקדש can be מפקיע מידי שעבוד even if he was מקנה מטלטלין אגב קרקע, but מכר cannot.

THINKING IT OVER
Can we perhaps say that when הקדש is מפקיע מידי שעבוד there is no longer a possibility to collect from it,⁶ however by מכר, it was not מפקיע the שעבוד,⁷ but merely that the מלוה cannot collect from the לקוחות.⁸

footnotes:
¹ See גיטין מ,ב וש"נ.
² This means (in the case of הקדש) that if the לוה made his ox for an אפותיקי and then the לוה was מקדיש this ox for a קרבן, the מלוה can no longer collect from this ox. For the הקדש removed the שעבוד. Similarly with חמץ and שחרור.
³ Why did רבא state that (only) הקדש חמץ ושחרור are מפקיע מידי שעבוד, he should have added מכר; that it too is מפקיע מידי שעבוד, as we see here regarding עשה שורו אפותיקי ומכרו, the rule is אין בע"ח גובה הימנו!
⁴ There is a קנין אגב; if a buyer is purchasing קרקע and מטלטלין from a seller, once the buyer makes a קנין in the קרקע and acquires it, he also acquires the מטלטלין, even though he did not make any קנין on the מטלטלין.
⁵ In a case where the לוה made the אפותיקי by being משעבד his קרקע to the מלוה, and אגב the קרקע he obligated himself to be משעבד something else (an ox) for an אפותיקי to the מלוה (see רשב"ם ד"ה וניחוש). If he subsequently was מקדיש the ox, it is מפקיע even this שעבוד, which was accomplished אגב קרקע, however if he merely sold the ox (which was משועבד to the lender אגב קרקע), the שעבוד still remains, and the מלוה can collect this ox from the buyer as payment for his debt.
⁶ This means that even if this ox, who became הקדש, received a מום and is no longer fit for the מזבח, nevertheless the מקדיש cannot claim it since the הקדש was מפקיע the שעבוד.
⁷ Were the buyer to resell it back to the seller (the לוה), the מלוה would be able to claim it, because the שעבוד was never נפקע.
⁸ See קובץ שיעורים אות קצ.


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 44b:4:1
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 44b:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/44b:4:1)

והוא דכתב דלא כאסמכתא. מספקא לן אי במטלטלי אגב מקרקעי דוקא או אפילו במקרקעי לחודיה:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**והוא דכתב דלא כאסמכתא¹—Provided that he wrote, ‘and that it is not like an *Asmachtoh*’**

OVERVIEW
רב חסדא ruled that in the case where he made his מטלטלין an אפותיקי אגב קרקע; that it is a valid אפותיקי provided that the borrower writes in the שטר that he is מקנה the מטלטלי אגב קרקע sincerely, that it is not an אסמכתא (and not כטופסא דשטרי). ² Our תוספות is unsure as to the intent of this ruling.
-------------------------------
**מספקא לן אי במטלטלי אגב מקרקעי דוקא³ או אפילו במקרקעי⁴ לחודיה:**
**We are doubtful whether** this requirement of writing דלא כאסמכתא **is specifically** when the borrower is משעבד his **מטלטלין אגב קרקע** for an אפותיקי, **or even if** he is משעבד **just his קרקע** as an אפותיקי, he also is required to write דלא כאסמכתא.

SUMMARY
תוספות is not certain whether one must write דלא כאסמכתא, only by מטלטלי אגב קרקע, or even by קרקע alone.

THINKING IT OVER
How can תוספות even consider that one must write דלא כאסמכתא even for קרקע alone (and otherwise there is no שעבוד), when we know that the קרקע of the לוה is always משעובד to the מלוה and he can collect even מנכסים משועבדים?!⁵
2. Why should there be a difference between קרקע and מטלטלי אגב קרקע; that one is an אסמכתא and the other is not?⁶

footnotes:
¹ An אסמכתא is where one makes a stipulation, however he is depending (סומך) that it will never come to pass. For instance when negotiating a sale, the buyer says if I do not being the money within a week I will pay you ten times the amount we agreed on. The buyer has no intention of paying ten times the amount; he merely says this to assure the seller that he is sincere in buying the item. The buyer is סומך that he will surely bring the money, and he is not concerned that he will have to pay ten times the amount. Therefore even if he does not pay in time the stipulation is ineffective.
² Otherwise, if he does not write דלא כאסמכתא, we can assume that he has no intention of making his מטלטלין an אפותיקי (if he does not pay), he only says it to convince the מלוה to lend him the money. The לוה is sure he will pay him back and the מלוה will never collect the מטלטלין. Therefore he must write ודלא כאסמכתא (see רשב"ם ד"ה דלא). Otherwise there is no אפותיקי.
³ We may assume this since רב חסדא issued this ruling in conjunction with sרבה' ruling that if he was מקנה מטלטלי אגב קרקע, it is effective, and on this רב חסדא ruled that he must write דלא כאסמכתא.
⁴ See ‘Thinking it over’
⁵ See מהר"ם.
⁶ See נחלת משה בגמ' בד"ה דלא.


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 44b:5:1
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 44b:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/44b:5:1)

כגון שלקח ומכר לאלתר. הוה מצי למיפרך א"ה אפי' בית ושדה נמי אלא מגופה פריך:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**כגון שלקח ומכר לאלתר—For instance that he bought it and sold it immediately**

OVERVIEW
The ברייתא taught that if ראובן sold a field to שמעון, he cannot later testify on behalf of שמעון against a potential litigant. However if he sold him a פרה וטלית he can testify on his behalf.¹ In response to various questions, the גמרא answers that by the פרה וטלית there is no concern that he was משעבד it for his מלוה, since we know that ראובן bought the פרה and immediately sold it to שמעון, so there was no time between the purchase and sale that he could have borrowed money and be משעבד this פרה to the מלוה. The גמרא challenged this answer, asking perhaps ראובן the לוה said to his מלוה that I am משעבד to you 'דאיקני'.² Our תוספות asks that the גמרא could have refuted this answer (of שלקח ומכר לאלתר) in another manner.
--------------------------------------
תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty:
**הוה מצי למיפרך אי הכי אפילו בית ושדה נמי אלא מגופה פריך:**
The גמרא **could have asked, if** indeed it is **so** that he was לקח ומכר לאלתר, **so by בית ושדה as well** he should be permitted to testify, since he did not borrow in between; there should be no difference between בית ושדה and פרה וטלית, **however** the גמרא preferred to **challenge** this answer **from** פרה וטלית **itself;** which is what we are discussing.

SUMMARY
It is preferable to ask from the issue which is under discussion than from an external issue.

THINKING IT OVER
Which of these two challenges is stronger (the sגמרא' challenge דלמא דאיקני, or תוספות proposed challenge א"ה בית ושדה נמי)?

footnotes:
¹ In the first instance we are concerned that ראובן has a vested interest that the property remain by שמעון so sראובן' creditor will have from where to collect, however regarding מטלטלין, which (usually) cannot be collected from לקוחות, we are not concerned.
² This means, ‘I am placing collateral on any asset that I will acquire later’. Therefore as soon as ראובן purchased the פרה וטלית they became משעובד אגב קרקע to his מלוה. Therefore even though he immediately sold it to שמעון, nevertheless the שעבוד remains, so how can ראובן testify on behalf of שמעון, since he has a vested interest that the פרה וטלית remain by שמעון, so his מלוה will have where to collect from.


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 44b:7:1
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 44b:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/44b:7:1)

דלא הוה ליה ארעא מעולם. מכאן תשובה לאומרים דמה שנהגו לכתוב בהרשאות ונתתי לו ארבע אמות בחצרי אע"ג דלית ליה קרקע משום דאין לך אדם שאין לו ארבע אמות בארץ ישראל דקרקע אינה נגזלת אי נמי דאין לך אדם שאין לו ד' אמות לקברו דהכא משמע דאפשר שאין לו קרקע וכן משמע בפ' שלישי דקדושין (דף ס: ע"ש) הרי את מקודשת לי על מנת שיש לי קרקע משמע דאפשר שאין לו ודוחק להעמיד בגר שאין לו חלק בארץ ועוד דא"כ לא יעשה אדם שני שטרי הקנאה שהראשון קנה ארבע אמותיו ונראה לר"ת דהיינו טעמא כיון שמודה שיש לו קרקע וחוב הוא לו שהרי על ידי קרקע מקנה לחבירו אפילו יש כמה עדים שמכחישים אותו הרי הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים ולא חיישינן למיחזי כשיקרא כדאשכחנא (לקמן בבא בתרא דף קמט.) גבי איסור גיורא דנפק אודיתא מבי איסור ואף על גב שהיה איסור משקר הקשה מהר"ר חזקיהו דמכל מקום ניחוש הכא דלמא אקני ליה מטלטלין אגב קרקע והודה שיש לו מקרקע אע"פ שלא היה לו מעולם ונראה דכולי האי לא חיישינן שמא שיקרו להודות ונראה לו דבזמן הזה שרגילים לכתוב והקניתי לו ארבע אמות בחצירי א"כ מילתא דשכיחא היא וא"כ מכר לו פרה וטלית אין מעיד לו עליה אע"ג דאיכא עדים דלא היה ליה ארעא מעולם:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**דלא הוה ליה ארעא מעולם—That he never owned land**

OVERVIEW
The גמרא concluded that the reason the seller can testify on behalf of the buyer by מטלטלין is that we are discussing a case where there are witnesses that the seller never owned any land and therefore he could not have been משעבד his מטלטלין אגב קרקע. There is therefore no concern that the מלוה of the seller will collect these מטלטלי.
--------------------------------
**מכאן תשובה לאומרים דמה שנהגו לכתוב בהרשאות¹ ונתתי לו ארבע אמות בחצרי –
From** the גמרא **here** (which states that witnesses testify that he never owned land) there is **a rebuttal to** those that **say regarding this which is customary to write in** שטרי **הרשאות, ‘and I gave him four אמות in my courtyard’** and אגב the קרקע I am also giving him the item in dispute; we write this in the שטר הרשאה –
**אף על גב דלית ליה קרקע משום דאין לך אדם שאין לו ארבע אמות בארץ ישראל –
Even though** in reality the מרשה **has no land.** The reason we do this is **because there is no person who does not own** at least **ד' אמות in א"י –
דקרקע² אינה נגזלת³ אי נמי דאין לך אדם שאין לו ד' אמות לקברו⁴ –
Since land cannot be stolen, or** you may **also** say **that there is no person who does not have** the right to **ד' אמות to bury him.** This is how the 'אומרים' explain why we can write in the הרשה that ונתתי לי ד"א בחצרי. However תוספות objects –
**דהכא משמע דאפשר שאין לו קרקע⁵ –
For here it seems that it is possible that** a ישראל **has no קרקע** at all.
**וכן משמע בפרק שלישי דקדושין (דף ס,ב עיין שם) הרי את מקודשת לי על מנת שיש לי קרקע –
And so too it seems in the third פרק of** מסכת **קדושין,** where the משנה states in a case where a man said to a woman, ‘**you are betrothed to be with the stipulation that I have land’**, the rule is that she is מקודשת only if he has land, but not if he does not –
**משמע דאפשר שאין לו –
This implies that it is possible that he has no** land –
תוספות rejects a possible answer:
**ודוחק להעמיד בגר שאין לו חלק בארץ⁶ –
And it is improbable to establish** (these גמרות) **by a convert who has no share in the land –**
תוספות has an additional difficulty with the 'אומרים':
**ועוד דאם כן לא יעשה אדם שני שטרי הקנאה שהראשון קנה ארבע אמותיו –
And additionally; for if this is indeed so** that one is using his ד"א בא"י, the rule should be **that a person cannot make two notes of הרשאה, for the first** agent **already acquired his ד"א,** what is he giving to the second agent; he has no more קרקע?!
In summation תוספות rejects the notion that the reason one writes ונתתי לי ד"א בחצרי is because we assume he has land (either in א"י, or to be buried in). The question therefore arises how do people, who have no land, write הרשאות.
**ונראה לרבינו תם דהיינו טעמא כיון שמודה שיש לו קרקע וחוב הוא לו –
And it is the view of the ר"ת that this is the reason** why one may write ונתתי לו ד"א בחצרי (even though he owns no land), for **since he admits that he has land and** this admission **is detrimental for him –
שהרי על ידי קרקע מקנה לחבירו⁷ –
Since through the land he is transferring** his assets **to his friend,** so therefore –
**אפילו יש כמה עדים שמכחישים אותו הרי הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים⁸ –
Even though there are many witnesses who contradict him** and testify that he owns no land, nevertheless the rule is the **admission of a litigant is like a hundred witnesses –**
תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty:
**ולא חיישינן למיחזי כשיקרא כדאשכחנא (לקמן דף קמט,א) גבי איסור גיורא –
And we are not concerned that ‘it appears like a lie’;** this is no concern, **as we find regarding⁹ איסור the גר –
דנפק אודיתא מבי איסור ואף על גב שהיה איסור משקר¹⁰ –
That an admission was issued from sאיסור' house, and even though that איסור was lying,** nevertheless the money went to מרי בר איסור, and not to רבא.
Based on this ר"ת,¹¹ תוספות asks:
**הקשה מורינו הרב רבי חזקיהו דמכל מקום ניחוש הכא דלמא אקני ליה מטלטלין אגב קרקע –
מהר"ר חזקיהו asked that notwithstanding** that there are witnesses here that the seller never owned any land, **we should still be concerned perhaps** the seller **was מקנה** his lender **מטלטלין אגב קרקע** and we will disregard the עדים because (perhaps) –
**והודה¹² שיש לו מקרקע¹³ אף על פי שלא היה לו מעולם –
The** borrower/seller **admitted that he owns land, even though** that in truth **he never owned** any land –
תוספות answers:
**ונראה דכולי האי לא חיישינן שמא שיקרו להודות¹⁴ –
And it appears** to תוספות that **to such an extent** **we are not concerned that they will lie in their admission.**
תוספות rules:
**ונראה לו דבזמן הזה שרגילים לכתוב והקניתי לו ארבע אמות בחצירי –
And it is the view of** מהר"ר חזקיהו **that nowadays that it is customary to write, ‘and I let him acquire ד"א in my courtyard’ –
אם כן מילתא דשכיחא היא ואם כן מכר לו פרה וטלית אין מעיד לו עליה –
Therefore it is a common practice** to ‘lie/admit’ that one owns קרקע, **so therefore if he sold him a פרה וטלית,** the seller **cannot testify on behalf** of the buyer –
**אף על גב דאיכא עדים דלא היה ליה ארעא מעולם:**
**Even though there are witnesses that** the seller **never owned land,** because nowadays it is very common to admit (by lying) and be מקנה אגב קרקע, even though he has no קרקע, so this concern is more realistic and probable nowadays.

SUMMARY
We write in a שטר הרשאה that ‘I gave him ד"א in my חצר’; either because everyone has ד"א in א"י (the view of the 'אומרים'), or because הודאת בע"ד כמאה עדים דמי (the ר"ת).

THINKING IT OVER
1. תוספות writes that one of the reasons one may write ונתתי לו ד"א בחצרי is because שאין לך אדם שאין לו ד"א לקוברו.¹⁵ Seemingly this right to be buried is something a person receives after he passes on, but right now, he does not own any land, so how can he be מקנה מטלטלין אגב this קרקע which he does not have?!¹⁶
2. Does the question of מהר"ר חזקיהו also apply to the view of the 'אומרים' that everyone has ד"א;¹⁷ therefore even though there are עדים that he has no land, nevertheless he has ד"א so he can be מקנה the מטלטלין אגב קרקע? If indeed the question applies, what would be the answer?!

footnotes:
¹ A הרשאה is a ‘power of attorney’. In certain instances where one wishes to send an agent to claim on his behalf; the sender (מרשה) must grant the agent (מורשה) the ownership over the item in question. This is usually done through קנין אגב. The מרשה states that he is granting the מורשה some of his קרקע and אגב the קרקע he is granting him the ownership of this item. Otherwise, the other party may refuse to deal with the agent, saying לאו בעל דברים דידי את.
² Land is always considered to be in the possession of the original owner, not the thief who may be occupying the land.
³ Our ancestors owned the land of א"י, so therefore we, as rightful heirs, own part of א"י, regardless who may be living on the land.
⁴ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1.
⁵ If every ישראל has some קרקע what is the answer that the עדים testify that the seller never had land; but according to these 'אומרים', everyone has land. This proves that it is indeed possible not to have land, and we need to understand how the הרשאות are effective.
⁶ Regarding a convert it is indeed possible that he has no land, since he did not inherit it from his ancestors; however it is very far-fetched to establish these גמרות that they apply only by a גר (which is very uncommon).
⁷ See footnote # 1. The מרשה is granting the מורשה this (virtual) land and, through אגב, also some of his assets.
⁸ הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי really means that one’s admission is greater than the testimony of (even) one hundred witnesses. [An example is if one responds, to a demand of payment for a loan, that he never borrowed the money, this is considered as an admission that he never paid it (if one did not borrow he certainly does not pay back). Therefore if there are witnesses that there was a loan, and witnesses that he paid back the loan, nevertheless he is obligated to pay, because his admission (by saying I did not borrow so therefore) that he did not pay back, is stronger than the testimony of the witnesses that he did pay back.]
⁹ איסור גיורא had a son מרי בר איסור who was conceived before איסור was מתגייר, and so therefore legally he was not his son and not his heir. איסור had deposited 12,000 זוזים by רבא. When איסור was on his death bed, רבא assumed that he will be able to be קונה this deposit (מן ההפקר) when איסור died, since איסור has no heirs. However איסור falsely ‘admitted’ that the money which he deposited by רבא belonged to מרי בר איסור.
¹⁰ It is apparent that הודאה is effective even though we know it is a lie. Therefore here too, when the מרשה ‘admits’, to his detriment, that he has land, we accept it as so.
¹¹ See ‘Thinking it over; # 2.
¹² This admission is to his detriment, since he is משעבד his קרקע ומטלטלין to his מלוה.
¹³ According to the ר"ת that we accept the admission that one owns קרקע, even if in actuality he does not, the question of the גמרא remains; perhaps ראובן the seller was מקנה his מטלטלין אגב קרקע (in a manner of דאיקני) so even though the עדים testify that he never owned קרקע, but if he is admitting that he does own קרקע, he is believed, and so he is a נוגע בעדות because he wants to pay his מלוה, and should not be allowed to testify on behalf of the buyer.
¹⁴ When this case comes before us (where ראובן wants to testify on behalf of שמעון the buyer) we do not know whether ראובן owes money or not, we do not know whether he was מקנה מטלטלין אגב קרקע, etc. However we are concerned that perhaps this is what happened (that he borrowed and was מקנה מטלטלי אגב קרקע). Nevertheless once there are witnesses that he never owned קרקע, that concern is not there. You ask that we should be concerned that perhaps ראובן lied and said that he has קרקע, that concern is too far-fetched, and we can dismiss it.
¹⁵ See footnote # 4.
¹⁶ See קובץ שיעורים אות קצב. See there also regarding קרקע אינה נגזלת that by כיבוש מלחמה even a נכרי is קונה מישראל, so how do we have קרקע בא"י. The קובץ שיעורים answers, דשאני א"י שאנו מובטחים שתחזור לנו בביאת הגואל אשר נחכה לו בכל יום שיבוא.
¹⁷ See footnote # 11.