דוקא מכר דהוה ליה יאוש¹ ושינוי רשות²—Specifically by a sale where there is despair and change of possession

OVERVIEW The ברייתא differentiates between קרקע and מטלטלין in a case where a stolen item was sold. If it was קרקע the נגזל (שמעון) can testify on behalf the buyer (לוי) against a potential claimant (יהודה), but not by מטלטלין. The גמרא asked (regarding the case of קרקע), why mention a sale; the same rule can apply with the גזלן (ראובן) against the outside claimant (יהודה). The גמרא answered that regarding מטלטלין however, we require that there is a sale, for then there is יאוש ושינוי רשות, so the buyer (לוי) acquires it,³ however if there was no sale, the נגזל (שמעון) would not be able to testify on behalf of the גזלן (ראובן), for since the נגזל can take it from the גזלן (even if there was יאוש), he (שמעון the נגזל) is considered a נוגע בעדות.

פירש הקונטרס⁴ וכגון שמכר ראובן ללוי שלא באחריות⁵ – The רשב"ם explained that were are discussing a case where, for instance, ראובן (the גזלן) sold the פרה וטלית to לוי without a guarantee – ונראה דפירש כן משום דאי באחריות⁶ הוי שמעון נוגע בעדות – And it appears to תוספת that the reason the רשב"ם explained it so (that it was sold without אחריות), is because if it was sold with אחריות, then שמעון would be a נוגע בעדות, and could not testify on behalf of לוי against יהודה. תוספות explains – דאף על גב דהוי יאוש ושינוי רשות מפיק לה שמעון מלוי – That even though there was יאוש ושינוי רשות (so seemingly לוי acquires this item and שמעון should not be able to take it away from him), nevertheless שמעון can remove it from לוי – כיון דאין שום הפסד ללוי שיחזור על ראובן⁷ – Since לוי suffers no loss, for he can return to ראובן and be compensated for his loss – אבל בקרקע⁸ דאינה יאוש ושינוי רשות הדרא ליה – However regarding land (property) [even though there is] יאוש ושינוי רשות, nevertheless it reverts back to the נגזל – כדפירש הקונטרס⁹ דאין מועיל יאוש¹⁰ בקרקע¹¹ – As the רשב"ם explained that יאוש [ושינוי רשות] is not effective by land – תוספות disagrees and question the פ"ה: וקשה לרבינו יצחק דבירושלמי (דכלאים פרק ז¹²) אמר דיאוש מועיל בקרקע – And the ר"י has a difficulty with the רשב"ם, for in תלמוד ירושלמי it states that יאוש is effective for קרקע – דאף על פי שאינה נגזלת מכל מקום מהני בה יאוש¹³ – So even though קרקע cannot be stolen (and is considered always ברשות הנגזל), nevertheless יאוש is effective – וגבי עבד משמע בהשולח (גיטין דף לט,ב) דמהני ביה יאוש¹⁴ אף על גב דאיתקש לקרקע¹⁵ – And similarly regarding a slave (עבד כנעני), it seems in פרק השולח that יאוש is effective by an עבד כנעני, even though he is compared to קרקע – ובשמעתין דסיקריקון¹⁶ (שם דף נח,ב) אומר רבינו יצחק דמוכח נמי כן – And, says the ר"י that in the discussion regarding סיקריקון it is also evident that יאוש is effective (even) by קרקע. ¹⁷ תוספות explains: ונראה דמיירי שלא נתייאש – And it seems that the case of קרקע is where the נגזל was not מייאש – תוספות responds to the obvious question:¹⁸ והוה מצי לפלוגי נמי בפרה וטלית¹⁹ בין לפני יאוש בין לאחר יאוש – And the גמרא could have also differentiated by פרה וטלית itself whether it was לפני יאוש (where he cannot testify), or whether it was after יאוש (where he can testify) – אלא מילתא דשכיחא נקט דבקרקע אין רגילין להתייאש כשישראל גזלה – Rather the reason he chose to differentiate between קרקע and מטלטלין is because the תנא mentions something which is common, since regarding קרקע it is not common to be מייאש, when a ישראל stole it; the reason he is not מייאש – שאם לא יוכל להוציאה מידו משום דלא ציית דינא יוציאנה מיד²⁰ בנו: For the נגזל assumes that if he cannot take it away from the גזלן, for he does not obey the בית דין, I will take it away eventually from his son.

SUMMARY There is a dispute between רשב"ם and תוספות whether יאוש is קונה by קרקע, or not.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות writes that the גמרא could have differentiated by a פרה וטלית whether it was לפני יאוש or לאחר יאוש.²¹ Why did not תוספות (also) say that we could have differentiated by קרקע whether it was לפני יאוש or לאחר יאוש?!

footnotes: ¹ יאוש means that we heard the owner say that he despairs of ever retrieving this lost or stolen item. ² שינוי רשות means that the item changed possession; in this case from the thief to the buyer. Everyone agrees that when there is יאוש and (then) שינוי רשות, that the current owner may keep the item even if we know who the original owner was. The owner has a claim against the thief, but not against the customer who bought it in good faith. Otherwise people would be reluctant to buy items, because (in case they were stolen) they may be taken away from them by the original owners. See (however) footnote # 7. ³ שמעון, therefore, has no vested interest in testifying on behalf of לוי against יהודה, for even if לוי wins, שמעון has no claim against לוי, since לוי acquires this (stolen) item through יאוש ושינוי רשות. ⁴ See רשב"ם ד"ה משום. ⁵ This means that it was agreed by the parties that even if this item is taken away from לוי (by the rightful owner, since ראובן stole it), ראובן is not obligated to compensate לוי for his loss. ⁶ This means that ראובן guarantees the sale to לוי that he will be compensated for any loss incurred by purchasing this item, if it is taken away from him (by the נגזל). ⁷ When the consumer (לוי) will suffer a loss if the original owner (שמעון) will take it away from him, since there is no אחריות on this sale, we say that in order to protect the consumer, the נגזל cannot retrieve the stolen item (if there was יאוש ושינוי רשות). See footnote # 2. However when the buyer has recourse to recoup his loss from the גזלן, the נגזל can take it back from the buyer. [See ש"ך חו"מ סי' לז ס"ק כט who argues with this and maintains that the נגזל cannot remove it from the buyer if there was יאוש ושינוי רשות, even if there is אחריות.] ⁸ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read בקרקע אף על גב דאיכא יאוש (instead of בקרקע דאינה יאוש). ⁹ See footnote # 4 ¹⁰ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read יאוש ושינוי רשות בקרקע (instead of יאוש בקרקע.). ¹¹ There is a rule that קרקע אינה נגזלת, it is always considered that it is in the רשות of the rightful owner (not of the גזלן) and (according to the רשב"ם) not even ברשות לוקח (even after יאוש). Therefore by קרקע since שמעון the נגזל can dislodge לוי (the buyer) from the field, so שמעון cannot testify on behalf of לוי, for he is a נוגע בעדות, since as soon as the field is established by לוי, the נגזל can take possession of the field away from לוי. ¹² סוף ה"ד. In our ירושלמי לד,ב. ¹³ Granted that קרקע אינה נגזלת, however that is only without יאוש, however when there is יאוש ושינוי רשות it is effective and the original owner is no longer considered a מוחזק. ¹⁴ Possibly תוספות is referencing the case there where the master said נתייאשתי מפלוני עבדי; the rule is that the slave is free (from working, but still requires a גט שחרור [to marry a בת ישראל]). It is evident that יאוש is effective by an ע"כ. ¹⁵ It stands to reason that if יאוש is effective by an ע"כ (who is compared to קרקע regarding many laws [including the laws of קנינים (acquisition)]), so יאוש should also be effective by קרקע. ¹⁶ סיקריקון is an extortionist who kills people if they do not give him their property. One of the laws regarding סיקריקון is that if the סיקריקון was on the property for twelve months (after taking it by force from the ישראל), anyone can buy it from the סיקריקון since the owner was מייאש (except that he must give the owner a fourth of the property, עיי"ש). It is evident that the ייאוש is effective since anyone can buy it from the סיקריקון. ¹⁷ In any event since we see that יאוש is קונה by קרקע, why is there a difference between פרה וטלית (where we say he can testify since יאוש (ושינוי רשות) is קונה, so he cannot take it away from the buyer). and קרקע (where we say that he cannot testify since he can remove the buyer), but since יאוש is קונה by קרקע, there is no difference between the two. If he was מייאש he should always be able to testify, and if he was not מייאש, he should never be able to testify. ¹⁸ Why are we differentiating between קרקע and מטלטלין, we should distinguish between יאוש (where he can testify) and no יאוש (where he cannot testify). ¹⁹ See ‘Thinking it over’. ²⁰ However by מטלטלין he is מייאש since he is not sure where the item will be, that he should be able to retrieve it. ²¹ See footnote # 19.

ונוקמה ביורש—And let us establish it by an heir

Overview¹ The גמרא explained that the case of מעיד לו עליה (by the פרה וטלית) must be where the גזלן sold it (for then there is יאוש ושינוי רשות), otherwise (if it was still in the sגזלן' possession), the rule would be אין מעיד לו עליה. The גמרא asks so let us establish it in a case where the גזלן died (but did not sell it) and it is now in the possession of his heir (so there is still יאוש ושינוי רשות). Our תוספות discusses whether in such a case the rule would be מעיד לו עליה.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר והא יורש אין מעיד לו עליה דהדרא ליה כדאמר בהגוזל בתרא (בבא קמא דף קיא,ב) – And if you will say; but if it is by a יורש, the נגזל would not be able to testify for him, since it is returned to the נגזל, as the גמרא states in פרק הגוזל בתרא – דכל דבר המסויים כגון פרה וטלית חייבין להחזיר² מפני כבוד אביהם³ – That any specific item, which the heirs of a גזלן inherited, for instance a פרה וטלית, the heirs are required to return it to the נגזל, because of their father’s honor (even if there was יאוש [ושינוי רשות]) – תוספות answers:** ויש לומר דהא אוקימנא בריש הגוזל קמא (שם דף צד,ב) כשעשה תשובה – And one can say, that we have established in the beginning of** פרק הגוזל קמא that this rule that the יורשים are required to return their father’s stolen item to the נגזל, is in a case where the father repented and wanted to return the stolen item –

However, he did not have the opportunity to return it before he died, however here it is a case where the father did not do תשובה; in which case the יורשים are not obligated to return it (for we are not concerned for כבוד אביהם, since he did not do תשובה).

SUMMARY The rule that יורשים must return items their father stole (to the נגזל), because of כבוד אביהם is only if the father did תשובה.

THINKING IT OVER What would be the ruling if the father did תשובה and attempted to return the stolen item, however the נגזל refused to accept it from him,⁵ are the children obligated to return it to the נגזל?⁶

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Overview’ to previous תוס' ד"ה דוקא. ² The question is how can שמעון the נגזל testify on behalf the buyer’s children against יהודה, since if the item is given to the יורשים, the נגזל will be able to take it from the יורשים (even though there was יאוש ושינוי רשות), so he is a נוגע בעדות. This should explain why the גמרא could not have established the case of פרה וטלית by יורשים. ³ When people will see the heirs with the stolen פרה וטלית, they will remark this is the פרה וטלית that their father stole. This will be a dishonor to their father. ⁴ In such a case the יורשים are required to return the item, since we are concerned for כבוד אביהם for he did תשובה. ⁵ See the גמרא (cited in תוס') in ב"ק צד,ב which states הגזלנין וכו' שהחזירו אין מקבלין מהן וכו'. ⁶ See תוס' there ד"ה אי.

אלא כדרבין בר שמואל—Rather it is like Rovin Bar Shmuel

OVERVIEW The גמרא concludes that the ברייתא of מכר לו וכו', which distinguishes between בית and פרה וטלית, is not discussing a case of גזלן but rather is teaching us the ruling of רבין בר שמואל regarding a sale of קרקע, where the seller cannot testify on behalf of the buyer against a מערער. Our תוספות clarifies the situation of the ברייתא and of רבין בר שמואל.

ואיירי ברייתא דוקא שלא באחריות דאז יכול להעיד על פרה וטלית¹ – And the ברייתא, which discusses both קרקע and מטלטלין, is specifically in a case where the sale was without a guarantee, for only then can the seller testify regarding the פרה וטלית on behalf of the buyer. This is concerning the ברייתא –

However, regarding the ruling of רבין בר שמואל in the name שמואל (which only discusses קרקע) this ruling is in all cases (whether it was sold with אחריות, or without אחריות) and he mentions a novelty that even if it was sold שלא באחריות, nevertheless the seller cannot testify on behalf of the buyer.

SUMMARY The ברייתא is in cases without אחריות and in sשמואל' case it does not matter.

THINKING IT OVER We understand from תוספות that if ראובן sold the קרקע to לוי even without אחריות, he cannot testify on his behalf (against יהודה), since ראובן has a vested interest that the property remain by לוי so that שמעון (the מלוה of ראובן) will have from where to collect his debt. Otherwise (if יהודה retains the property) שמעון will not have collected his debt and ראובן will be called a לוה רשע ולא ישלם (he borrowed money and did not pay it back).⁴ However if the field remains by לוי and שמעון takes it away, should not ראובן be considered a לוה רשע ולא ישלם regarding לוי, since לוי paid him money and received nothing in return. It seemingly should make no difference to ראובן who is losing out on his account; whether it is the מלוה (who is not paid back and lost his money) or whether it is the buyer (who paid money and received nothing). Why do we say that ראובן is a נוגע בעדות, what difference is there to ראובן, whether יהודה takes the field and the מלוה loses⁵ or if לוי takes the field and לוי loses on account of ראובן, since שמעון the מלוה of ראובן takes it away from him?!⁶

footnotes: ¹ Let us assume that ראובן owes שמעון $100. ראובן sells לוי either קרקע or מטלטלין for $100. יהודה comes to לוי and claims that the קרקע or מטלטלין belong to him. The ברייתא rules that ראובן (the seller) cannot testify on behalf of לוי against יהודה in the case of קרקע but he can testify on behalf of לוי by the פרה וטלית. This distinction is true only if ראובן sold לוי (the קרקע or מטלטלין) without a guarantee. Therefore regarding the מטלטלין, which שמעון (the מלוה of ראובן) cannot take it away from לוי (for the מטלטלין of a לוה are not משועבד to the lender), so ראובן can testify on behalf of לוי, since to ראובן there is no difference whether the מטלטלין remain by לוי or are taken away from לוי. He does not gain anything if the מטלטלין remain by לוי since ראובן will still have to pay the מלוה (for the מלוה cannot collect from לוי). He does not lose anything if יהודה takes away the מטלטלין from לוי since he never guaranteed לוי (and the מלוה would have not been able to collect from לוי anyway). However if ראובן guaranteed לוי, obviously he cannot testify on behalf of לוי (against יהודה), for ראובן is a נוגע בעדות. If יהודה were to take away the מטלטלין from לוי, it would be necessary for ראובן to reimburse לוי, since it was sold באחריות. We assume that the case of קרקע is similar to the case of מטלטלין that it too was sold בלא אחריות, nevertheless ראובן cannot testify on behalf of לוי, since ראובן has a vested interest that the property remain by לוי, for then his מלוה will be able to collect his debt from the property. Otherwise if יהודה removes לוי from the property, then שמעון will not collect his loan and ראובן will be a לוה רשע ולא ישלם. See ‘Thinking it over’. ² If ראובן sold the field to לוי with אחריות then obviously he cannot testify on his behalf, since ראובן wants the field to reman by לוי, for if יהודה removes לוי from the field, ראובן will have to compensate him (since he sold it באחריות). The novelty is that even if ראובן sold it without אחריות, nevertheless he is a נוגע בעדות, for he wants that לוי should retain the field in order that שמעון (his מלוה) will have where to collect from, and ראובן will not be a לוה רשע ולא ישלם. ³ תוספות may be saying that even though the גמרא states that the ברייתא is according to שמואל, it does not mean that the ברייתא is exactly like שמואל, but rather there is a (slight) difference, for the ברייתא must be discussing a case of שלא באחריות, however the ruling of שמואל is in all cases, whether with or without אחריות. ⁴ See end of footnote # 1. ⁵ It is difficult to answer that if יהודה takes the field then both the מלוה and לוי lose, so he is a double לוה רשע. This is not so; a person is considered a לוה רשע only if he causes the loss (like if the מלוה does not receive his payment, or if sלוי' field is taken by the מלוה because ראובן owes him money). However when יהודה takes it away from לוי this is not the fault of ראובן, for he claims that יהודה is a liar and the field belongs to him. ודו"ק. ⁶ See מהר"ם.