Bava Kamma — Daf 8a

עידית וזיבורית נזקין בעידית ובעל חוב וכתובת אשה בזיבורית

קתני מיהא מציעא בינונית וזיבורית נזקין וב"ח בבינונית וכתובת אשה בזיבורית ואי אמרת בשלו הן שמין תעשה בינונית שלו כעידית וידחה ב"ח אצל זיבורית

הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהיתה לו עידית ומכרה

וכן א"ר חסדא כגון שהיתה לו עידית ומכרה

הכי נמי מסתברא מדקתני אחריתי בינונית וזיבורית נזקין בבינונית ב"ח וכתובת אשה בזיבורית קשיין אהדדי

אלא לאו ש"מ כאן שהיתה לו עידית ומכרה כאן שלא היתה לו עידית ומכרה

ואי בעית אימא אידי ואידי שלא היתה לו עידית ומכרה ולא קשיא הא דשויא בינונית שלו כעידית דעלמא וכאן דלא שויא בינונית שלו כעידית דעלמא

ואב"א אידי ואידי כגון שהיתה בינונית שלו כבינונית דעלמא והכא בהא פליגי מ"ס בשלו הן שמין ומ"ס בשל עולם הן שמין

רבינא אמר בדעולא פליגי דאמר עולא דבר תורה ב"ח בזיבורית שנאמר (דברים כד, יא) בחוץ תעמוד והאיש אשר אתה נושה בו יוציא אליך את העבוט החוצה מה דרכו של אדם להוציא לחוץ פחות שבכלים ומה טעם אמרו ב"ח בבינונית כדי שלא תנעול דלת בפני לוין

מר אית ליה תקנתא דעולא ומר לית ליה תקנתא דעולא

ת"ר מכר לאחד או לשלשה בני אדם כאחד כולן נכנסו תחת הבעלים

בזה אחר זה כולן גובין מן האחרון אין לו גובה משלפניו אין לו גובה משלפני פניו

מכרן לאחד היכי דמי

אילימא בבת אחת השתא לשלשה דאיכא למימר חד מינייהו קדים אמרת כולן נכנסו תחת הבעלים מכרן לאחד מיבעיא

אלא פשיטא בזה אחר זה

ומ"ש שלשה דכל חד וחד אמר ליה הנחתי לך מקום לגבות ממנו

האי נמי אכל חד וחד לימא ליה הנחתי לך מקום לגבות ממנו

הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שלקח עידית באחרונה וכן אמר רב ששת כגון שלקח עידית באחרונה

אי הכי ליתו כולהו וליגבו מעידית

משום דאמר להו אי שתקיתו ושקליתו כדינייכו שקליתו ואי לא מהדרנא שטרא דזיבורית למריה ושקליתו כולכו מזיבורית

אי הכי

If, however, the estate consists only of the best and of the worst qualities, creditors for damages are paid out of the best whereas those for loans and marriage contracts are paid out of the worst quality. Now  the intermediate clause states that if the estate consists only of the medium and the worst qualities, creditors for either damages or loans are paid out of the medium quality whereas marriage contracts will be paid out of the worst quality. If, therefore, you still maintain that the calculation is based only upon the qualities of the defendant's estate, is not the medium [when there is no better with him] his best? Why then should not the creditors for loans be thrown back on the worst quality? — This [intermediate clause] deals with a case where the defendant originally possessed  property of a better quality but has meanwhile disposed of it. And R. Hisda likewise explained this [intermediate clause] to deal with a case where the defendant originally possessed  property of a better quality but has meanwhile disposed of it. This explanation stands to reason, for it is taught elsewhere: If the estate consisted of the medium and the worst qualities, creditors for damages are paid out of the medium quality whereas those for loans and marriage contracts will be paid out of the worst quality. Now these [two Baraithas] do not contradict each other, unless we accept [the explanation that] the one deals with a case where the defendant originally owned property of a better quality but which he has meanwhile disposed of, while the other states the law for a case where he did not have  property of a quality better than the medium in his possession. It may, however, on the other hand be suggested that both [Baraithas] state the law when a better quality was not disposed of  and there is yet no contradiction, as the second [Baraitha] presents a case where the defendant's medium quality is as good as the best quality of the general public,  whereas in the first [Baraitha] the medium quality was not so good as the best of the public.  It may again be suggested that both [Baraithas] present a case where the defendant's medium quality was not better than the medium quality of the general public and the point at issue is this: the second [Baraitha] bases the calculation upon the qualities of the defendant's estate,  but the first bases it upon those of the general public. Rabina said: The point at issue is the view expressed by 'Ulla.  For 'Ulla said: Creditors for loans may, according to Pentateuchal Law, be paid out of the worst, as it is said, Thou shalt stand without, and the man to whom thou dost lend shall bring forth the pledge without unto thee.  Now it is certainly in the nature of man [debtor] to bring out the worst of his chattels. Why then is it laid down that creditors for loans are paid out of the medium quality?  This is a Rabbinic enactment made in order that prospective borrowers should not find the door of their benefactors locked before them. Now this enactment referred to by 'Ulla is accepted by the first [Baraitha] whereas the second disapproves of this enactment. Our Rabbis taught: If a defendant  disposed of all his land  to one or to three persons at one and the same time, they all have stepped into the place of the original owner.  [If, however, the three sales took place] one after another, creditors of all descriptions will be paid out of the [property purchased] last;  if this property does not cover [the liability], the last but one purchased estate is resorted to [for the balance]; if this estate again does not meet [the whole obligation], the very first purchased estate is resorted to [for the outstanding balance]. 'If the defendant disposed of all his land to one' — under what circumstances [was it disposed of]? It could hardly be suggested [that it was effected] by one and the same deed, for if in the case of three persons whose purchases may have been after one another,  you state that, 'They all have stepped into the place of the original owner,' what need is there to mention one person purchasing all the estate by one and the same deed? It therefore seems pretty certain [that the estate disposed of to one person was effected by] deeds of different dates. But [then] why such a distinction?  Just as in the case of three purchasers [in succession] each can [in the first instance] refer any creditor [to the very last purchased property], saying, '[When I bought my estate] I was careful to leave [with the defendant] plenty for you to be paid out of,'  why should not also one purchaser [by deeds of different dates] be entitled to throw the burden of payment on to the very last purchased property, saying, '[When I acquired title to the former purchases] I was very careful to leave for you plenty to be paid out of'? — We are dealing here with a case where the property purchased last was of the best quality;  also R. Shesheth stated that [this law applies] when the property purchased last was of the best quality. If this be the case, why [on the other hand] should not creditors of all kinds come and be paid out of the best quality [as this was the property purchased last]? — Because the defendant may say to the creditors: 'If you acquiesce and agree to be paid out of the qualities respectively allotted to you by law, you may be paid accordingly, otherwise I will transfer the deed of the worst property back to the original owner — in which case you will all be paid out of the worst.'  If so,