Bava Metzia — Daf 15a

שנטלוה מסיקין בא נגזל לגבות קרן גובה מנכסים משועבדים בא נגזל לגבות פירות גובה מנכסים בני חורין

רבא לא אמר כרבה בר רב הונא הרי היא יוצאה מתחת ידו בדינא משמע ורבה בר רב הונא לא אמר כרבא הרי היא יוצאה מתחת ידו בעינא משמע

רב אשי אמר לצדדין קתני כגון שגזל שדה מחבירו מלאה פירות ואכל את הפירות ומכר את השדה בא לוקח לגבות קרן גובה מנכסים משועבדים בא נגזל לגבות פירות גובה מנכסים בני חורין

בין לרבא בין לרבה בר רב הונא מלוה על פה הוא ומלוה על פה אינו גובה מנכסים משועבדים

הכא במאי עסקינן כשעמד בדין והדר זבין

אי הכי פירות נמי כשעמד בדין על הקרן ולא עמד בדין על הפירות ומאי פסקא סתמא דמילתא כי תבע איניש קרנא תבע ברישא

וסבר שמואל לוקח מגזלן לית ליה שבחא

והא א"ל שמואל לרב חיננא בר שילת אמליך וכתוב שופרא שבחא ופירי

במאי אי בבעל חוב מי אית ליה פירי והאמר שמואל בעל חוב גובה את השבח שבח אין אבל פירות לא אלא לאו בלוקח מגזלן

אמר רב יוסף הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שיש לו קרקע

א"ל אביי וכי מותר ללות סאה בסאה במקום שיש לו קרקע

א"ל התם הלואה הכא זביני

איכא דאמרי אמר רב יוסף הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שקנו מידו

א"ל אביי וכי מותר ללות סאה בסאה במקום שקנו מידו

א"ל התם הלואה והכא זביני:

גופא אמר שמואל בעל חוב גובה את השבח אמר רבא תדע שכך כותב לו מוכר ללוקח אנא איקום ואשפי ואדכי ואמריק זביני אילין אינון ועמליהון ושבחיהון ואיקום קדמך וצבי זבינא דנן וקביל עלוהי

א"ל רב חייא בר אבין לרבא אלא מעתה מתנה דלא כתיב ליה הכי ה"נ דלא טריף שבחא א"ל אין

וכי יפה כח מתנה ממכר א"ל אין יפה ויפה

אמר רב נחמן הא מתניתא מסייע ליה למר שמואל והונא חברין מוקים לה במילי אחריני דתניא המוכר שדה לחבירו והרי היא יוצאה מתחת ידו כשהוא גובה גובה את הקרן מנכסים משועבדים ושבח גובה מנכסים בני חורין

והונא חברין מוקים לה במילי אחריני בלוקח מגזלן

תניא אידך המוכר שדה לחבירו והשביחה ובא בעל חוב וטרפה כשהוא גובה אם השבח יותר על היציאה נוטל את השבח מבעל הקרקע והיציאה מבעל חוב ואם היציאה יתירה על השבח אין לו אלא הוצאה שיעור שבח מבעל חוב

והא שמואל במאי מוקים לה אי בלוקח מגזלן קשיא רישא דאמר שמואל לוקח מגזלן לית ליה שבחא אי בבעל חוב קשיא רישא וסיפא דאמר שמואל בעל חוב גובה את השבח

איבעית אימא בלוקח מגזלן כגון שיש לו קרקע אי נמי בשקנו מידו

איבעית אימא בבעל חוב ולא קשיא כאן בשבח

bandits took away [the field from the person who acquired it unlawfully].  When the [original owner who was] robbed [of his field] comes to demand the capital [value of the field] he may exact payment from encumbered property. But if he comes to demand the value of the fruit he may exact payment from unencumbered property [only]. Raba does not give the same explanation as Rabbah son of R. Huna because it says, 'He has had to give it up again,' which obviously means through the [intervention of the] Court.  And Rabbah son of R. Huna does not give the same explanation as Raba, because it says, 'He has had to give it up again,' which obviously means in its original condition [and not full of holes].  R. Ashi said: It refers partly to one and partly to the other,  viz., if one violently took away from a neighbour a field full of fruit, and ate the fruit and sold the field,  when the buyer comes to demand the capital [value of the field itself] he may exact payment from encumbered property; when the robbed [neighbour] comes to demand [the value of] the fruit he may exact payment from unencumbered property [only]. [The question now arises:] Both according to Raba and according to Rabbah son of R. Huna this is [like] a debt contracted verbally,  and a verbally contracted debt does not entitle [the creditor] to exact payment from encumbered property? — Here we deal with a case where [the robber first] stood his trial and then sold [the field].  But if so, the produce [of the field should] also [be recoverable from encumbered property]? — [The case is one where the robber] has stood his trial as regards the capital [value of the field itself] but has not stood his trial as regards the produce. But how can this be determined?  — It is the usual practice: When a person sues, he sues first for the principal. But does Samuel [really] hold the view that he who bought [a field] from a robber is not entitled to [compensation for the] improvement [he made in the field]? Did not Samuel say to R. Hinena b. Shilath [the scribe]:  Consult [the seller, when drawing up a deed of sale], and write, 'best property, improvement, and produce'?  Now, to what [kind of transaction does this apply]? If [it applies] to a creditor [claiming the field for his debt], is he entitled to the produce of the field? Has not Samuel said: The creditor exacts payment from the improvement, [which means] from the improvement only, but not from the produce? It must therefore [be said that it applies] to one who bought [a field] from a robber!  — R. Joseph said: Here we deal with a case where [the robber] owns land.  Said Abaye to him: Is it permitted to borrow a measure [of corn and to repay the loan] with [the same] measure,  when [the borrower] has land? — He [R. Joseph] answered him: There [it is] a loan; here [it is] a sale. Some say: R. Joseph said: Here we deal with a case where there was a formal act of acquisition [whereby the seller pledged himself to be immediately responsible to the buyer for the improvement].  [But] Abaye said to him: Is it permitted to borrow a measure [of corn and to repay the loan] with [the same] measure, when there was a formal act of acquisition [whereby the borrower pledged himself to be immediately responsible to the lender for an increase in price]? — He [R. Joseph] answered him: There [it is] a loan; here [it is] a sale. [To revert to] the above text: Samuel said: 'A creditor exacts payment from the improvement.' Said Raba: You may know [that this view is correct], for the seller writes [in the deed of sale] the following [guarantee] to the buyer: 'I shall confirm, satisfy, clear, and perfect these purchases  — them, the gains resulting from them, and the improvements to be made in them — and I shall stand [as surety] for you, and this purchaser agrees [to it] and accepts it.'  R. Hiyya b. Abin then said to Raba: If this is so, [would you say that] in the case of a gift, regarding which [the donor] writes no such [guarantee], [a creditor who has a previous claim to the property] may indeed not appropriate the improvement?  — He [Raba] answered him: Yes. But [R. Hiyya then asked]: Does a gift confer a greater right [on the recipient] than a sale [does on the buyer]?  — [The former] answered: Yes, it undoubtedly does. R. Nahman said: The following Baraitha corroborates the view of Mar Samuel, but our colleague Huna explains it as referring to a different matter. For it was taught: If one has sold a field to a neighbour and then [the buyer] has to surrender it [to another claimant], he [the buyer] may, when seeking redress, exact repayment of the capital [value of the field itself] from encumbered property, and the [refund of the cost of the] improvement he collects from unencumbered property. But our colleague Huna explains it as referring to a different matter, [viz.], to that of one who has bought [a field] from a person who acquired it wrongfully.  Another [Baraitha] taught: If one has sold a field to his neighbour, and he [the buyer] has improved it, and then a creditor [of the seller] comes and seizes it, he [the buyer], when seeking redress,is entitled, in a case where [the value of] the improvement is greater than the cost [thereof], to collect [the value of] the improvement from the owner of the land and the cost thereof from the creditor.  But in a case where the cost [of the improvement] is greater than the [value of that] improvement, he [the buyer] is only entitled to collect from the [seller's] creditor the amount of the cost which corresponds to the [value of the] improvement.  Now, how does Samuel explain this [Baraitha]? If [he explains it as referring] to one who bought [the field] from a person who acquired it wrongfully, then the first part [of the Baraitha]  contradicts him, for Samuel said [above]: 'He who buys [a field] from a person who acquired it wrongfully is not entitled to [compensation for] the improvement [he made in the field].' [And] if [he explains it as referring] to [the seller's] creditor [seizing the field], then both the first part and the second part [of the Baraitha] contradict him,  for Samuel said [above]: 'A creditor exacts payment from the improvement [made in the field by the buyer]'?If you like, I shall say [that Samuel will explain the Baraitha as referring] to one who bought [the field] from a person who acquired it wrongfully, and where the latter owns land,  or where there was a formal act of acquisition [whereby he pledged himself at the sale that he would pay for the improvement].  [And] if you like, I shall say [that Samuel will explain the Baraitha as referring] to [the seller's] creditor [seizing the field]. [Nevertheless] there is no contradiction [to Samuel's views]. [For] here [the reference is] to an improvement