Bava Metzia — Daf 15b

המגיע לכתפים כאן בשבח שאינו מגיע לכתפים

והא מעשים בכל יום וקא מגבי שמואל אפי' בשבח המגיע לכתפים

לא קשיא הא דמסיק ביה כשיעור ארעא ושבחא הא דלא מסיק ביה אלא כשיעור ארעא דיהיב ליה שבחיה ומסליק ליה

הניחא למ"ד אי אית ליה זוזי ללוקח לא מצי מסליק ליה לבעל חוב שפיר אלא למאן דאמר כי אית ליה זוזי ללוקח מצי מסליק ליה לבעל חוב נימא ליה אילו הוה לי זוזי הוה מסלקינך מכולה ארעא השתא דלית לי זוזי הב לי גרבא דארעא בארעא שיעור שבחאי

הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שעשאו אפותיקי דאמר ליה לא יהא לך פרעון אלא מזו:

הכיר בה שאינה שלו ולקחה אמר רב מעות יש לו שבח אין לו ושמואל אמר אפי' מעות אין לו

במאי קמיפלגי רב סבר אדם יודע שקרקע אין לו וגמר ונתן לשום פקדון ונימא ליה לשום פקדון סבר לא מקבל

ושמואל סבר אדם יודע שקרקע אין לו וגמר ונתן לשום מתנה ונימא ליה לשום מתנה כסיפא ליה מילתא

והא פליגי ביה חדא זימנא דאיתמר המקדש את אחותו רב אמר מעות חוזרין ושמואל אמר מעות מתנה רב אמר מעות חוזרין אדם יודע שאין קידושין תופסין באחותו וגמר ונתן לשום פקדון ונימא לה לשום פקדון סבר לא מקבלה מיניה

ושמואל אמר מעות מתנה אדם יודע שאין קידושין תופסין באחותו וגמר ונתן לשום מתנה ונימא לה לשום מתנה כסיפא לה מילתא

צריכא דאי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר רב דלא עבדי אינשי דיהבי מתנות לנוכראה אבל גבי אחותו אימא מודה ליה לשמואל

ואי איתמר בהך בהך קאמר שמואל אבל בהא אימא מודה ליה לרב צריכא

בין לרב דאמר פקדון בין לשמואל דאמר מתנה האי לארעא במאי קא נחית ופירות היכי אכיל

סבר אנא איחות לארעא ואיעביד ואיכול בגויה כי היכי דהוה קא עביד איהו לכי אתי מריה דארעא זוזאי נהוו לרב דאמר פקדון פקדון לשמואל דאמר מתנה מתנה

אמר רבא הלכתא יש לו מעות ויש לו שבח ואע"פ שלא פירש לו את השבח הכיר בה שאינה שלו ולקחה מעות יש לו שבח אין לו

אחריות טעות סופר הוא בין בשטרי הלואה בין בשטרי מקח וממכר

בעא מיניה שמואל מרב חזר ולקחה מבעלים הראשונים מהו אמר ליה מה מכר לו ראשון לשני כל זכות שתבא לידו

מאי טעמא מר זוטרא אמר ניחא ליה דלא נקרייה גזלנא רב אשי אמר ניחא ליה דליקו בהמנותיה

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דמית לוקח מאן דאמר ניחא ליה דלא לקרייה גזלנא

which [has matured and] is ready to be carried away,  [but] there [the reference is] to an improvement which [has not yet matured and] is not ready to be carried away. But do not cases occur daily  where Samuel allows [creditors] to collect [their debts] even from improvements which [have matured and] are ready to be carried away?  — There is no contradiction: These [are cases] where [the creditor] claims from him [the seller] an amount equal to [the combined value of] the land and the improvement;  the other is [a case] where [the creditor] claims from him [the seller] an amount equal to the value of the land alone, in which case the creditor compensates him [the buyer] for [the value of] his improvement and dismisses him. [But, it is asked:] This is right and proper according to the view of him who says  that when the buyer has money [to pay the seller's debt] he cannot dismiss the creditor [by paying him the money].  But according to the view of him who says that when the buyer has money [to pay the seller's debt] he can dismiss the creditor [by paying him the money], let him  say unto him [the creditor]: 'If I had money I would have kept you away from the whole field [by paying the amount due to you] — now that I have no money give me a piece  of ground in the field corresponding to the value of my improvement'! — Here [in the Baraitha] we deal with a case where he [the seller] had made it [the field] an hypothec,  in that he said [to the creditor], 'You shall receive payment only from this.' If [the buyer] knew that [the field] did not belong to him [who sold it], and [yet] he bought it, Rab says: He is entitled to the purchase-price  but not to the [value of the] improvement.  But Samuel says: He is not entitled even to the purchase-price. Wherein do they differ? Rab is of the opinion that a person, knowing that [the seller] has no land, will make up his mind and give him [the money] as a deposit.  But then he should say to him that it is to be regarded as a deposit? He is afraid that he [the seller] will not accept it [as such].  But Samuel is of the opinion that a person, knowing that [the seller] has no land, will make up his mind and give him [the money] as a present. But then he should say to him that it is to be regarded as a present? He [the recipient] might be bashful.  But has not this difference of opinion [between Rab and Samuel] been expressed once already? Has it not been stated:  'If a man betrothed his sister to himself [by giving her money],  Rab says: The money has to be given back. But Samuel says: The money is to be regarded as a present. Rab says that the money has to be given back, [because he is of the opinion that] a person, knowing that one's betrothal to one's sister is not valid, will make up his mind and give [her the money] as a deposit. But then he should say to her that it is to be regarded as a deposit? He is afraid that she will not accept it [as such]. But Samuel says that the money is to be regarded as a present, [because he is of the opinion that] a person, knowing that one's betrothal to one's sister is not valid, will make up his mind and give [her the money] as a present. But then he should say to her that it is to be regarded as a present? She might feel bashful? — It is necessary [to have the difference of opinion recorded in both cases]. For if it were taught [only] in that case  [we might think that only] in such a case does Rab say [that the money is to be returned],  because people do not usually give presents to strangers, but as regards a sister [we might think that] he agrees with Samuel. And if it were taught [only] in this case,  [we might think that only] in such a case does Samuel say [that the money is not to be returned],  but as regards the other case  [we might think] that he agrees with Rab.  [Therefore] it is necessary [to state both cases]. [Now, behold,] both according to Rab, who says [that the money is to be regarded as] a deposit, and according to Samuel, who says [that the money is to be regarded as] a present — how does [the person who has given the money] go down [to the field] and how does he eat the fruit [thereof]?  He thinks, 'I shall go down to the field and work [in it] and shall eat [the fruit] thereof,  just as he [who acquired it wrongfully] would have done, and when the [rightful] owner of the field will come [and claim it] my money will be [treated] as a deposit, according to Rab, who says [that it is to be regarded as] a deposit, and as a gift, according to Samuel, who says [that it is to be regarded as] a gift.' Said Raba: The law [in regard to the above controversy] is that he [the buyer] is entitled to the purchase-price as well as to the [value of the] improvement, even if the improvement was not mentioned [in the indemnity clause in the deed of sale].  If [the buyer] knew that [the field] did not belong to him [who sold it], he [the buyer] is entitled to the purchase-price but not to [the value of] the improvement, [and the omission of] the guarantee clause is [to be regarded as] an error of the scribe,  both in [the cases of] notes of indebtedness and in [the cases of] deeds of sale. Samuel asked Rab [the following question]: If [the robber who sold the field unlawfully] bought it subsequently from the original owners, what is the law [then]?  — [Rab] said to him [in reply]: What was it that the first person  sold to the second person?  [Surely the former sold to the latter in advance] every right that he [the former] might subsequently acquire!  [And] for what reason?  — Mar Zutra said: [Because] he wished that he [the buyer] should not call him a robber. R. Ashi said: [Because] he wished to vindicate his honesty. What is the difference between them?  — The difference would be seen [in a case] where the buyer died. According to the view [of Mar Zutra, viz.], 'he wished that he should not call him a robber,'