Bava Metzia — Daf 16a

הא מית ליה ומאן דאמר ניחא ליה דליקום בהמנותיה בהדי בני נמי ניחא ליה דליקום בהמנותיה

סוף סוף קרו ליה בני לוקח גזלנא

אלא איכא בינייהו דמית גזלן מאן דאמר ניחא ליה לאיניש דלא לקריוהו גזלן הא מית ליה למ"ד ניחא ליה דליקום בהמנותיה ה"נ אע"ג דמית ניחא ליה דליקום בהמנותיה

סוף סוף קרו לבניה בני גזלנא

אלא איכא בינייהו דיהבה במתנה מאן דאמר ניחא ליה דליקום בהמנותיה מתנה נמי ניחא ליה דליקום בהמנותיה מאן דאמר ניחא ליה דלא נקריוהו גזלנא א"ל מאי גזלינא מינך:

פשיטא זבנה אורתה ויהבה במתנה לאו לאוקמה קמי לוקח קא בעי

נפלה ליה בירושה ירושה ממילא היא ולאו איהו קא טרח אבתרה

גבי איהו בחובו חזינא אי אית ליה ארעא אחריתי ואמר האי בעינא לאוקמה קמיה לוקח קא בעי

ואי לא זוזי הוא דבעי אפרועי

יהבה נהליה במתנה פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אמר מתנה כירושה דהא ממילא וחד אמר מתנה כמכר דאי לאו דטרח וארצי קמיה לא הוי יהיב ליה מתנה להכי טרח וארצי קמיה כי היכי דליקום בהמנותיה

ועד אימת ניחא ליה דליקום בהמנותיה אמר רב הונא עד שעת העמדה בדין

חייא בר רב אמר עד דמטא אדרכתא לידיה רב פפא אמר עד דמתחלן יומי אכרזתא

מתקיף לה רמי בר חמא מכדי האי לוקח במאי קני להאי ארעא בהאי שטרא האי שטרא חספא בעלמא הוא

א"ל רבא תהא במאמינו בההוא הנאה דלא קאמר ליה מידי וקא סמיך עליה טרח ומייתי ליה גמר ומקני ליה

מתיב רב ששת מה שאירש מאבא מכור לך מה שתעלה מצודתי מכור לך לא אמר כלום מה שאירש מן אבא היום מכור לך מה שתעלה מצודתי היום מכור לך דבריו קיימין

אמר רמי בר חמא הא גברא והא תיובתא

אמר רבא גברא קא חזינא ותיובתא לא קא חזינא הכא סמכא דעתיה והכא לא סמכא דעתיה הכא סמכא דעתיה דאזיל טרח ומייתי ליה כי היכי דלא נקרייה גזלנא הכא לא סמכא דעתיה

שלחוה לקמיה דרבי אבא בר זבדא אמר להו זו אינה צריכה לפנים אמר רבא זו צריכה לפנים ולפני לפנים הכא סמכא דעתיה והכא לא סמכא דעתיה

הוה עובדא בפומבדיתא ואותביה אמר להו רב יוסף זו אינה צריכה לפנים ואמר ליה אביי צריכה לפנים ולפני לפנים הכא סמכא דעתיה הכא לא סמכא דעתיה

ומאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא אמר רבי יוחנן סיפא מה שאירש מאבא היום משום כבוד אביו מה שתעלה מצודתי היום

[it could not be applied to this case], as he [the buyer] is dead.  But according to the view [of R. Ashi, viz.,] 'he wished to vindicate his honesty,' [it could be applied even to this case], as he [the robber] would wish to vindicate his honesty before [the buyer's] children also. [But, it is argued,] would not the buyer's children call him [who sold the field to their father] a robber?  — Therefore [we must say that] the difference between them would appear [in a case] where the robber died.  According to the view [of Mar Zutra, viz.], 'he wished that he should not call him a robber,' [it could not be applied to this case,] as he [the robber] is dead.  But according to the view [of R. Ashi, viz.,] 'he wished to vindicate his honesty,' [it could be applied even to this case,] as he [the robber] would wish that his honesty should be vindicated even when he is dead. [But, it is argued,] would not his children after all be called the children of a robber?  — Therefore [we must say that] the difference between them would appear [in a case] where he [the robber] gave [the field] as a present: According to the view [of R. Ashi, viz.], 'he wished to vindicate his honesty,' [it could be applied even to] a present, [in regard to which] he would also wish to vindicate his honesty. But according to the view [of Mar Zutra, viz.], 'he wished that he should not call him 'a robber,' [it could not be applied to this case, for he could say [to the recipient of the gift], 'What have I taken away from you [that I should be called a robber]?' It is obvious that if he [who robbed a field and sold it], subsequently sold it [to another person], or bequeathed it to his heirs, or gave it away as a present, [and then bought it from the original owner, we must assume that] he did not, [in buying the field,] intend to secure it thereby for the [first] buyer.  If it came to him as an inheritance  [we must assume this, too, for] an inheritance comes of itself, and he did not trouble himself to get it.  If he took it in payment of a debt [due to him from the original owner of the field],  then our attitude is [as follows]: if [the original owner] had other land, and [the robber] said, 'I want this,' [we assume that the robber, in acquiring the field,] intended to secure it thereby for the [first] buyer,  but if not,  [we assume] that he merely wanted to be paid [his] money. [In a case where the original owner] gave him [the robbed field] as a present, R. Abba and Rabina differ: One says, Gifted property is like inherited property, in that it [also] comes of itself.  But the other says, Gifted property is like bought property, for if the recipient had not exerted himself to win the favour [of the donor, the latter] would not have given him the present, and the reason why he [the recipient] exerted himself to win the favour [of the original owner of the field] was that he [the recipient who first robbed the field] might vindicate his honesty. And till when does he wish to vindicate his honesty?  — R. Huna says: Until [the buyer of the robbed field is] summoned to appear in court.  Hiyya b. Rab says: Until he [the buyer] receives the decree of the Court [entitling him to seize the robber's property].  R. papa says: Until the days of the announcement [of the public sale of the robber's property] begin.  To this Rami b. Hama demurred:  Seeing that this buyer acquired this land [from the robber] only by the deed of sale, [is not the sale invalid because] the deed is a mere potsherd?  — Raba answered him: It is a case where [the buyer] believes him [the robber]: Because of the pleasure [it gives the robber] that he [the buyer] said nothing to him, but trusted him implicitly, he [the robber] exerts himself to acquire the field for him [the buyer], and determines to confer upon him the rightful ownership [of the field].  R. Shesheth then asked: [It has been taught:  If one says to another,] 'What I am to inherit from my father is sold to you,' [or,] 'What my net is to bring up  is sold to you,' [it is as if] he [had] said nothing.  [But if he says,] 'What I am to inherit from my father to-day is sold to you,' [or,] 'What my net is to bring up to-day is sold to you, his words are valid?  — Rami b. Hama said [to that]: 'There is a man and there is a question!'  Raba retorted: 'I see the man but I do not see [the force of] the question.'  Here  he [the buyer] relied on him [the seller]; there he did not rely on him: Here he relied on him that he would exert himself and acquire [the robbed field] for him [the buyer] so that he might not call him a robber; there he did not rely on him.  [The question of R. Shesheth] was then submitted to R. Abba b. Zabda, [and] he said: This [question] does not need [to be brought] inside [the College].  Raba said: It does need [to be brought] inside, and even to the innermost [part]:  Here he [the buyer] relied on him [the seller]; there he did not rely on him. A case occurred in Pumbeditha, and the question [of R. Shesheth] was asked. R. Joseph then said to them [who asked the question]: This does not need to be brought inside [the College]. But Abaye said to him [R. Joseph]: It does need to be brought inside, and even to the innermost part: Here  he [the buyer] relied on him [the seller]; there he did not rely on him. And wherein does the first part [of the teaching quoted by R. Shesheth] differ from the last part? R. Johanan said: The last part, [viz.] 'What I am to inherit from my father to-day' — because of his father's honour;  'What my net is to bring up to-day'