Bava Batra

He, [however,] said to them: Elsewhere  a quittance is to be written,  and [the reason why it is not written] in this case  is because the creditor  might call upon, and take [the field] away from the buyer  and he  would call upon, and seize [the fields of subsequent] buyers, while [these] buyers [would] have no quittance [to show].  After all, however, [would] not the buyers [ultimately] return to the owner of the land?  — In the meantime he  [would be] plucking and eating the fruit, or else,  [he  might seize the land] from one who has purchased [it] without security.  If so,  [the same should apply to] bonds of indebtedness also!  — In that case  where the claim is money they  assume [that] the debtor might have satisfied the claim  with money.  In this case  [however] where the claim is for land, they well know that one who claims land would not be satisfied with money. The Master had said, 'With the omission of [the clause] pledging [property]'. How [is such a deed]  to be written? — R. Nahman said: It is written as follows: 'This deed is not for the purpose of collecting thereby either from sold, or from free property but for that of establishing the land in the possession of the buyer'.  Rafram said: This  proves [that the omission  of the clause] pledging property [is regarded as the] scribe's error,  [since] the reason [given  was] because such an entry  was actually included  but, [it follows], had it not been included  he  [could have] claimed [his compensation from the seller's lands]. R. Ashi said: [The omission of the clause] pledging property [is] not [regarded as] the scribe's error; and the meaning of  'with the omission [of the clause] pledging property' is that no such clause is entered in the deed. A certain woman once gave to a man money [wherewith] to buy for her [a plot of] land. He went [and] bought for her [the land] without [providing for the] security  of its tenure. She came before R. Nahman  [who] said to the agent.  '[The woman has the right to declare]. "I sent you to improve [my position]; not to make [it] worse".  Go [then], buy it [yourself] from him  without security and then sell it [to the woman] with due security of tenure'. 'Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said; Where a person made a gift to his friend and [the latter] returned the deed to him, his gift [also is, thereby] returned. But the Sages said: His gift is valid.' What is Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel's reason? — R. Assi said: [Because] it  is just as if [the donor] had said to the donee.  'This field is given to you for so long [a period] as the deed [remains] in your possession'. Rabbah demurred; If so,  [the same law should apply] also [to the case where] it  was stolen or lost! — But, said Rabbah, they differ on [the question whether] 'letters'  [may] be acquired by delivery.  R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds the opinion [that] 'letters' are acquired by delivery while the Rabbis  hold the opinion [that] 'letters' may not be acquired by delivery. Our Rabbis taught: Where a person appears in court  with a deed  and with [evidence of] undisturbed possession  judgment is given [on the basis of] the deed; [these are] the words of Rabbi. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: [Judgment is given] on [the basis of his] undisturbed possession. On what [principle] do they differ? — When R. Dimi came  he said: They differ on [the question whether] 'letters' may be acquired by delivery.