Bava Batra

that [if he sells them without] having declared them security [to a creditor], the creditor has no lien on them  (the reason being that they are movables, and movables cannot be mortgaged to a creditor; and even if the debtor gives a written promise to pay 'from the coat on his back', that is only binding so long as they are actually there but not if they are not there), but even if he did declare them to be security, the creditor still has no lien on them.  The reason is to be found in the dictum of Raba, for Raba said: If a man declares his slave security for a debt, and then sells him, the creditor can seize him [in satisfaction of the debt], but if he declares his ox or his ass security for the debt and then sells it, the creditor cannot seize it [in payment of the debt],  the reason being that the former [the hypothecating of a slave] becomes generally known, but the latter [that of an ox or an ass] does not become generally known.  But is there not a possibility  that he [the seller] mortgaged to him [the creditor] movables along with landed property,  and Raba has laid down that if a man mortgages to another movables along with landed property, the latter acquires a lien over the land and acquires one over the movables also  (providing — R. Hisda adds — he inserts in the bond the words,'this bond is no mere asmakta  or draft form')? — We assume here that the seller sold [the cow or the garment] immediately after himself acquiring it.  But is there not still a possibility that this is a case where [the seller has given his creditor a bond on movables which] he will hereafter acquire,  and may we not learn from this fact  that if [a man gives his creditor a bond on movables which] he is hereafter to acquire, and then acquires them and sells them or acquires them and bequeaths them, the creditor has no lien on them?  — This,  however, was only meant to apply to the case where the witnesses say, We know that this man never owned any land. But has not R. Papa said: Although the Rabbis have laid down that if a man sells his field to another without a guarantee  and his creditor comes and seizes it, the purchaser cannot recover [the price of the field] from him, yet if it is found that the field did not belong to him, he can recover?  — In this case we suppose that the purchaser recognises the ass [he bought] as being the foal of an ass belonging to the seller.  R. Zebid, however, says that even if it is found that the field did not belong to the seller, the purchaser cannot recover from him, because he can say to him, That was precisely why I sold to you without a guarantee. [To revert to] the above text, 'Rabin b. Samuel said in the name of Samuel: If a man sells a field to another without [accepting] responsibility, he cannot give evidence as to the latter's title, because he can keep it safe for his own creditor'.  How can this be?