Bava Kamma

why should the same not be said regarding creditors for damages?  It must therefore he surmised that we deal with [a case where the vendor has meanwhile died, and, as his] heirs are not personally liable to pay,  the original liability [which accompanied the purchased properties] must always remain upon the purchaser;  who could consequently no longer [threaten the creditors and] say this: ['If you acquiesce …'?]  — But the reason the creditors cannot be paid out of the best is that the vendee may [repudiate their demand and] say to them: 'On what account have the Rabbis enacted that "property disposed of by a debtor can not be attached by his creditors so long as there are available possessions still not disposed of"5 if not for the sake of protecting my interests? In the present instance I have no interest in availing myself of this enactment.' Exactly as Raba, for Raba elsewhere said: Whoever asserts, 'I have no desire to avail myself of a Rabbinical enactment' such as this is listened to.  To what does 'such as this' refer? — To R. Huna, for R. Huna said: A woman is entitled to say to her husband, 'I don't expect any maintenance from you  and I do not want to work for you.' It is quite certain that if the vendee  has sold the medium and worst qualities and retained the best, creditors of all descriptions may come along and collect out of the best quality. For this property was acquired by him last; and, since the medium and worst qualities are no more in his possession, he is not in a position to say to the creditors: 'Take payment out of the medium and worst properties, as I have no interest in availing myself of the Rabbinic enactment.'  But what is the law when the vendee disposed of the best quality and retained the medium and the worst? — Abaye at first was inclined to say: Creditors of all descriptions are entitled to come and collect out of the best.  But Raba said to him.  Does not a vendee selling [property] to a sub-vendee assign to him all the rights [connected] therewith] that may accrue to him?  Hence just as when the creditors come to claim from the vendee, he is entitled to pay them out of the medium and the worst [respectively], irrespective of the fact that when the medium and the worst qualities were purchased by him, the best property still remained free with the original vendor, and in spite of the enactment that properties disposed of cannot be distrained on [at the hands of the vendee] so long as there is available [with the debtor] property undisposed of,  the reason of the exception being that the vendee is entitled to say that he has no interest in availing himself of this enactment, so is the subvendee similarly entitled to say to the creditors: 'Take payment out of the medium and the worst.'  For the sub-vendee entered into the sale only upon the understanding that any right that his vendor may possess in connection with the purchase should also be assigned to him. Raba said:  If Reuben disposed of all his lands to Simeon who in his turn sold one of the fields to Levi, Reuben's creditor may come and collect out of the land which is in the possession either of Simeon or Levi. This law applies only when Levi bought medium quality; but if he purchased either the best or the worst the law is otherwise, as Levi may lawfully contend: 'I have purposely been careful to buy the best or the worst, that is, property which is not available for you.'  Again, even when he bought medium quality the creditor will not have this option unless Levi did not leave [with Simeon] medium quality of a similar nature, in which case he is unable to plead, 'l have left for you ample land with Simeon;' but if Levi did leave with Simeon medium quality of a similar nature the creditor is not entitled to distrain on Levi who may lawfully contend, 'I have left for you ample land [with Simeon] to satisfy your claim from it. Abaye said:  If Reuben had disposed of a field to Simeon with a warranty [of indemnity],  and an alleged creditor of Reuben came to distrain on it from Simeon, Reuben is entitled by law to come forward and litigate with the creditor, nor can the latter say to him: 'You [Reuben] are no party to me;'  for Reuben will surely say to him: 'If you will deprive Simeon of the field purchased by him from me, he will turn on me.'  There are some who say: Even if there were no warranty there the same law applies, as Reuben may say to the alleged creditor: 'I don't want Simeon to have any grievance against me.' And Abaye further said:  If Reuben sold a field to Simeon without a warranty [for indemnity]