Bava Metzia

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,'