Bava Metzia

[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'