Commentary for Bava Batra 88:11

גופא אמר רבין בר שמואל משמיה דשמואל המוכר שדה לחבירו שלא באחריות אין מעיד לו עליה מפני שמעמידה בפני בעל חובו היכי דמי

and may we not learn from this fact<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That we disregard this possibility. ');">¹¹</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This question is discussed infra 157a and left undecided. ');">¹²</span> — This,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That we disregard the possibility of the seller having mortgaged movables along with landed property. ');">¹³</span> however, was only meant to apply to the case where the witnesses say, We know that this man never owned any land.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case the movables cannot be mortgaged, and there is no objection to the seller giving evidence on behalf of the purchaser. ');">¹⁴</span> But has not R. Papa said: Although the Rabbis have laid down that if a man sells his field to another without a guarantee<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he will make restitution if the field is attached by a third party. ');">¹⁵</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence if the cow or the ass is claimed from the purchaser by a third party who proves that it was stolen from him, the purchaser can recover from the seller, and it is therefore to the latter's interest that it should remain in his possession and he cannot testify on his behalf. ');">¹⁶</span> — In this case we suppose that the purchaser recognises the ass [he bought] as being the foal of an ass belonging to the seller.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And similarly with a garment, that it was woven in his house. This is tantamount to an admission on his part that the animal or garment did belong to the seller, and after such an admission he cannot claim restitution from him. ');">¹⁷</span> 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'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 184 ');">¹⁸</span> How can this be?

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 88:11. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.