Commentary for Bava Metzia 29:24

איבעית אימא בבעל חוב ולא קשיא כאן בשבח

Another [Baraitha] taught: If one has sold a field to his neighbour, and he [the buyer] has improved it, and then a creditor [of the seller] comes and seizes it, he [the buyer], when seeking redress,is entitled, in a case where [the value of] the improvement is greater than the cost [thereof], to collect [the value of] the improvement from the owner of the land and the cost thereof from the creditor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The buyer is entitled to compensation from the seller to the amount by which the value of the improvement exceeds the expense incurred in making the improvement, as the improvement helped to pay the seller's debt. But the cost of the improvement the creditor has to refund to the buyer, who spent his money on improving the field before the creditor seized it. ');">²³</span> But in a case where the cost [of the improvement] is greater than the [value of that] improvement, he [the buyer] is only entitled to collect from the [seller's] creditor the amount of the cost which corresponds to the [value of the] improvement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The buyer cannot claim from the creditor the excess of his expenditure over the actual value of the improvement, and he loses this amount. ');">²⁴</span> Now, how does Samuel explain this [Baraitha]? If [he explains it as referring] to one who bought [the field] from a person who acquired it wrongfully, then the first part [of the Baraitha]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to which the rightful owner of the field, designated 'creditor', has to pay for the improvement. ');">²⁵</span> contradicts him, for Samuel said [above]: 'He who buys [a field] from a person who acquired it wrongfully is not entitled to [compensation for] the improvement [he made in the field].' [And] if [he explains it as referring] to [the seller's] creditor [seizing the field], then both the first part and the second part [of the Baraitha] contradict him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is laid down in both parts of the Baraitha that the creditor has to refund the cost of the improvement, while Samuel teaches that the creditor may collect his debt from the improvement, without repaying the cost incurred by the buyer. ');">²⁶</span> for Samuel said [above]: 'A creditor exacts payment from the improvement [made in the field by the buyer]'?If you like, I shall say [that Samuel will explain the Baraitha as referring] to one who bought [the field] from a person who acquired it wrongfully, and where the latter owns land,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 86, n. 4. ');">²⁷</span> or where there was a formal act of acquisition [whereby he pledged himself at the sale that he would pay for the improvement].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. ibid. n. 7. ');">²⁸</span> [And] if you like, I shall say [that Samuel will explain the Baraitha as referring] to [the seller's] creditor [seizing the field]. [Nevertheless] there is no contradiction [to Samuel's views]. [For] here [the reference is] to an improvement

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 29:24. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.