Commentary for Bava Metzia 31:20

ומאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא אמר רבי יוחנן סיפא מה שאירש מאבא היום משום כבוד אביו מה שתעלה מצודתי היום

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The document is invalid because the robber did not own the field, and therefore had no right to sell it. 'A potsherd' is a common term for an invalid document, like the modern term 'a scrap of paper'. ');">¹⁹</span> — 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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We assume that the robber bought the field from the original owner because he appreciated the confidence placed in him by the person to whom he sold it unlawfully and who did not question the robber's right to sell it. It was for this reason — we assume — that he wanted to legalise the sale. ');">²⁰</span> R. Shesheth then asked: [It has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Nedarim, Ch. VI end. ');">²¹</span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., any animals or birds or fishes that may be caught in the net (or snare). ');">²²</span> is sold to you,' [it is as if] he [had] said nothing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His words are of no consequence. ');">²³</span> [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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sale is legal. In the first instance the sale is not legal because at the time of selling the goods were not yet the property of the seller, and the sale does not become legalised by what took place after the sale. This contradicts the view of Rab who, in he case of the robber who bought the field after selling it unlawfully, says that he intended to sell his future rights, and thus this legalises the sale. ');">²⁴</span> — Rami b. Hama said [to that]: 'There is a man and there is a question!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is a great question worthy of the great man who asked it. ');">²⁵</span> Raba retorted: 'I see the man but I do not see [the force of] the question.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He admits that R. Shesheth is a great man, but he does not admit that the question is great. ');">²⁶</span> Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Rab's case. ');">²⁷</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case referred to by R. Shesheth, the person to whom the goods to be acquired were sold had no occasion to rely on the seller; it did not depend upon the seller whether he would ultimately acquire the goods or not. ');">²⁸</span> [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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As no-one inside the College will be able to answer it (Rashi). In the [H] (cited by Rashi) this phrase is explained as meaning that the question is not good enough to be discussed in the College. ');">²⁹</span> Raba said: It does need [to be brought] inside, and even to the innermost [part]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Literally: 'into the inside of the inside,' the meaning being obviously that the question was so important that it ought to be discussed by the best men in the College. ');">³⁰</span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Rab's case. ');">²⁷</span> 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By saying, 'What I am to inherit from my father to-day is sold to you' the seller indicates that his father is dying, and that he requires the money for the purpose of giving his father a decent burial. ');">³¹</span> 'What my net is to bring up to-day'

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 31:20. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.