Commentary for Bava Batra 314:11

מאי גובה נמי דקתני חצי שבח:

he collects [the value of] the principal [even] from sold property but [that of the] improvement from free<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 683, n. 11. ');">³⁶</span> property [only]. Now, if that were so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and if there is', i.e., if the law is that the second creditor has equal rights with the first, owing to the fact that the land in question was purchased after the second loan. ');">³⁷</span> he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The buyer. ');">³⁸</span> should [only be able to claim] half [the cost of his] improvement!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The buyer, who received no less security for his purchase than the creditor for his loan, should have the same rights as the creditor, just as, in the previous case, the second creditor has the same rights as the first. The improvement of the land, which obviously took place after the sale, may be regarded as land purchased by the debtor after the second loan and sold (since the improvement is claimed from him by both, first by the creditor and ultimately by the buyer. and, in either case, it was no more in his possession than the land sold). Accordingly, the creditor and the buyer (like the two creditors supra) are entitled to equal shares. The creditor could thus seize only half the value of the improvement, the other half remaining with the buyer. Why then should be collect from the seller its full value? ');">³⁹</span> — [The expression]. 'he collects', which was used,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'taught'. ');">⁴⁰</span> also implies half [the value of his] improvement.

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 314:11. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.