Commentary for Bava Metzia 28:10

אלא פשיטא בגוזל ונגזל ומדרישא בגוזל ונגזל סיפא נמי בגוזל ונגזל

R. Huna was asked: If he [the seller] expressly stated [that he would compensate the buyer for the] improvement [if the field were taken away], what is the law then? Is Samuel's reason [for withholding compensation] that [the seller] did not expressly state [that he would compensate the buyer for the] improvement? [Then it would not apply to this case, for] here [the seller] did state expressly [that he would compensate the buyer]. Or is Samuel's reason that, in view of the fact that he [the seller] really had no land [to sell, the money received by the buyer as compensation for the improvement] would appear like usury?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the seller had no right to the field the transaction was entirely invalid, and there was no sale. The money handed over to the seller could therefore only be regarded as a loan, and when the seller returns to the buyer a larger sum than the purchase-price paid him, it appears like interest on the money. ');">⁹</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 28:10. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.