Commentary for Bava Metzia 28:12
והא לא תני הכי לשבח קרקעות כיצד הרי שגזל שדה מחבירו והרי היא יוצאה מתחת ידו כשהוא גובה גובה את הקרן מנכסים משועבדים ושבח גובה מנכסים בני חורין
It was taught: R. Nahman said in the name of Samuel: He [the buyer] is entitled to [have returned to him] the money [paid for the field], but not to [compensation for] improvement, even if he [the seller] stated expressly that [he would compensate the buyer for the] improvement, the reason being that, in view of the fact that he [the seller] really had no land to sell, he [the buyer] would be taking profit for his money.<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. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 28:12. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.