Mesorat%20hashas for Bava Kamma 15:21

אי הכי

Just as in the case of three purchasers [in succession] each can [in the first instance] refer any creditor [to the very last purchased property], saying, '[When I bought my estate] I was careful to leave [with the defendant] plenty for you to be paid out of,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As, according to a Mishnaic enactment (Git. V, 1), 'Property disposed of by a debtor could not he resorted to by his creditors so long as there are with him available possessions undisposed of.' ');">¹⁹</span> why should not also one purchaser [by deeds of different dates] be entitled to throw the burden of payment on to the very last purchased property, saying, '[When I acquired title to the former purchases] I was very careful to leave for you plenty to be paid out of'? — We are dealing here with a case where the property purchased last was of the best quality;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case it is not in the interest of the purchaser that the last purchase should he available to any one of the creditors. ');">²⁰</span> also R. Shesheth stated that [this law applies] when the property purchased last was of the best quality. If this be the case, why [on the other hand] should not creditors of all kinds come and be paid out of the best quality [as this was the property purchased last]? — Because the defendant may say to the creditors: 'If you acquiesce and agree to be paid out of the qualities respectively allotted to you by law, you may be paid accordingly, otherwise I will transfer the deed of the worst property back to the original owner — in which case you will all be paid out of the worst.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the hands of the debtor, according to the Mishnaic enactment, Git. V, 1. ');">²¹</span> If so,

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Bava Kamma 15:21. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.