Reference for Bava Metzia 28:18
רבה בר רב הונא אמר כגון
and seeing that the first part deals with one who acquired a field wrongfully and one who has been deprived of it, the second part [surely] also deals with such a case!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 82, n. 4. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> — How does it follow? This [first part] deals with one case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'as it is'. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> and this [second part] deals with another case.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the first part deals with a person who has been robbed of his field, and the second part deals with a creditor who has seized the field from the buyer. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> But are we not taught differently [in a Baraitha relating to the above Mishnah]: How [does it happen that payment is exacted for] improvement of the land? If one has taken away a field by violence from a neighbour, and he has had to give it up again [in consequence of legal action], then the one that is entitled to compensation may collect the original value [of the field] from encumbered property, and the value of the improvement [may be collected] from unencumbered property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 72b; B.B. 157b. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> Now, how is this to be understood? If we say that [it is to be understood] as stated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that the person who acquired the field unlawfully has not sold it, and it is he who is made to give it up, not a buyer. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> what right has the person who acquired the field wrongfully to claim compensation from anybody? It must therefore be [understood as referring to a case] where a person wrongfully took away a field from a neighbour and sold it to another person, and [this other person] has improved it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Court compels the buyer to return the field to the rightful owner, who is also entitled to demand from the seller the value of the improvement. From this we would infer that the buyer collects the value of the improvement from the seller who had no title to the field — a contradiction to the view of R. Nahman. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> — [R. Nahman] answered him: Had you not to remove the difficulty [in the Baraitha] by explaining [that it refers to an unlawfully acquired field]? You may as well remove the difficulty [by saying that it refers to a field seized] by a creditor [after it has been improved by the buyer]. Come and hear: How [does it happen that payment is exacted as compensation for] the use of the produce [of the field]? If one has wrongfully taken away a field from a neighbour, and he has had to give it up again [in consequence of legal action], then the one that is entitled to compensation may collect the capital [value of the field itself] from encumbered property, and the value of the produce [may be collected] from unencumbered property. Now, how is this to be understood? If we say that it is to be understood as stated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that the person who robbed the field did not sell it, and it is this person who is compelled by the Court to return it to the owner. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> what right has the person who has acquired [the field] wrongfully to claim compensation from anybody? It must therefore be [understood as referring to a case] where one wrongfully took away a field from a neighbour and sold it to another person, and [this other person] has enhanced its value [by producing fruit]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The original (rightful) owner is not expected to pay for the produce of the field, with the exception of the buyer's outlay in looking after the field, as he is entitled to the produce of his own land. The buyer is therefore entitled to compensation from the person who sold him the field unlawfully, and from him the buyer can claim the value of the field as well as the value of the produce, which he may collect from unencumbered property — again a contradiction to the view of R. Nahman. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> — Raba answered: We deal here with a case where one wrongfully took away from a neighbour a field full of fruit and ate the fruit, and then dug in it pits, ditches and hollows. When the robbed [neighbour] comes to demand the capital [value of the field itself] he may exact payment from encumbered property, but when he comes to demand [the value of] the fruit he may exact payment from unencumbered property [only]. Rabbah son of R. Huna said: [It refers to a case] where