Bava Batra 88

בסתמא דלא משתעבדא ליה מאי טעמא מטלטלי נינהו ומטלטלי לבע"ח לא משתעבדי ואע"ג דכתב ליה מגלימא דעל כתפיה הני מילי דאיתנהו בעינייהו אבל ליתנהו בעינייהו לא

that [if he sells them without] having declared them security [to a creditor], the creditor has no lien on them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the seller who is also the debtor has no special interest in confirming them in the possession of the purchaser and so can testify on his behalf. ');">¹</span>

אלא אפילו עשאו אפותיקי נמי לא מאי טעמא כדרבא דאמר רבא עשה עבדו אפותיקי ומכרו בעל חוב גובה ממנו שורו וחמורו אפותיקי ומכרו אין בעל חוב גובה הימנו

(the reason being that they are movables, and movables cannot be mortgaged to a creditor; and even if the debtor gives a written promise to pay 'from the coat on his back', that is only binding so long as they are actually there but not if they are not there), but even if he did declare them to be security, the creditor still has no lien on them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the seller can still testify on the purchaser's behalf. ');">²</span>

מאי טעמא האי אית ליה קלא והא לית ליה קלא

The reason is to be found in the dictum of Raba, for Raba said: If a man declares his slave security for a debt, and then sells him, the creditor can seize him [in satisfaction of the debt], but if he declares his ox or his ass security for the debt and then sells it, the creditor cannot seize it [in payment of the debt],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the seller, since he knows that his own creditor cannot seize the ox or ass in question, has no special interest in their retention by the man to whom he sold them, and therefore he may testify on his behalf if his title to them is challenged by a third party. ');">³</span>

וליחוש דלמא אקני ליה מטלטלי אגב מקרקעי דאמר רבה אי אקני ליה מטלטלי אגב מקרקעי קני מקרקעי קני מטלטלי ואמר רב חסדא והוא דכתב ליה דלא כאסמכתא ודלא כטופסא דשטרי

the reason being that the former [the hypothecating of a slave] becomes generally known, but the latter [that of an ox or an ass] does not become generally known.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore it is not fair that the purchaser should be penalised. ');">⁴</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שלקח ומכר לאלתר

But is there not a possibility<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'Let us apprehend perhaps'. ');">⁵</span>

וליחוש דילמא דאיקני הוא שמעת מינה דאיקני קנה ומכר קנה והוריש לא משתעבד

that he [the seller] mortgaged to him [the creditor] movables along with landed property,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he gave his creditor a lien on his landed property along with the movable property contained therein. ');">⁶</span>

לא צריכא דקאמרי עדים ידעינן ביה בהאי דלא הוה ליה ארעא מעולם

and Raba has laid down that if a man mortgages to another movables along with landed property, the latter acquires a lien over the land and acquires one over the movables also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore if the borrower afterwards sells the movables, the creditor can distrain on them in the same way as on the land. ');">⁷</span>

והאמר רב פפא אע"ג דאמור רבנן המוכר שדה לחבירו שלא באחריות ובא בע"ח וטרפה אינו חוזר עליו נמצאת שאינה שלו חוזר עליו

(providing — R. Hisda adds — he inserts in the bond the words,'this bond is no mere <i>asmakta</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Lit., 'assurance': a statement by a debtor on paying part of his debt that if he does not pay the rest by a certain time he will again become liable for the whole. Such a declaration has no legal force. ');">⁸</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן במכיר בה שהיא בת חמורו

or draft form')? — We assume here that the seller sold [the cow or the garment] immediately after himself acquiring it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore we are quite certain that he did not mortgage it for a debt of his own. Hence he may testify to the purchaser's title, as he has no personal interest in the matter. ');">⁹</span>

ורב זביד אמר אפילו נמצאת שאינה שלו אינו חוזר עליו דא"ל להכי זביני לך שלא באחריות

But is there not still a possibility that this is a case where [the seller has given his creditor a bond on movables which] he will hereafter acquire,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when borrowing the money, he has given the lender the right to recover from his land and all the movables which it contains or shall hereafter contain. ');">¹⁰</span>

גופא אמר רבין בר שמואל משמיה דשמואל המוכר שדה לחבירו שלא באחריות אין מעיד לו עליה מפני שמעמידה בפני בעל חובו היכי דמי

and may we not learn from this fact<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That we disregard this possibility. ');">¹¹</span> that if [a man gives his creditor a bond on movables which] he is hereafter to acquire, and then acquires them and sells them or acquires them and bequeaths them, the creditor has no lien on them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This question is discussed infra 157a and left undecided. ');">¹²</span> — This,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That we disregard the possibility of the seller having mortgaged movables along with landed property. ');">¹³</span> however, was only meant to apply to the case where the witnesses say, We know that this man never owned any land.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case the movables cannot be mortgaged, and there is no objection to the seller giving evidence on behalf of the purchaser. ');">¹⁴</span> But has not R. Papa said: Although the Rabbis have laid down that if a man sells his field to another without a guarantee<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he will make restitution if the field is attached by a third party. ');">¹⁵</span> and his creditor comes and seizes it, the purchaser cannot recover [the price of the field] from him, yet if it is found that the field did not belong to him, he can recover?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence if the cow or the ass is claimed from the purchaser by a third party who proves that it was stolen from him, the purchaser can recover from the seller, and it is therefore to the latter's interest that it should remain in his possession and he cannot testify on his behalf. ');">¹⁶</span> — In this case we suppose that the purchaser recognises the ass [he bought] as being the foal of an ass belonging to the seller.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And similarly with a garment, that it was woven in his house. This is tantamount to an admission on his part that the animal or garment did belong to the seller, and after such an admission he cannot claim restitution from him. ');">¹⁷</span> R. Zebid, however, says that even if it is found that the field did not belong to the seller, the purchaser cannot recover from him, because he can say to him, That was precisely why I sold to you without a guarantee. [To revert to] the above text, 'Rabin b. Samuel said in the name of Samuel: If a man sells a field to another without [accepting] responsibility, he cannot give evidence as to the latter's title, because he can keep it safe for his own creditor'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 184 ');">¹⁸</span> How can this be?