Bava Kamma 17

Chapter 17

א ויצאו עליה עסיקין עד שלא החזיק בה יכול לחזור בו משהחזיק בה אין יכול לחזור בו
1 and there appeared claimants [questioning the vendor's title], so long as Simeon had not yet taken possession of it he might withdraw; but after he had taken possession of it he could no longer withdraw. What is the reason for that? — Because the vendor may say to him: 'You have agreed to accept a bag tied up with knots.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., you bought it at your own risk; the sale is thus the passing not of ownership but of possession. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב מ"ט דאמר ליה חייתא דקטרי סברת וקבלת
2 From what moment [in this case] is possession considered to be taken? — From the moment he sets his foot upon the landmarks [of the purchased field]. This applies only to a purchase without a warranty. But if there is a warranty the law is otherwise. Some, however, say: Even if there is a warranty the same law applies, as the vendor may still say to him: 'Produce the distress warrant<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], document conferring the right of seizure of a debtor's property sold after the loan (Jast.). ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג מאימת הואי חזקה מכי דייש אמצרי
3 against you and I will indemnify you.'
ד ודוקא שלא באחריות אבל באחריות לא
4 R. Huna said: [The payment for damages is] either with money or with the best of the estate.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Huna refers either to the last clause of the Mishnah on p. 1 or to the problem raised by Abaye on p. 24. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ה ואיכא דאמרי אפי' באחריות נמי דאמר ליה אחוי טירפך ואשלם לך
5 R. Nahman objected to R. Huna [from the Baraitha]: He should return<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 34. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ו רב הונא אמר או כסף או מיטב
6 shows that payment in kind is included, even with bran?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 24. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ז איתיביה רב נחמן לרב הונא (שמות כא, לד) ישיב לרבות שוה כסף אפילו סובין
7 — This deals with a case where nothing else is available. If nothing else is available, is it not obvious? — You might have thought that we tell him to go and take the trouble to sell [the bran] and tender the plaintiff ready money. It is therefore made known to us [that this is not the case.].
ח הכא במאי עסקינן בדלית ליה אי דלית ליה פשיטא מהו דתימא אמרינן ליה זיל טרח זבין ואייתי ליה כסף קמ"ל
8 R. Assi said: Money is on a par with land. What is the legal bearing of this remark? If to tell us what is best, is this not practically what R. Huna said?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text should thus run, 'And so also said R. Assi&nbsp;…' ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ט אמר רב אסי כספים הרי הן כקרקע למאי הלכתא אילימא לענין מיטב היינו דרב הונא
9 It may, however, refer to two heirs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'brothers'. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
י אלא לשני אחים שחלקו ונטל אחד קרקע ואחד כספים ובא בעל חוב ונטל קרקע דאזיל האי ושקיל פלגא בכספים בהדיה
10 who divided an inheritance, one taking the land and the other the money. If then a creditor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the deceased. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
יא פשיטא האי ברא והאי לאו ברא
11 came and distrained on the land, the aggrieved heir could come forward and share the money with his brother. But is this not self-evident? Is the one a son [to the deceased] and the other one not a son? There are some who argue [quite the reverse]: The one brother may say to the other, 'I have taken the money on the understanding that if it be stolen I should not be reimbursed by you, and you also took the land on the understanding that if it be distrained on there should be no restitution to you out of anything belonging to me.' It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Assi's statement. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יב איכא דאמרי אדרבה לאידך גיסא דא"ל להכי שקלי כספים דאי מגנבי לא משתלמנא מינך ולהכי שקלת ארעא דאי מטרפא לא משתלמא לך מידי מינאי
12 will therefore refer to two heirs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'brothers'. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
יג אלא לשני אחים שחלקו ובא בעל חוב ונטל חלקו של אחד מהן
13 who divided lands among themselves after which a creditor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the deceased. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
יד והא אמרה רב אסי חדא זימנא דאיתמר האחים שחלקו ובא בעל חוב ונטל חלקו של אחד מהן רב אמר בטלה מחלוקת ושמואל אמר ויתר ורב אסי אמר נוטל רביע בקרקע ורביע במעות
14 came along and distrained on the portion of one of them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In which case R. Assi stated that the other can offer in refundment either money or land.] ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
טו רב אמר בטלה מחלוקת קסבר האחים שחלקו כיורשים הוו
15 But has not R. Assi already once enunciated this law? For it was stated;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 107a. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
טז ושמואל אמר ויתר קסבר האחים שחלקו לקוחות וכלוקח שלא באחריות דמי
16 [In the case of] heirs who divided [the land of the inheritance among themselves], if a creditor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the deceased. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
יז ורב אסי אמר נוטל רביע בקרקע ורביע במעות מספקא ליה אי כיורשין דמו אי כלקוחות דמו הלכך נוטל רביע בקרקע ורביע במעות
17 came along and distrained on the portion of one of them, Rab said: The original apportionment becomes null and void. Samuel said: The portion is waived; but R. Assi said: The portion is refunded by a quarter in land or by a quarter in money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Bek. 48a. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יח אלא מאי הרי הן כקרקע לענין מיטב
18 Rab, who said that the partition becomes null and void, maintains that heirs, even after having shared, remain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this respect. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
יט אי הכי היינו דרב הונא אימא וכן אמר רב אסי
19 co-heirs;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that all of them have to share the burden of the debt and if the portion of the one was distrained on, the portion of the other constitutes the whole inheritance which has equally to he distributed accordingly. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
כ א"ר זירא אמר רב הונא במצוה עד שליש
20 Samuel, who said that the portion is waived, maintains that heirs, after having shared, stand to each other in the relationship of vendees, each being in the position of a purchaser without a warranty [of indemnity];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who cannot thus be reimbursed for the distress effected upon the portion assigned to any one of them. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
כא מאי שליש
21 R. Assi, who said that the portion is refunded by a quarter in land or by a quarter in money, is in doubt as to whether heirs, after having shared, still remain co-heirs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 34. n. 11. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> or stand in the relationship of vendees;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who cannot thus be reimbursed for the distress effected upon the portion assigned to any one of them. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> and on account of that [doubt] there must be refunded a quarter in land or a quarter in money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the principle that in such and similar matters the two parties should equally have the benefit of the doubt (Rashi, according to one interpretation). ');"><sup>17</sup></span> What then is the meaning of 'Money is on a par with land'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Stated above by R. Assi. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> — In respect of being counted as 'best'. But if so, is not this practically what R. Huna said? — Read 'And so also said R. Assi&nbsp;…' R. Zera said on behalf of R. Huna: For [the performance of] a commandment one should go up to a third. A third of what?
Previous ChapterNext Chapter