יט מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דמית לוקח מאן דאמר ניחא ליה דלא לקרייה גזלנא
19 [we might think that only] in such a case does Rab say [that the money is to be returned],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In view of the fact that the money is regarded as a deposit, according to Rab. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> because people do not usually give presents to strangers, but as regards a sister [we might think that] he agrees with Samuel. And if it were taught [only] in this case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the case of a brother giving money to his sister for the purpose of betrothing her to him. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> [we might think that only] in such a case does Samuel say [that the money is not to be returned],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In view of the fact that the money is regarded as a present, according to Samuel, and one is apt to give a present to a sister. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> but as regards the other case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a person pays money to a stranger for a field which he knows to have been wrongfully acquired. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> [we might think] that he agrees with Rab.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the money is not to be regarded as a gift, and must be returned. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> [Therefore] it is necessary [to state both cases]. [Now, behold,] both according to Rab, who says [that the money is to be regarded as] a deposit, and according to Samuel, who says [that the money is to be regarded as] a present — how does [the person who has given the money] go down [to the field] and how does he eat the fruit [thereof]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How can it be said that the reason why Rab says that the money is to be returned is that it has to be regarded as a deposit, and that the reason why Samuel says that the money is not to be returned is that it has to be regarded as a gift, seeing that in either case the person who handed over the money would not have deemed himself entitled to take possession of the field and to use its produce. If he did so, it would show that he meant to buy the field with the money, and that, not being familiar with the law, he deemed the sale valid. Rab and Samuel must therefore have given their decisions for reasons other than those stated above. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> He thinks, 'I shall go down to the field and work [in it] and shall eat [the fruit] thereof,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he knows that it is not a sale, and the money was not handed over as purchase-money. He only intended to take possession of the field and use its produce until the rightful owner reclaimed it, and the money was to be treated as a deposit (in the view of Rab) or as a gift (in the view of Samuel). ');"><sup>24</sup></span> just as he [who acquired it wrongfully] would have done, and when the [rightful] owner of the field will come [and claim it] my money will be [treated] as a deposit, according to Rab, who says [that it is to be regarded as] a deposit, and as a gift, according to Samuel, who says [that it is to be regarded as] a gift.' Said Raba: The law [in regard to the above controversy] is that he [the buyer] is entitled to the purchase-price as well as to the [value of the] improvement, even if the improvement was not mentioned [in the indemnity clause in the deed of sale].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samuel's view that the scribe must consult the seller regarding the inclusion of 'improvement' in the indemnity clause, and that non-inclusion is not regarded as an accidental omission by the scribe, is thus rejected. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> If [the buyer] knew that [the field] did not belong to him [who sold it], he [the buyer] is entitled to the purchase-price but not to [the value of] the improvement, [and the omission of] the guarantee clause is [to be regarded as] an error of the scribe,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that in every case the buyer whose field is seized by the seller's creditors can claim indemnity from the seller's property, contrary to the view of Samuel. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> both in [the cases of] notes of indebtedness and in [the cases of] deeds of sale. Samuel asked Rab [the following question]: If [the robber who sold the field unlawfully] bought it subsequently from the original owners, what is the law [then]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is the robber entitled to take the field away from the person to whom he sold it unlawfully, just as any other person would have been who bought the field from the rightful owner? ');"><sup>27</sup></span> — [Rab] said to him [in reply]: What was it that the first person<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The robber. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> sold to the second person?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The person who bought the field from the robber. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> [Surely the former sold to the latter in advance] every right that he [the former] might subsequently acquire!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the robber sold the field he made over to the buyer any right that he (the robber) might subsequently acquire in regard to the field, and therefore the robber has no right to claim the field from the person who bought it from him. It is assumed, indeed, that the robber only bought the field in order to legalise its sale to the first buyer. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> [And] for what reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What was the motive that could have prompted the robber to secure the property for the buyer? ');"><sup>31</sup></span> — Mar Zutra said: [Because] he wished that he [the buyer] should not call him a robber. R. Ashi said: [Because] he wished to vindicate his honesty. What is the difference between them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What would be the effect of their difference in actual cases that may arise? ');"><sup>32</sup></span> — The difference would be seen [in a case] where the buyer died. According to the view [of Mar Zutra, viz.], 'he wished that he should not call him a robber,'