COMPENSATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS (cont.)
Rejection #2 (Rabah bar Rav Huna): The case is, extortionists took the field from Yehudah (the thief). David collects principal (the value of the land) even from property that Yehudah sold, and the value of the Peros from Yehudah's Bnei Chorin.
Rava did not explain like Rabah, because 'behold it leaves his hand' connotes legally.
Rabah did not say like Rava, because 'behold it leaves his hand' connotes like it was originally.
Rejection #3 (Rav Ashi): The laws of the Beraisa apply to different people. Yehudah stole David's field and sold it to Moshe. Moshe collects principal (what he paid) from Yehudah's Meshubadim. David (gets back his field and) is compensated for Peros from Yehudah's Bnei Chorin.
Question: According to both Rava and Rabah bar Rav Huna, why does David collect from Meshubadim? Yehudah's debt is like a Milveh Al Peh (there is no document. People who bought from Yehudah did not know to beware!)
Answer: The case is, before Yehudah sold his land, Beis Din ruled that Yehudah must pay. (Such a debt is like a loan with a document.)
Question: If so, also compensation for Peros should be from Meshubadim!
Answer: Beis Din ruled only about the land itself, but not about the Peros.
Question: The Beraisa did not specify. Why should we assume it discusses such a case?
Answer: Normally, people claim the principal before claiming Peros
Question: Does Shmuel really hold that one who buys from a thief is not compensated for Shevach?
Shmuel told Chinena bar Shilas to consult with the seller and to write in the document (that if the land is taken from the buyer, he will collect from the seller's) Idis, and for Shevach, and for Peros.
Question: In what case do these apply?
Suggestion: They apply when a creditor takes the land.
Rejection: Shmuel said that a creditor receives Shevach (i.e. but not Peros)!
Answer: Rather, they applies when it is found that the seller had stolen the land!
Version #1 - Answer (Rav Yosef): The case is, the seller has land (with which he pays the buyer, so it does not look like Ribis. In this case, Shmuel says that he pays for Shevach.)
Question (Abaye): If one has land, may he lend Se'ah b'Se'ah (a volume of wheat on condition to return the same volume? We know that this is forbidden, lest the price of wheat rise!)
Answer (Rav Yosef): Se'ah b'Se'ah is a loan. I discuss one who sold (land, just the sale was invalid so he must return the money. When he pays with land, we are not concerned lest it look like Ribis.)
Version #2 - Answer (Rav Yosef): The case is, at the time of the sale the buyer acquired (through Chalipin) compensation for Shevach (if the field will be taken from him. The seller's obligation precedes his benefit of ability to use the money, so it does not look like Ribis.)
Question (Abaye): May one lend Se'ah b'Se'ah if he does Chalipin (to obligate himself from the beginning to return a Se'ah later)?!
Answer (Rav Yosef): Se'ah b'Se'ah is a loan. I discuss a sale.
COLLECTING A DEBT FROM LAND THAT IMPROVED AFTER THE LOAN
(Shmuel): A creditor collects Shevach (on the land that he collects).
Support (Rava): Surely, this is true. A seller writes (in the sale document) 'I will silence any claims against this sale; the land, money invested in it and Shevach.'
Question (R. Chiya bar Avin): One who gives a gift does not write this. Will you say that a creditor does not collect Shevach from a gift?
Answer (Rava): That is correct.
Question (R. Chiya bar Aba): Does one who receives a gift have more privileges than one who buys?!
Answer (Rava): Yes!
Rav Nachman: A Beraisa supports Shmuel. However, the way Rav Huna establishes it, it does not.
(Beraisa): If Reuven sold a field to Shimon, and it was taken from Shimon, he collects principal from Meshubadim, and Shevach from Bnei Chorin.
(Rav Huna): (A creditor did not take it. Rather,) Reuven sold a field that he stole.
(Beraisa): If Reuven sold a field to Shimon, who improved it, and Reuven's creditor took it:
If the Shevach exceeds the expenditures, Shimon collects his expenditures from the creditor, and the Shevach above his expenditures from Reuven;
If the expenditures exceed the Shevach, the creditor pays Shimon the Shevach.
Question: How can Shmuel establish the Beraisa?
Suggestion: The 'creditor' is really the true owner (i.e. Reuven stole the field).
Rejection: Shmuel says that one who buys from a thief is not compensated for Shevach!
Suggestion: It is a normal creditor.
Rejection: Shmuel says that a creditor collects the Shevach (without paying for it)!
Answer #1: The 'creditor' is the true owner. Shimon collects Shevach from Reuven either because Reuven has land, or because Shimon acquired rights to compensation for Shevach at the time of the sale (like Rav Yosef's answers above).
Answer #2: It is a normal creditor;
Shmuel says that a creditor must pay for Shevach (Peros) if it is Magi'a l'Kesafim (Rashi - it is almost ready to be harvested, so it is considered like Peros; Tosfos - it came through exertion).
Question: In many cases, Shmuel ruled that a creditor collects such Shevach for free!
Answer: That is when he was owed the value of the land and the Shevach, but not if he is owned only the value of the land.
We can understand this according to the opinion that the creditor can collect the land even if the buyer wants to pay the debt and keep the land.
Question: According to the opinion that if the buyer wants to pay the debt and keep the land, he can do so, he should be able to say 'if I had money, you would not get the land. Even now that I have no money, the Shevach should be considered like money to pay part of the debt, and you must leave me land corresponding to the money!'
Answer: The case is, the land was an Aputiki, i.e. they stipulated that the loan will be collected only from it.
ONE WHO KNOWINGLY BOUGHT A STOLEN FIELD
(Rav): If Reuven bought a field from Shimon, even though he knew that Shimon had stolen it, he gets back what he paid, but not Shevach.
(Shmuel): He does not get back even what he paid.
Question: What do they argue about?
Answer: Rav holds that Reuven intended that the money should be a deposit;
Question: If so, he should say that he gives a deposit!
Answer: He thinks that Shimon would not accept to guard it.
Shmuel holds that he gave the money for a gift.
Question: If so, he should say that he gives a gift!
Answer: He does not want to embarrass Shimon.
Question: Rav and Shmuel argued about this elsewhere. Why must they argue about it again?
(Rav): If Reuven was Mekadesh his sister with money, she must return the money;
(Shmuel): The money is a gift.
Rav holds that he intended that the money be a deposit. He does not explicitly say so, lest she not accept to guard it.
Shmuel holds that he gave the money for a gift. He does not explicitly say so, lest this embarrass her.
Answer: They needed to argue in both cases;
Had they argued only about stolen land, one might have thought that only there Rav holds that it is a deposit, for normally, people don't give gifts to strangers, but he would agree that Kidushin of his sister is a gift.
Had they argued only about Kidushin, one might have thought that only there Shmuel says it is a gift, but regarding land he agrees that it is a deposit, for people normally don't give gifts to strangers.
Question: According to both Rav and Shmuel, why may Reuven use the land and eat the Peros?
Answer: He reasons 'I will use the land like the thief would have used it. When the owner comes, I will return the land' (and, according to Rav, get back his money).
(Rava): The law is, (one who buys a field without knowing that it was stolen) gets back his money and is compensated for Shevach, even though he never stipulated;
If he knew that it was stolen, he gets back his money but not the Shevach.
Achrayus (if omitted from a document) is a mistake of the scribe (and there is Achrayus), regarding a loan or sale.
A THIEF WHO LATER BOUGHT THE FIELD
Question (Shmuel): If a thief sold the field, and then the thief bought it from the true owner, what is the law?
Answer (Rav): One who sells, he sells all rights he will obtain in the matter (the buyer keeps it).
Question: What is the reason?
Answer #1 (Mar Zutra): The thief does not want to be called a thief.
Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): A person wants to conduct his dealings faithfully.