Question: What is the difference between the answers?

Answer #1: The buyer died.

There is no concern of being called a thief, but (Rav Ashi would say) that he wants to conduct his dealings faithfully with the heirs.

Rejection: If he does not justify himself, the heirs will call him a thief!

Answer #2: The thief died.

He is not concerned about being called a thief after his death, but he wants that his dealings were faithful.

Rejection: He does not want that people will call his children 'children of a thief'!

Answer #3: He never sold the stolen field, rather, he gave it for a gift.

There is no concern of being called a thief, but he wants to conduct his dealings faithfully

(The following apply when Reuven stole Levi's field and sold it to Shimon.)

Obviously, if Reuven sold or gave it to Yehudah and then bought it from Levi, he did not buy it so Shimon should keep it (therefore, Shimon gets his money back, but not the land);

If Reuven inherited it, he did not do anything to show that he wants Shimon to keep it.

If Reuven collected the field for a debt that Levi owed to him:

If Levi had other fields and Reuven requested specifically this one, this shows that he wanted Shimon to keep it;

If this was Levi's only field, we have no such indication.

(Rav Acha or Ravina): If Levi gave it to Reuven for a gift, this is like an inheritance (Reuven did nothing);

(The other of Rav Acha and Ravina): If Levi gave it to Reuven like a gift, we assume that he requested this (to cause that his dealings were faithful).

Question: Until how long do we assume that Reuven acted in order to conduct his dealings faithfully?

Answer #1 (Rav Huna): It is until Shimon brings him to trial.

Answer #2 (Chiya bar Rav): It is until Shimon receives an Adrachta (a document authorizing him to collect from Reuven's property).

Answer #3 (Rav Papa): It is until the days of announcing (that Beis Din is selling Reuven's property).

Question (Rami bar Chama): (When we say that Reuven bought it for Shimon to keep), how did Shimon acquire the field?

The document that he received is worthless (Reuven did not own it at the time)!

Answer (Rava): The case is, Shimon trusted Reuven to give him the field. With the pleasure that Shimon relies on him, Reuven transfers the field.

Question (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa): If Levi sold to Yehudah 'what I will inherit from my father' or 'what will be caught in my trap', this is void;

If he said 'what I will inherit from my father today' or 'what will be caught in my trap today', it is valid.

We learn that one cannot sell something that is not yet in his possession

Answer (Rava): One who bought a stolen field relied on the seller. He has Gemiras Da'as (the resolve needed for an acquisition). One who buys a future inheritance is not confident of receiving anything.

One who bought a stolen field trusts that the seller will get the field for him, so he will not be called a thief. This does not apply by inheritance.

Version #1 (Rashi) R. Aba bar Zavda: This question is too difficult. There is no answer for it.

Rava: We can answer it (like above).

Version #2 (Ge'onim) R. Aba bar Zavda: This is a simple question.

Rava: It is very difficult!

Regarding the stolen field, the buyer relied on the seller, by inheritance, he lacks resolve. (end of Version #2)

A case occurred in Pumbedisa. Rav Yosef said like R. Aba bar Zavda, Abaye said like Rava.

Question: In the Beraisa, why is it different when he says (what I will inherit or my trap will catch) 'today'?

Answer (R. Yochanan): The case when he says 'today' is that his father is about to die. (Chachamim enacted that) he can sell his inheritance in order to be able to honor his father with a proper burial;

Regarding the trap, Chachamim enacted than the sale is valid to help the trapper support himself.

(Rav Huna citing Rav): If Reuven told Shimon 'the field I will buy, when I buy it, it is acquired to you from now', Shimon acquires it.

Rava: Presumably, this is when Reuven did not specify a particular field. If he did, Shimon would lack resolve, lest the seller will not want to sell it;

However, I swear that Rav said so even regarding a particular field!

Rav rules like R. Meir, who says that one can acquire something that is not yet in the world.

(Beraisa): If Levi told Leah that she will be Mekudeshes to him (when this will be possible, i.e.): after he or she converts, or after he or she is freed, or after her sister (if Levi is married to her sister) or husband will die, or after Leah does Chalitzah, she is not Mekudeshes (even after the event occurs);

R. Meir says, she is Mekudeshes (after it occurs).

(Some cases of) a woman are like a field (e.g. her husband's death is beyond their control), yet R. Meir says that it takes effect!

(Shmuel): If one finds a Hakna'ah document (that Shimon owes Reuven), he returns it to Reuven.

We are not concerned lest the loan was never given. Shimon obligated himself in any case!

We are not concerned that it was paid, for then Shimon would have torn it up.

Rav Nachman: My father was a scribe in Shmuel's Beis Din. From my youth, I recall announcements that Hakna'ah documents found in the market should be returned to the lender.

Support (Rav Anan - Mishnah): All documents of actions of Beis Din should be returned.

This shows that we are not concerned lest they were paid.

Rejection #1 (R. Zeira): The Mishnah discusses Chaltasa documents (saying that a lender collected a field as payment), or Adrachta. Payment does not apply to such documents.

Objection (Rava): Payment applies to them!

(Chachamim of Neharda'a): If Beis Din allowed a lender to collect a field for payment, the borrower can recover his field if he pays the debt within one year.

(Ameimar): I am from Neharda'a. I hold that he can always redeem his field!

Rejection #2 (Rava): For such documents, we are not concerned for payment. If the borrower later paid, he caused his own loss by not tearing the document, or demanding a document of (re)sale of his field from the lender.

Letter of the law, the lender need not return the field. Chachamim obligated him to return it due to "you will do what is straight and good in the eyes of Hash-m";

This is like a new sale, so a new document should be written.

Regarding loan documents, perhaps the borrower is not at fault;

Perhaps the lender promised to return the document at his next opportunity, or was holding it until the borrower paid the scribe's fee!

(R. Avahu): If one finds a loan document, even though it has a Henpek, he may not return it.

If it has no Henpek, we are concerned lest the loan was never given. Even if it has a Henpek, we are concerned lest it was paid.

Question: What is a document with a Henpek?

Answer: It was validated by Beis Din.

Question (R. Yirmiyah - Mishnah): All documents of actions of Beis Din should be returned.

Answer #1 (R. Avahu): That does not apply to all actions of Beis Din. It is only when the borrower was established to be a liar (then he is not believed to say that he paid).

Objection (Rava): If a man was once established to be a liar, will he never pay?!

Answer #2 (Rava): The Mishnah discusses documents of Chaltasa or Adrachta (like R. Zeira said above).