Question: If Shmuel knew the Beraisa that teaches "both of these collect from Meshubadim", he should have explained the Mishnah like this, and he would not be refuted;

If he did not know the Beraisa, what is the source that according to Rabanan, when there is no Acharayus, he collects from Meshubadim?

Answer: He did not know the Beraisa. Even so, he knew from reasoning like I explained above (13b DH Divrei), that if he cannot collect from Meshubadim (because he pardoned the Shibud, he pardoned also the principal, and), he would not collect even from Bnei Chorin, like R. Meir holds.

Explanation: [One must consult about writing a lien in] sale documents. If he did not write [Shibud], he does not collect even from Bnei Chorin;

If a creditor seized it, like it says below, even without Acharayus, for he does not want Shimon (the buyer) to have complaints against him. This shows that [the buyer] is not compensated.

Distinction: However, if a Nigzal (from whom it was stolen) took it, [the buyer] goes to the Gazlan [for compensation], even without Acharayus, and even from Meshubadim. Since it was a Mekach Ta'os, it (the sale document) is a loan document.

Support #1: Now it is fine that here he did not say Peros. The case is, a creditor took it, and he does not get Peros;

This is like it says below (15a) "a creditor collects Shevach" - he gets Shevach, but not Peros.

Support #2: It is fine also that below (15a), Shmuel said "consult [with the seller before] writing [that compensation will be from] Idis (highest quality land, and for) improvements (made to the field before it was taken) and Peros, and he did not say "a lien", like he said here;

This is because there he discusses a Nigzal who took it. Even without writing a lien, he collects from him (the seller), even from Meshubadim;

The reason is like I explained. Since there is a sale document, and the sale is Batel, for it was stolen, it is a loan document, about which we say Acharayus Ta'us Sofer.

Implied question: In Bava Basra (43a), Shmuel said that if one sells a field without Acharayus, he may not testify about it, for he establishes it [with the buyer,] for his (the seller's) creditor to collect from;

Inference: If not for this, he could testify for him, even if it was found that it is not his. This implies that [the buyer] cannot collect from [the seller, when it is found that it was stolen]!

Answer: There, he specified in the document that there is no Acharayos. However, Stam he is compensated.

Question: What difference does it make? Whatever Reuven can claim, also Shimon can claim, for we claim for a buyer!

Suggestion #1: The creditor has are witnesses who are related to Reuven, but not to Shimon.

Rejection: Also if Shimon claims, they are Pasul, for if Shimon loses [the property that he bought], he goes to Reuven [for compensation]!

It is proven like this in Makos (7a) regarding Ila'a a Tuviya, who were relatives of the Arev (guarantor). We conclude that they are Pasul [for testimony] even for the borrower and lender, since if the borrower lacks [what to pay the loan, the lender] goes to the Arev [to collect].

Suggestion #2: Shimon has witnesses who are related to him, but not to Reuven.

Rejection: Also if Reuven claims, they are Pasul, since through their testimony, the land will remain with Shimon, who is their relative;

All the more so [they are Pasul] if he bought without Acharayus, for then they cause that he totally gains the land!

Answer #1: It makes a difference if Shimon said "I have no witnesses, and I have no proof", and afterwards he found witnesses or a proof. He cannot bring [the witnesses or proof], for the Halachah does not follow R. Shimon ben Gamliel regarding a later proof (Sanhedrin 31a). Reuven can bring them.

Answer #2: In a case that the creditor needs to take a Shevu'ah mid'Oraisa to Reuven, now Reuven can be Megalgel on [the creditor] a Shevu'ah that he did not pay;

To Shimon, he would need to swear only mid'Rabanan.

In Kesuvos (88a), it says that if he is clever, he brings him to a Shevu'ah mid'Oraisa. This shows that a Shevu'ah mid'Oraisa is more stringent than a Shevu'ah mid'Rabanan. The stringency is burning candles and inflated flasks, like Teshuvas ha'Ge'onim explains.

Answer #3: It makes a difference if Reuven is clever and eloquent.

Answer #4: The creditor does not want to be brazen against Reuven, for [Reuven] knows whether or not he paid him.

Answer #5: Reuven can go with him to the Great Beis Din, but Shimon cannot. See also Tosfos (Kesuvos 92b DH Dina).

Explanation: These are protesters, and not extortionists, because we distinguished between a sale with Acharayus and without Acharayus.

Support: Is proven like this in Shevuos (31a). "Va'Asher Lo Tov Asah..." is one who buys a field on which there are Asikin;

If these are extortionists, he should be blessed [for saving the seller from problems]!

Question #1: What is the case? If he did not give money, obviously he can retract. There is not even Mi she'Para (a curse enacted for one who retracts from Kinyan Kesef)! 'He who punished the generations of the flood and the dispersion, He will punish one who does not fulfill his word....'

If he gave money, why can he retract? Land is acquired through money, unless we will establish it in a place where people do not acquire through money!

Question #2: [Abaye said] "once he made Chazakah, he cannot retract, but if there was Acharayus, he can retract";

Why can he retract? He gave money and properly made Chazakah!

Question #3: We never find a Chazakah of walking on the borders. Why did [the Gemara] abandon the Chazakah taught in the Mishnah (Bava Basra 42a) "he locked, fenced or breached"?

Question #4: Why did the Gemara ask here what is Chazakah, more than elsewhere? In several places it mentions Chazakah, and we do not ask from when is a Chazakah!

Answer (Riva): The case is, he acquired through an absolute Kinyan, e.g. Chalipin, and he did not give money;

[Abaye] says that until he made the Chazakah specified afterwards, of walking on the borders, that he did not walk along the length and width, he did not resolve [to buy it, so], he can retract;

Once he made the Chazakah, i.e. he walked along the length and width, he cannot retract;

Distinction: However, if there was Acharayus, he can retract, since he did not give money and there are protests. Since in the end [the seller] will return his money, which is now in his hand, he can keep it.

This is fine that walking on the borders is not a full Chazakah. Rather, it is only to see if his heart is settled with it.

Question: Once he made the Chazakah, why can't he retract? Since he did not give money, he should say "take the land in lieu of your coins (i.e. what I agreed to pay you)"!

This is even if he has coins, according to those who explain that even if he has coins, one can dispel a creditor with others matters.

[That opinion holds that] the text in Bava Basra (92b) says "if those coins are not around..." (regarding one who bought an ox for plowing, and it turns out that it is a gorer, if the seller does not have the same coins that the buyer paid, even if he has other coins, he may tell him to keep what he bought, in lieu of a refund of his money).

Answer: Here, he can say "this land is not worth my money (what I agreed to pay for it), because there are protests;

However, if an ox gored, since its price rose to be equal to the coins paid for it, it is proper [to return the ox in place of the money].

Explanation: The Nigzal takes the land with Shevach, and he pays the buyer only the expenditures, like the law of one who enters [and improves] another's field without permission;

If the Shevach exceeds the expenditures, he gives to him the expenditure. The excess Shevach the buyer takes from the Gazlan. The case is, he stole it empty (without Shevach).

Explanation: Even if he bought it without Acharayus [he gets back his money], like I explained above (14a DH Shibud).

Support: It connotes that we discuss similar to the case of one who recognized that it is not [the seller's], below (15b). You are forced to say that that is without Acharayus, like Shmuel says "the coins are a gift";

If it is with Acharayus, why are the coins a gift?!

Implied question: He could have asked from the Reisha itself, like he asks below! (We must establish it to discuss one who bought from a Gazlan. Now we are thinking that the Seifa is like the Reisha.)

Answer: Whatever he can ask about Shevach itself, he asks.

Reference: In Bava Basra (157b), [Rav Mesharshiya] wanted to prove that if one put a lien "on what I acquire", and he acquired and sold, there is a lien on it, from here, that a creditor collects Shevach that was not existent at the time of the loan;

We reject the proof. [The Beraisa] is like R. Meir, who says that one can be Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam.

Question: We should bring a proof from Shmuel, who said that a creditor collects Shevach, and Shmuel himself asked there [whether a lien 'on property that I will acquire', takes effect];

Suggestion: [We did not, for] we could have said that Shmuel [said he collects Shevach because he] holds like R. Meir, and he asked according to Chachamim.

Rejection: In Kesuvos (59a), Shmuel rules like R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar, who holds that one cannot be Makdish [Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam]!

Answer: Shmuel said that a creditor collects Shevach, i.e. according to the conclusion there that resolves that [if one put a lien] "on what I acquire", and he acquired and sold, there is a lien on it, even according to Rabanan.

Question: Just the contrary! We should prove from here that there is no lien, since a creditor cannot take from the Meshubadim that a buyer took [from one who bought after him, i.e. after a creditor took the first buyer's property. If the creditor had a lien on the latter property sold, why was he able to take from the first buyer? The first buyer should tell him, I left other property for you to collect from! Even if that other property was sold later, you must collect from it before you collect from me!]

Suggestion: After the creditor took from the [first] buyer, the seller acquired lands and sold them.

Rejection: If so, he (the earlier buyer) collects also Shevach from these Meshubadim, for also the Shevach was fixed, since the creditor already took it before this [second buyer] bought the land!

Answer: The case is, the seller made this land an Apotiki for his creditor. Therefore, the creditor collects it, even though there are other Meshubadim.

Question: Why did the Gemara in Bava Basra (157b) give a poor answer that the Beraisa is R. Meir?

It should establish it when he made it an Apotiki, for then a creditor collects for free Shevach above the expenditures, like the law of one who enters [and improves] another's field without permission, like it connotes below (15b)!

Alternatively, it could establish it to discuss one who bought from a Gazlan, e.g. [the Gazlan] has land, or he acquired from [the Gazlan rights to compensation for Shevach], like we answer below in our Sugya (15a)!