More Discussions for this daf
1. the argument bet. Rab. Tam, and Rivam in the bottom tosfos 2. שכיב מרע

Moshe Miodownik asked:

To whom this may concern,

Hi I was wondering if you could clarify what ia each rishon's opinion, ie- the facts, does RT hold that there is no "concern for deception", and that the reason he gives is secondary, or in fact the reason he gives is his primary reason. And then what do you think the svara to each opnion is, I dont think they are arguing over facts, ie- is there a concern or not. Thanks so much.

Moshe Miodownik, flushing, new york

The Kollel replies:

The Riva maintains that it is only from a Shtar Mecher, where there is a definite concern that the purchaser will come back to claim from the seller should the latter's creditor claim the field from him, that the seller is permitted to retract. But not by a Shtar Matanah, which is merely a proof of sale, which leads us to suspect that he is trying to retract from the actual Matanah, seeing as there is no other tangible reason for him to retract.

Rabeinu Tam on the other hand, maintains even in the latter case, either people will think that the Shtar is a Shtar Mecher, and will refrain from lending him money, for fear that he will be forced to reimburse the purchaser and not have money to pay back any subsequent loans, or when word spreads that he is selling or giving away his fields, the value of his property will drop.

The Riva considers these fears far-fetched, and does not therefore contend with them.

be'Virchas Kol Tuv,

Eliezer Chrysler