Bava Batra 157b:9בבא בתרא קנ״ז ב:ט
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Bava Batra 157b:9"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
157bקנ״ז ב

אלא הא מני ר' מאיר היא דאמר אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם

Rather, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: A person can transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world. Similarly, Rabbi Meir maintains that one can place a lien on property that the borrower will subsequently acquire.

אמר רב יעקב מנהר פקוד משמיה דרבינא תא שמע שטרי חוב המוקדמין פסולין והמאוחרין כשרין

Rav Yaakov from Nehar Pekod says in the name of Ravina: Come and hear proof from a mishna (Shevi’it 10:5): Promissory notes that are antedated, i.e., that are dated prior to the date on which the loan actually was given, are invalid. This is because the promissory note places a lien on the borrower’s property. By dating the document earlier than the loan itself, the lender appears to have a lien on property that the borrower sold prior to taking out the loan, enabling the lender to fraudulently repossess it from the buyer. But promissory notes that are postdated are valid, as this does not enable the lender to defraud a buyer.

ואי סלקא דעתך דאיקני קנה ומכר דאיקני קנה והוריש לא משתעבד מאוחרין אמאי כשרין דאיקני הוא

The Gemara explains: And if it enters your mind to say that property that the borrower acquires after receiving the loan is not liened even when he writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he acquires property and sells it to others, or when he writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he acquires property and bequeaths it to his heirs, why, then, are postdated promissory notes valid? They should be invalid, as in some instances they enable the creditor to fraudulently repossess property that is not liened, e.g., if the borrower acquires property after receiving the loan but before the date on the promissory note, and he sells it after that date. This case is comparable to one where the borrower writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened.

הא מני רבי מאיר היא דאמר אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם

The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: A person can transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world.

אמר רב משרשיא משמיה דרבא תא שמע לשבח קרקעות כיצד הרי שמכר שדה לחבירו והשביחה ובא בעל חוב וטרפה כשהוא גובה גובה את הקרן מנכסין משועבדין ואת השבח מנכסין בני חורין

Rav Mesharshiyya says in the name of Rava: Come and hear proof from a baraita: With regard to collecting a debt in a case of enhancement of land, how does it happen that the debt cannot be collected from liened property that has been sold? This question arises in a case where a debtor sold a field to another and the buyer enhanced it, and a creditor came and repossessed it from the buyer. When the buyer collects the value of the land from the seller, he collects the principal even from liened property that was sold to others, but he collects the value of the enhancement only from unsold property.

ואי סלקא דעתך דאיקני קנה ומכר דאיקני קנה והוריש לא משתעבד בעל חוב אמאי גובה שבחא

And if it enters your mind to say that property that the borrower acquires after receiving the loan is not liened even when he writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he acquires property and sells it to others, or when he writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he acquires property and bequeaths it to his heirs, why does the creditor collect his debt by repossessing the enhancement from the buyer? Since the enhancement was not extant at the time of the loan, it is not liened.

הא מני ר' מאיר היא דאמר אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם

The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: A person can transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world. The dilemma of Shmuel is raised according to the opinion of the Rabbis.

אם תמצא לומר דאיקני קנה ומכר דאיקני קנה והוריש לא משתעבד הא לא משתעבד אם תמצא לומר משתעבד לוה ולוה וחזר וקנה מהו לקמא משתעבד או לבתרא משתעבד

The Gemara comments: If you say that when the borrower writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he acquires property and sells it to others, it is not liened, and that when he writes: The property that I will acquire shall be liened, and he acquires property and bequeaths it to his heirs, it is not liened, then it is not liened and the following question will not arise. If you say that it is liened, what is the halakha with regard to one who borrowed money from one lender and then borrowed money from another lender, stating in both cases that the property that he will acquire shall be liened, and he then acquired land? Does the first lender have a lien upon the property or does the last lender have a lien upon the property?

אמר רב נחמן הא מילתא איבעיא לן ושלחו מתם ראשון קנה רב הונא אמר יחלוקו וכן תני רבה בר אבוה יחלוקו אמר רבינא מהדורא קמא דרב אשי אמר לן ראשון קנה מהדורא בתרא דרב אשי אמר לן יחלוקו והלכתא יחלוקו

Rav Naḥman said: This matter was raised before us, and the Sages sent a response from there, from Eretz Yisrael: The first lender acquires the property, since his lien came first. Rav Huna says: The lenders divide the property between them. And so teaches Rabba bar Avuh: The lenders divide the property between them. Ravina said: The first time Rav Ashi taught this matter he said to us: The first lender acquires the property. The last time Rav Ashi taught this matter he said to us: The lenders divide the property between them. And the halakha is that they divide the property between them.

מיתיבי לשבח קרקעות כיצד הרי שמכר שדה לחבירו והשביחה ובא בעל חוב וטרפה כשהוא גובה גובה את הקרן מנכסין משועבדין ואת השבח מנכסין בני חורין ואם איתא חצי שבח מבעי ליה

The Gemara raises an objection from the aforementioned baraita: With regard to collecting a debt in a case of enhancement of land, how does it occur that the debt cannot be collected from liened property that has been sold? This question arises in a case where one sold a field to another, and the buyer enhanced it, and a creditor came and repossessed it from the buyer. When the buyer collects the value of the land from the seller, he collects the principal even from liened property that was sold to others, but he collects the value of the enhancement only from unsold property. And if it is so that in general, the property is divided between the creditors, then, since both the creditor and the buyer have a lien upon the enhancement of the property, the buyer should collect only half of the value of the enhancement.

מאי גובה נמי דקתני חצי שבח:

The Gemara answers: What does the baraita mean, as well, when it teaches that the buyer collects the enhancement? The baraita means that he collects half of the value of the enhancement.