עידית וזיבורית נזקין בעידית ובעל חוב וכתובת אשה בזיבורית If he has only superior-quality and inferior-quality land, damages are paid from the superior-quality land, and pay-ments owed to a creditor and payments of a woman’s marriage contract are made from the inferior-quality land.
קתני מיהא מציעא בינונית וזיבורית נזקין וב"ח בבינונית וכתובת אשה בזיבורית ואי אמרת בשלו הן שמין תעשה בינונית שלו כעידית וידחה ב"ח אצל זיבורית The Gemara explains how this baraita poses a challenge: In any event, the baraita teaches in the middle clause: If he owns only intermediate-quality and inferior-quality land, payments for damages and payments owed to a creditor are made from the intermediate-quality land, and payments of a woman’s marriage contract are made from the inferior-quality land. This clause demonstrates that the quality of land is appraised objectively based on the standard of the world at large. The reason for this is that if you say that the court appraises land based on the quality of the land of the one liable for the damage, let his intermediate-quality land be classified as superior-quality land, as that is the best land he owns, and consequently, the creditor should be directed to collect the debt from the inferior-quality land.
הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהיתה לו עידית ומכרה The Gemara rejects this: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where at the time the borrower took the loan he also had superior-quality land and he subsequently sold it. Accordingly, no matter how land is appraised, at the time that the loan was given his intermediate-quality land would be classified as being of intermediate quality. Consequently, the creditor’s lien on the borrower’s land, which took effect from the moment the loan was given, takes effect with regard to the intermediate-quality land. Therefore, the creditor retains his right to collect from that land, regardless of the fact that by the time of collec-tion it was the borrower’s best land and at that point could be reclassified as land of superior quality.
וכן א"ר חסדא כגון שהיתה לו עידית ומכרה And so says Rav Ḥisda: The baraita deals with a case where at the time he took the loan he also had superior-quality land and he subsequently sold it.
הכי נמי מסתברא מדקתני אחריתי בינונית וזיבורית נזקין בבינונית ב"ח וכתובת אשה בזיבורית קשיין אהדדי The Gemara notes: This too stands to reason, from the fact that another baraita teaches: If a debtor has only intermediate-quality and inferior-quality land, damages are collected from the intermediate-quality land, while payments to a creditor and payments of a woman’s marriage contract are made from the inferior-quality land. These two baraitot are difficult, as they contradict each other. The baraita above teaches that in this case the creditor collects the debt from the intermediate-quality land, whereas this baraita teaches that he collects the debt from the inferior-quality land.
אלא לאו ש"מ כאן שהיתה לו עידית ומכרה כאן שלא היתה לו עידית ומכרה Rather, must one not conclude from it that here, in the baraita above, it is a case where he also had superior-quality land at the time that he took the loan and he subsequently sold it, while there, in the baraita subsequently cited, it is a case where he did not have superior-quality land and he did not sell it. In such a case, since his intermediate-quality land was his best land, it is classified as superior-quality land and accordingly, no lien took effect with regard to it.
ואי בעית אימא אידי ואידי שלא היתה לו עידית ומכרה ולא קשיא הא דשויא בינונית שלו כעידית דעלמא וכאן דלא שויא בינונית שלו כעידית דעלמא And if you wish, say instead that the contradiction between the baraitot can be resolved differently: Both this baraita and that baraita concern cases where the borrower did not have superior-quality land and sell it. And it is not difficult because this second baraita concerns a case where his intermediate-quality land is equivalent in quality to the superior-quality land of the world at large; therefore, it is classified as superior-quality land and the creditor has no right to collect from it. And here, the first baraita concerns a case in which his intermediate-quality land is not equivalent in quality to the superior-quality land of the world at large but is similar to the intermediate-quality land of the world at large; consequently, the creditor has a claim to it.
ואב"א אידי ואידי כגון שהיתה בינונית שלו כבינונית דעלמא והכא בהא פליגי מ"ס בשלו הן שמין ומ"ס בשל עולם הן שמין And if you wish, say instead: Both this baraita and that baraita concern a case where the borrower’s intermediate-quality land, which is the best land he owns, is equivalent in quality to the intermediate-quality land of the world at large, and here, the baraitot disagree about this: One Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that the court appraises the debtor’s land based on the quality of his other land, so that his best land is classified as superior-quality land and the creditor has no claim on it. And the other Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that the court appraises the debtor’s land based on the quality of land in the world at large, so that his land is classified as intermediate-quality land and the creditor is entitled to claim it.
רבינא אמר בדעולא פליגי דאמר עולא דבר תורה ב"ח בזיבורית שנאמר (דברים כד, יא) בחוץ תעמוד והאיש אשר אתה נושה בו יוציא אליך את העבוט החוצה מה דרכו של אדם להוציא לחוץ פחות שבכלים ומה טעם אמרו ב"ח בבינונית כדי שלא תנעול דלת בפני לוין Ravina said: Another resolution to the contradiction between the baraitot is that the baraitot disagree with regard to the opinion of Ulla, as Ulla says: By Torah law, a creditor collects from inferior-quality land, as it is stated: “You shall stand outside, and the man you have a claim against will bring his collateral out to you” (Deuteronomy 24:11). One can infer: What item would a person typically choose to bring out for use as collateral and potential payment? Certainly it is the most inferior of his utensils. The verse thereby indicates that a creditor collects from inferior-quality land. But if so, for what reason did the Sages say that a creditor collects from intermediate-quality land? They instituted this ordinance so as not to lock the door in the face of potential borrowers, as, if creditors were limited to collecting from inferior-quality land they would be hesitant to offer loans in the first place.
מר אית ליה תקנתא דעולא ומר לית ליה תקנתא דעולא Ravina explains: One Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the ordinance cited by Ulla that a creditor collects from intermediate-quality land. And the other Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, is not of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the ordinance cited by Ulla, so the creditor has a right to collect from only inferior-quality land, in accordance with Torah law.
ת"ר מכר לאחד או לשלשה בני אדם כאחד כולן נכנסו תחת הבעלים § The Sages taught in the Tosefta (Ketubot 12:3): If one owes money to pay damages, repay a loan, and pay a woman’s marriage contract, and he owns inferior-quality, intermediate-quality, and superior-quality land, and he sells all of his land, then if he sold all of the land to one person or to three people simultaneously, all the buyers replace the land’s prior owner with regard to repayment of his debts. At the time when each debt was created, each creditor gained a lien on the plots of the debtor’s land, from which they have a right to collect. As a lien remains in effect even if the land is sold, then even after the sale, each creditor can collect from the plots of land upon which they have a lien. Accordingly, damages are collected from the superior-quality land, the loan is repaid from the intermediate-quality land, and the marriage contract is paid from the inferior-quality land.
בזה אחר זה כולן גובין מן האחרון אין לו גובה משלפניו אין לו גובה משלפני פניו If he sold his plots of land one after the other, all the creditors collect from the last buyer, regardless of the quality of the land he purchased. If that buyer does not have sufficient land purchased from the debtor to pay all the debts, the creditors take the land he has and collect the remaining sums from the one who purchased land before him, and if he also does not have sufficient land, they collect the rest from the one before the one before him, i.e., the first buyer. The Sages instituted that creditors may not collect from land that a debtor sold, even though it is technically still liened to them, as long as the debtor still has sufficient means with which to repay the debt (see Gittin 48b). Accordingly, after the sale of the first plot of land, the creditors’ rights to collect are restricted to the land that remains in the possession of the debtor, and consequently they gain a lien on it, irrespective of its quality. Therefore, even if that land is subsequently sold, their rights to collect are restricted to that land, and only if the value of that land is insufficient to cover the cost of the debt may they utilize the original liens they had on the plots of land that were sold first.
מכרן לאחד היכי דמי The Gemara clarifies: With regard to the first case in the baraita, where he sold all the land to one person, what are the circum-stances?
אילימא בבת אחת השתא לשלשה דאיכא למימר חד מינייהו קדים אמרת כולן נכנסו תחת הבעלים מכרן לאחד מיבעיא If we say that he simultaneously sold all of the land to one person, that is difficult. Now that the baraita teaches that if he sold the land to three different people simultaneously, where it is possible to say that the sale to one of them preceded the other sales, yet you say the halakha is that all the buyers replace the land’s prior owner equally, and the possibility that one might have proceeded the other is disregarded, is it necessary to teach that the halakha is the same in a case where all the plots of land were simultaneously sold to one person?
אלא פשיטא בזה אחר זה Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is referring to a case where the plots of land were sold one after the other.
ומ"ש שלשה דכל חד וחד אמר ליה הנחתי לך מקום לגבות ממנו The Gemara asks: But what is different about the latter clause of the baraita, where the plots of land were sold to three buyers, one after the other, and the creditors collect only from the last buyer? It is different in that each one of the first two buyers can say to any creditor who tries to seize the land they purchased: Do not collect my land, as I left a place for you, a plot of land in the debtor’s possession, from which to collect. In other words, when the first two buyers purchased their land a plot of land remained with the debtor, and therefore the creditor’s rights of collection are restricted to that land.
האי נמי אכל חד וחד לימא ליה הנחתי לך מקום לגבות ממנו The Gemara continues its question: In this case as well, where all the plots of land were sold to a single buyer, with regard to each one of the first two plots of land that were sold, let the buyer say to any creditor who tries to collect: With my purchase of the first two plots of land, I left a place for you, a plot of land in the debtor’s possession, from which to collect. Therefore, even though the debtor subsequently sold the buyer all of the land, the creditor’s rights of collection are restricted to the last plot of land the debtor sold the buyer, irrespective of its quality. Why then does the baraita rule that in this case each creditor collects from the land that was originally liened to him?
הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שלקח עידית באחרונה וכן אמר רב ששת כגון שלקח עידית באחרונה The Gemara explains: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where the individual buyer purchased the superior-quality land last. Accordingly, the buyer is satisfied with allowing each creditor to collect from the land that was previously liened to him, rather than having them each collect from the superior-quality land. And so says Rav Sheshet: It is a case where the individual buyer purchased the superior-quality land last.
אי הכי ליתו כולהו וליגבו מעידית The Gemara asks: If that is so, let them all come and collect from the superior-quality land, as their rights to collect should be restricted to it, since it was purchased last.
משום דאמר להו אי שתקיתו ושקליתו כדינייכו שקליתו ואי לא מהדרנא שטרא דזיבורית למריה ושקליתו כולכו מזיבורית The Gemara answers: Because he can say the following threat to them: If you are silent and do not insist on collecting from the superior-quality land, and take the land of a quality that is due to you according to your standard legal rights, as in a case where you collect directly from the debtor, i.e., the injured party will collect from the superior-quality land, the creditor from the intermediate-quality land, and the woman will collect her marriage contract from the inferior-quality land, then take that land and I will allow you to do so. But if not, and you insist on taking the superior-quality land that I purchased last, then I will return the bill of sale of the inferior-quality land to its prior owner, i.e., the debtor, and you will all be forced to collect from the inferior-quality land, because whenever the debtor has land in his possession you are able to collect the debts only from him.
אי הכי The Gemara asks: If so, that this is the reason for the ruling in the baraita,