ויצאו עליה עסיקין עד שלא החזיק בה יכול לחזור בו משהחזיק בה אין יכול לחזור בו and claimants [asikin] come forth about the ownership of the land, disputing Reuven’s prior ownership, as long as Shimon has not yet taken possession of the land, he can retract his agreement to the transaction and is not required to pay for the land. Once he has taken possession of the land, he cannot retract his agreement to the transaction.
מ"ט דאמר ליה חייתא דקטרי סברת וקבלת What is the reason that he cannot retract his agreement to the transaction once he has taken possession? As Reuven says to him: The purchase of the land was like purchasing a tied bag [ḥayta] whose contents are unknown and might not have any value. Since you were aware of and accepted that possibility, as you purchased it without a guarantee, you cannot retract your agreement.
מאימת הואי חזקה מכי דייש אמצרי The Gemara asks: From when is it considered that he has taken possession of the property? He takes possession from the time that he walks upon the boundaries of the land to inspect it.
ודוקא שלא באחריות אבל באחריות לא The Gemara notes: And this is referring specifically to a case where the field was sold without a guarantee. But where it was sold with a guarantee this is not so, and Shimon can retract his agreement and refuse to pay for the land even after taking possession of it. The reason is that if the claimants succeed with their claims and seize the land, Reuven will then have to return the sum Shimon paid for it. In order to minimize judicial proceedings, the court allows Shimon to claim that there is no point in paying Reuven now only to have his money returned to him later. Therefore, he can retract his agreement to the transaction.
ואיכא דאמרי אפי' באחריות נמי דאמר ליה אחוי טירפך ואשלם לך And there are those who say that even where the field was sold with a guarantee, Shimon is unable to retract his agreement to the transaction, as Reuven has the legal right to say to him: First show me the claim authorization document, which a court provides to a buyer when the land he purchased is seized from him by a third party who proved that he had a lien on the land, and only then I will pay you. Consequently, Shimon cannot claim that there is no point in paying Reuven now, after he agreed to the sale but before a third party seized the land, as even if the land will be seized it does not automatically follow that Reuven will have to reimburse Shimon.
רב הונא אמר או כסף או מיטב § The Gemara returns to its earlier discussion concerning the form of the payment of damages: Rav Huna says: Damages are paid either with money or with one’s best-quality land.
איתיביה רב נחמן לרב הונא (שמות כא, לד) ישיב לרבות שוה כסף אפילו סובין Rav Naḥman raised an objection to Rav Huna from a baraita: The verse states: “He shall recompense money to its owner” (Exodus 21:34), which serves to include items worth money, even bran, a relatively inferior commodity, as valid forms of payment.
הכא במאי עסקינן בדלית ליה אי דלית ליה פשיטא מהו דתימא אמרינן ליה זיל טרח זבין ואייתי ליה כסף קמ"ל Rav Huna replied: With what are we dealing here in the baraita? We are dealing with a case where he does not have any money or land. The Gemara asks: If he does not have any other means with which to pay, isn’t it obvious that he can pay using what he has? The Gemara explains: Lest you say that we would say to him: Go to the trouble of selling whatever commodity you own, and thereby bring him money as payment for the damage, the baraita teaches us that it is unnecessary to sell one’s possessions and pay with money.
אמר רב אסי כספים הרי הן כקרקע למאי הלכתא אילימא לענין מיטב היינו דרב הונא Rav Asi says: Money is equivalent to land. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha are they equivalent? If we say that it is with regard to fulfilling the requirement of paying with one’s best-quality land, meaning that he can choose to pay with money instead, this is precisely the ruling of Rav Huna; and yet the ruling of Rav Asi is presented as an independent ruling.
אלא לשני אחים שחלקו ונטל אחד קרקע ואחד כספים ובא בעל חוב ונטל קרקע דאזיל האי ושקיל פלגא בכספים בהדיה Rather, Rav Asi is referring to a case of two brothers who divided their inheritance, and one took land and the other one took money, and subsequently their father’s creditor came and took the land, as it was liened to his loan. Rav Asi’s ruling teaches that this brother whose land was taken can go and take a half share of the money together with his brother.
פשיטא האי ברא והאי לאו ברא The Gemara rejects this explanation: Isn’t that obvious? Is this one a son and that one not a son? Since they are both sons and equally inherited the estate of their father, they share responsibility for their father’s debts. If the creditor takes repayment of the debt from one brother, the other one must reimburse him.
איכא דאמרי אדרבה לאידך גיסא דא"ל להכי שקלי כספים דאי מגנבי לא משתלמנא מינך ולהכי שקלת ארעא דאי מטרפא לא משתלמא לך מידי מינאי There are those who say that the Gemara rejects this explanation not because it is obvious, but on the contrary, because it is incorrect. As, one could look at it from the opposite direction, saying that one brother could say to the other: It was with this understanding that I took the money, that if it would be stolen from me I would not be reimbursed from your land, and it was with this understanding that you took the land, that if it would be seized from you by a creditor you would not be reimbursed from my money.
אלא לשני אחים שחלקו ובא בעל חוב ונטל חלקו של אחד מהן Rather, Rav Asi is referring to a case of two brothers who divided the land they inherited from their father, and their father’s creditor came and took the portion of one of them. Since the brothers carry joint responsibility for their father’s debt, the one whose portion was seized has a right to be reimbursed by his brother. Rav Asi’s ruling teaches that this may be done either by redistributing the remaining portion of land or by reimbursing him with money.
והא אמרה רב אסי חדא זימנא דאיתמר האחים שחלקו ובא בעל חוב ונטל חלקו של אחד מהן רב אמר בטלה מחלוקת ושמואל אמר ויתר ורב אסי אמר נוטל רביע בקרקע ורביע במעות The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav Asi already explicitly say that ruling once before? Therefore, this cannot be the explanation of this ruling. As it was stated: In a case of brothers who divided the land they inherited from their father, and their father’s creditor came and took the portion of one of them, Rav says that the initial division of the land is voided and any remaining land is divided equally between the brothers. Shmuel says that each brother, upon taking his portion, relinquished [viter] any rights to be reimbursed if his portion were lost. And Rav Asi says that the brother whose portion was seized has a right to receive half of the remaining inheritance: He takes a quarter in land, and he takes the other quarter in money.
רב אמר בטלה מחלוקת קסבר האחים שחלקו כיורשים הוו The Gemara explains the rationale behind each opinion: Rav says that the initial division of the land is voided. This is because he holds that brothers who divided their inheritance are considered to still be similar to heirs with respect to the inheritance, and therefore they continue to share joint responsibility for their father’s debts. Consequently, any remaining land is divided equally between the brothers.
ושמואל אמר ויתר קסבר האחים שחלקו לקוחות וכלוקח שלא באחריות דמי And Shmuel says that each brother, upon taking his portion, relinquished any rights to be reimbursed if his portion were lost, as he holds that brothers who divided their inheritance are considered to be like buyers of their respective portions, and each one is considered to be similar to a buyer who bought his portion without a guarantee that would have provided him with a right to be reimbursed if his portion were seized by a creditor.
ורב אסי אמר נוטל רביע בקרקע ורביע במעות מספקא ליה אי כיורשין דמו אי כלקוחות דמו הלכך נוטל רביע בקרקע ורביע במעות And Rav Asi says that the brother whose portion was seized has the right to receive half the remaining inheritance. He takes a quarter in land and he takes the other quarter in money. This is because he is uncertain as to whether they are similar to heirs, in which case the remaining land should be redistributed between them, or whether they are similar to buyers who bought their portions with a guarantee, in which case the brother whose portion was taken should be reimbursed by his brother with a sum of money equal to the value of the land that was seized from him. Therefore, he takes a quarter in land and he takes the other quarter in money.
אלא מאי הרי הן כקרקע לענין מיטב As Rav Asi had already stated the halakha of brothers who divided their inheritance, the Gemara suggests another explanation of his statement. Rather, with regard to what did Rav Asi state that money is equivalent to land? He stated it with regard to the requirement of paying with one’s best-quality land, and is teaching that one may choose to pay with money instead of land.
אי הכי היינו דרב הונא אימא וכן אמר רב אסי The Gemara repeats its original rejection of this suggestion: If so, then this is precisely the ruling of Rav Huna, and yet Rav Asi is presented as an independent ruling. The Gemara resolves the problem: Emend the statement and say: And similarly, Rav Asi said.
א"ר זירא אמר רב הונא במצוה עד שליש § Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Huna says: For the purchase of an object with which to fulfill a mitzva, one should spend up to one-third.
מאי שליש The Gemara asks: To what does this one-third refer?