Gemara Clarity

Bava Metzia 15a

בבא מציעא ט״ו ע״א

Learn Bava Metzia 15a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Metzia 15a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

How a נגזל, a buyer and a creditor collect the קרן, פירות and שבח, and שמואל's rules on שבח for a buyer from a robber and for a creditor.

Overview

The amud opens by finishing רבה בר רב הונא's explanation of the ברייתא about a stolen field: thugs seized it, so the נגזל collects the קרן from sold property and the פירות only from free property. The גמרא shows that רבא and רבה בר רב הונא each read the phrase 'הרי היא יוצאה מתחת ידו' differently. רב אשי offers a third reading: the buyer collects the קרן and the נגזל collects the פירות. The גמרא then asks how a מלוה על פה can be collected from liened property. It answers that the robber stood trial for the קרן before he sold his land. Next the גמרא questions שמואל's view that a לוקח מגזלן gets no שבח. רב יוסף answers in two versions: the robber owns land, or a קנין was made, and a sale is different from a loan like סאה בסאה. The גמרא then returns to שמואל's rule that a בעל חוב collects the שבח. רבא proves it from the wording of a sale document and accepts that a gift is stronger than a sale in this respect. Finally, two ברייתות are brought. The second one is defended for שמואל in two ways, and the second defense continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

שֶׁנְּטָלוּהָ מַסִּיקִין,

[for example,] where thugs took it [the field] away,

בָּא נִגְזָל לִגְבּוֹת קֶרֶן –

when the robbery victim comes to collect the principal –

גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים,

he collects from liened property;

בָּא נִגְזָל לִגְבּוֹת פֵּירוֹת –

when the robbery victim comes to collect for the produce –

The steps (30)

  1. Statementרבה בר רב הונא: thugs took the field from the robber
  2. RejectionWhy רבא did not explain it like רבה בר רב הונא
  3. RejectionWhy רבה בר רב הונא did not explain it like רבא
  4. Statementרב אשי: the ברייתא speaks of two different people
  5. ChallengeChallenge: a robber's debt is only an oral loan
  6. ResolutionThe robber stood trial before he sold his property
  7. ChallengeThen the produce should be collected from liened property too
  8. ResolutionHe stood trial only for the principal
  9. ChallengeWhy does the ברייתא state it as a flat rule?
  10. ResolutionPeople usually claim the principal first
  11. ChallengeDoes שמואל really deny the buyer the enhancement?
  12. ChallengeThe document wording must refer to a buyer from a robber
  13. ResolutionThe case is where the robber owns land
  14. ChallengeOwning land doesn't help for borrowing a סאה for a סאה
  15. ResolutionA loan is different from a sale
  16. ResolutionAnother version of רב יוסף's answer: a formal act of acquisition was made
  17. Challengeאביי: a formal acquisition does not permit borrowing סאה בסאה
  18. Resolutionרב יוסף: that is a loan, this is a sale
  19. StatementBack to שמואל's statement: a creditor collects the improvement
  20. Proofרבא proves שמואל's rule from the wording of a sale document
  21. ChallengeWhat about a gift, which has no guarantee clause?
  22. Resolutionרבא accepts: yes, no improvements from a gift
  23. ChallengeIs a gift really stronger than a sale?
  24. Resolutionרבא: yes, a gift is indeed stronger here
  25. Proofרב נחמן brings a ברייתא that supports שמואל
  26. Rejectionרב הונא: the ברייתא is about buying from a robber
  27. StatementAnother ברייתא: who pays the buyer for his improvement
  28. ChallengeNeither reading of the ברייתא fits שמואל
  29. ResolutionFirst answer: a robber who owns land, or a קנין was made
  30. ResolutionSecond answer begins: it is about a creditor after all