Gemara Clarity

Bava Metzia 15b

בבא מציעא ט״ו ע״ב

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

Open Bava Metzia 15b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

When a lender takes land back from a buyer (טורף מן הלקוחות), who gets the שבח (improvement) the buyer added? The גמרא works to fit שמואל's ruling with a ברייתא that seems to disagree.

Overview

This amud begins by finishing an answer about a lender who takes land back from a buyer who improved it. Is the lender allowed to keep the buyer's שבח? The גמרא first fits שמואל together with a ברייתא by looking at how ripe the produce is. When that fails, it splits them by the size of the debt, and it closes with the case of an אפותיקי. Next comes a new dispute about a buyer who knew the field was stolen. רב says he gets his money back because it was a פקדון. שמואל says he does not, because it was a מתנה. The גמרא shows that the same dispute appears with a man who does קידושין with his sister, and explains why both cases are needed. רבא then rules like רב, and he also rules that a missing אחריות clause is a טעות סופר. Finally, שמואל asks רב about a גזלן who sold a field and later bought it from the real owner. The amud ends partway through explaining the practical difference between מר זוטרא and רב אשי, and that explanation continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

הַמַּגִּיעַ לַכְּתֵפַיִם,

that reaches the shoulders;

כָּאן בְּשֶׁבַח שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַגִּיעַ לַכְּתֵפַיִם.

here, it is improvement that does not reach the shoulders.

וְהָא מַעֲשִׂים בְּכׇל יוֹם,

But there are incidents every day,

וְקָא מַגְבֵּי שְׁמוּאֵל

and שמואל has the lender collect

The steps (34)

  1. ResolutionRipe produce versus unripe produce
  2. Challengeשמואל ruled every day even on ripe produce
  3. ResolutionIt depends on how big the debt is
  4. ChallengeThe buyer should get a piece of land worth his improvement
  5. ResolutionThe field was set aside as the only source of payment
  6. StatementBuying a field you know is stolen: רב and שמואל disagree
  7. QuestionWhat is the reason behind their disagreement?
  8. Responseרב: the money was a deposit
  9. ChallengeThen why not just call it a deposit?
  10. ResolutionThe seller would have refused a deposit
  11. Responseשמואל: the money was a gift
  12. ChallengeThen why not just call it a gift?
  13. ResolutionAn open gift would embarrass the seller
  14. ChallengeDidn't רב and שמואל already argue about this?
  15. Statementרב's reason: the money to his sister is a deposit
  16. ChallengeWhy not just call it a deposit?
  17. ResolutionShe would have refused a deposit
  18. Statementשמואל's reason: the money to his sister is a gift
  19. ChallengeWhy not just call it a gift?
  20. ResolutionAn open gift would embarrass her
  21. ResolutionBoth cases are needed, part one: רב
  22. ConclusionBoth cases are needed, part two: שמואל
  23. ChallengeHow can the knowing buyer use the land at all?
  24. ResolutionThe buyer plans to act like the seller until the owner comes
  25. ConclusionThe innocent buyer gets back his money and the value of the improvements
  26. ConclusionThe knowing buyer gets back his money but not the improvements
  27. ConclusionA missing guarantee clause counts as the scribe's mistake
  28. Questionשמואל asks: the robber later buys the field from the real owner
  29. Responseרב: the seller sold every right he would ever get
  30. QuestionWhy would the robber want to make the sale good?
  31. Responseמר זוטרא: he does not want to be called a robber
  32. Responseרב אשי: he wants to stay trustworthy
  33. QuestionWhat is the practical difference between the two reasons?
  34. ResponseThe difference: when the buyer has died