Traité Bava Metzia

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : he can withdraw from the transaction and is not required to pay for the land. Once he has taken possession of the land, he cannot withdraw, as Reuven, the seller, can say to him: The purchase of the land was like purchasing a tied sack whose content is unknown and might not be worth anything. Since you were aware of that and accepted it, as you purchased it without a guarantee, you cannot withdraw your purchase. From when is it that he has taken possession? It is from when he walks along the borders of the field to inspect them.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : And there are those who say: Even if he bought the field with a property guarantee, the buyer cannot withdraw from the sale, as the seller can say to him: Show me your document of authorization to repossess, which a court provides to a buyer when the land he purchased is seized from him by a third party who demonstrated that it did not belong to the seller, and then I will pay you. I do not wish to cancel the sale and reimburse you unless it is clear that the field is being taken from you legally.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § It was stated that with regard to a case of one who sells a field to another and it is found subsequently that it did not belong to the seller, and the rightful owner repossesses the field from the buyer and the buyer then demands reimbursement from the seller, Rav says that the buyer has the right to be repaid the money that he paid for the field, and he also has the right to compensation for the enhancement of the value of the field while it was in his possession. And Shmuel says that he has the right to the money, but he does not have the right to compensation for the enhancement.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The students raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: What is the halakha if the seller specified that the buyer would receive payment for any enhancement in the value of the field in the event that the field is taken by the rightful owners? Is the reason for the opinion of Shmuel because the seller did not specify that the buyer would receive the enhancement when he sold him the field, but here, in this case, he did specify it? Or perhaps Shmuel’s reason is that since the buyer is reimbursed but the seller does not have the right to the land, i.e., he is not given back the land, the transaction appears to have been a loan, and therefore payment for enhancement of the field appears to be interest. Rav Huna said to them: Yes and no, and the matter was unclear to him.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : It was stated that Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says that he has the right to the money, but he does not have the right to the value of the enhancement, even if the seller specified in the deed of sale that he would compensate the buyer for the value of the enhancement in the event that the field was repossessed. What is the reason? Since the seller does not have the right to the land, the buyer appears to be standing and taking payment for the right to use his money, which is interest.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rava raised an objection to the statement of Rav Naḥman: It is taught in a mishna (Gittin 48b) that one cannot appropriate liened property that has been sold as payment for consuming produce or for enhancement of land, cases that will be explained later, or for the sustenance of a man’s wife and his daughters after his death, to which he committed in his marriage contract. This is despite the fact that each of these financial liabilities or commitments predated the sale of the land. These ordinances were instituted by the Sages for the betterment of the world, as these liabilities are not of a fixed amount, and the purchaser of the liened property cannot assess the risk he is assuming should some other person come to collect compensation from that property.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The mishna indicates that we do not appropriate liened property for these purposes, but we do appropriate unsold property. And in any event, it is taught in the mishna that one of these purposes is for the enhancement of land. What, is it not referring to a case where one purchases a field from a robber, in which case the field did not belong to the seller? And it says that the seller must pay the buyer the value of the field’s enhancement, provided he has unsold property.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara responds: No, it is referring to a case of a creditor, where one sold a field and his creditor subsequently repossessed it from the buyer due to the seller’s prior debt to him. In that case, the sale of the land was valid, and it does not appear to have been a loan. Therefore, the seller’s payment of the enhancement does not appear to be interest.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: If this mishna is referring to the case of a creditor, say the first clause of the mishna: One cannot appropriate liened property for consuming produce. This is apparently referring to a case where the field was full of unharvested produce and was appropriated from the buyer along with the produce. The buyer then claims payment for the value of the produce as well. And if the reference is to the case of a creditor, does a creditor have the right to appropriate produce from the buyer? But doesn’t Shmuel say that a creditor collects the value of the enhancement of the field? This indicates that he does collect the value of enhancement, but he does not collect the produce.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rather, it is obvious that the mishna is referring to the case of a robber, who stole the field and sold it, and a robbery victim, who recovers his field, including the produce, from the buyer. And from the fact that the first clause is referring to a robber and a robbery victim, the latter clause, i.e., the case of the enhancement of land, is also referring to a robber and a robbery victim. Rava’s objection to Shmuel’s opinion remains.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara rejects the premise: Are the cases comparable? This case, with regard to consuming produce, is as it is, and that case, with regard to the enhancement of land, is as it is. The former case is referring to a case of robbery and the latter case is referring to the case of a creditor.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: But it is not taught that way in a baraita that elaborates on the mishna, stating: What is the case in which one appropriates property for enhancement of land? It is a case where one robbed another of a field and it is appropriated by the court from his possession. When he collects payment, he collects the principal, i.e., the value of the field itself, from liened property, and he collects the enhancement from unsold property.