Introduction. You have the case of a מלווה lender and a לווה borrower with two fields. Then there is a loan. After the הלוואה loan, a person הלוקח buys one field. Then a second buyer buys the other. Then the לווה defaults on the loan. Then the מלווה lender goes after the second field. Shelomo Luria מהרש''ל says he has to go after the שדה השני second field because it was free משוחרר at a time when the first one had been sold. The מהרש''א disagrees. I claim this is like the case לווה ולווה וקנה a person borrows and then borrows again and then buys a field and defaults. Who gets the field? I say it is the same argument.
Well not exactly. If we say the first lender gets the field, it must be because once the שיעבוד obligation devolves on it it stays there.
According to the מהרש''ל
We see in תוספות that the general idea you see in the תלמוד that the לוקח can tell the מלווה "מקום "הנחתי לך לגבות means even if the second field was sold! The מהרש''א disagrees with this and I don't remember how. Maybe he thinks the מלווה can collect from which שדה he wants. I don't know. Look in Bava Batra 157.
But all I was doing in some little note was to say the argument between the מהרש''א and מהרש''ל
depends on the argument also in בבא בתרא קנז about לווה ולווה וקנה.
All I was saying was that the cases are not exactly similar, but in in our case on page 14 we are dealing with the order סדר של גביה . Not is there is שיעבוד at all but what the order that the מלווה has to take to collect. And that is exactly the argument about לווה ולווה וקנה.
This was the entire idea, and it is so simple I would be very surprised if I was the only one to think of it. And why I would have erased it I certainly don't know.
I think what caused my confusion was the fact that I had forgotten that תוספות says openly in בבא בתרא that the שדה השני was owned קמוי at the time of the הלוואה. It was not bought later. You also my reader must keep this in mind because it is essential in order to understand this תוספות בבא מציעא
I found the original essay. Here it is:
I wanted to mention something in Talmud Bava Metzia 14 and Bava Batra 157. The case is the well known case of המלווה (A) לווה (B) לוקח ראשון(C) . In Bava Batra we find that if לווה defaults on the loan that a collects the field from לוקח ראשון.
לוקח then goes to a later buyer לוקח השני to collect the price of the field [if לווה has no free field left.] Tosphot asks from where does לווה have free property and how could there be a person לוקח השני? The מהרש''א and the מהרש''ל have an argument from how could there be a לוקח השני here. The מהרש''א says he comes after the lender has collected from לוקח ראשון. --But he has not collected all the money owed to him yet. The לווה buys a new property and then sell it to לוקח השני. then לוקח ראשון collects from לוקח השני but not מלווה because he has already collected once. No double jeopardy. The מהרש''ל disagrees with this and say even if לוקח השני has property the the time the loan is being collected A still must go to the לוקח ראשון.
My suggestion here is that this argument come from a separate argument in the Talmud itself about one person that borrowed and borrowed from someone else and then bought and then sold a field.לווה ולווה וקנה The Gemara has one suggestion that the first one collects and another suggestion that the last one collects.
I think I can show how the מהרש''א and the מהרש''ל must have looked at this.
The first way is that the שיעבוד goes on לווה and does not get removed because of a later loan. This is the מהרש''ל just applying the same reasoning to a field that has a שיעבוד on it. The מהרש''א also is saying from the second way in the גמרא that just like the שיעבוד השני on the לווה nullifies the first שיעבוד so with a field.
That is my idea and now I would like to defend it by means of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik.
In short Reb Chaim has an idea like this. In the first case I mentioned here about המלווה לווה and לוקח ראשון the Rambam says לוקח loses only half his improvements but all improvements that grow by themselves.Why is that? Because he says the שיעבוד of המלווה and לווה are equal in so far as they go both through לווה. But the שיעבוד of מלווה is on the property directly while לוקח ראשון only bought the property which is less strong than the שיעבוד of המלווה. So we see that we can make a distinction between the שיעבוד on property and on a person but we do not do so unless there is a something stronger around .
What makes this confusing is the fact that the מהרש''ל in Bava Metzia says the same thing as the מהרש''א in Bava Batra. This is because he is explaining a different answer in Tosafot. The argument between them is only in Bava Batra because it is there you have the statement of the maharshal that the מהרש''א is disagreeing with.