You have a lender, borrower who sells a field after the loan and a buyer. The borrower defaults. The lender gets the field. The buyer gets a second field that borrower sold after the loan and after he bought the field. Tosphot asks, "Why is there a second field?"
The case is when the debt was paid by the first field. The question of Tosphot is on the order of collection.
I wanted today to discuss the Maharsha in Bava Batra 157. תוספות ד''ה גובה
He found an old Tosphot which had the version כבר לקח בעל חוב כל שיעבודו. The lender already received all of his שיעבוד. This is he says is the right version of our Tosphot. But I want to suggest this is simply an argument between our Tosphot and the regular old Tosphot. This is quite common in Yevamot. Our Tosphot says כבר שיעבודו על הלוקח
But in any case to get back to the point. The Mahrasha also says the borrower had no property at the time the loan was collected.
That means this the way the Maharsha understands our Tosphot there are only two answers on the question why is there a second field? But the first answer is not like the answer we have in our version. In our version the lender had to go collect from the first buyer because his שיעבוד was already on that first field.
But in our version there was already the second field משועבדים. And that is in fact what out Tosphot says openly. It is just the Maharsha says that there was no second field nor free property either at the time of the גבייה.
I have nothing new to add here but I just wanted to make things clear and to put what I had written to make this argument dependent on an idea of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik in another place
I used Reb Chaim to get this argument to be the same as another one between the Rambam and the Raavad.-If that is the case it ends up the Rambam going like the first answer in our Tosphot. That in the first place the lender was required to go after the first field.
_______________________________________________________________________________
You have a מלווה, לווה who sells a field after the loan and a לוקח. The borrower defaults. The lender gets the field. The לוקח gets a שדה שני that לווה sold after the הלוואה and after he bought the field. Why is there a second field?
I wanted to make it clear that if the מלווה had gotten all of his debt paid then we would not be having this discussion. We are only talking about when the חוב was beyond what could be collected from the שדה הראשון.
I wanted today to discuss the מהרש''א in בבא בתרא קנז: תוספות ד''ה גובה
He found an old תוספות which had the גרסה כבר לקח בעל חוב כל שיעבודו. The lender already received all of his שיעבוד. This is he says is the right גרסה of our תוספות. But I want to suggest this is simply an argument between our תוספות and the regular old תוספות. This is quite common in יבמות. Our תוספות says כבר שיעבודו על הלוקח
But in any case to get back to the point. The מהרש''א also says the borrower had no property at the time the loan was collected.
That means this the way the מהרש''א understands our תוספות there are only two answers on the question why is there a שדה שני? But the first answer is not like the answer we have in our גרסה. In our גרסה the מלווה had to go collect from the לוקח ראשון because his שיעבוד was already on that first field.
But in our version there was already the second field משועבדים. And that is in fact what out תוספות says openly. It is just the מהרש''א says that there was no שדה שני nor מחוררין either at the time of the גבייה. Everything besides the first field was bought after the גבייה/
בבא בתרא קנז: ב''מ יד: ב''מ קי: יש לך מלווה, לווה שמכר שדה לאחר ההלוואה, ולוקח. ויש המחדל של הלווה בתשלום. המלווה מקבל את השדה. הלוקח מקבל שדה שני שהלווה מכר לאחר ההלוואה ואחרי שהוא קנה את השדה הראשון. תוספות שואל מדוע יש שדה שני? אני רוצה להבהיר שאם המלווה קיבל את כל חובו אז לא היה צורך של דיון בזה. אנחנו רק מדברים כאשר החוב היה מעבר למה שיכול להיות נגבה מהשדה הראשון. אני רוצה לדון במהרש''א בבא בתרא קנז: תוספות ד''ה גובה הוא מצא תוספות ישנים שהייתה להם הגרסה "כבר לקח בעל חוב כל שיעבודו." המלווה כבר קיבל את כל שיעבוד. (אבל אני רוצה להציע שזה פשוט ויכוח בין התוספות שלנו והתוספות הישנים הרגילות. זה די נפוץ ביבמות.) התוספות שלנו אומרים "כבר שיעבודו על לוקח."
מהרש''א גם אומר ללווה אין רכוש בעת שההלוואה נגבה גם לא משועבדים. זה אומר שזה הדרך שהמהרש''א מבין תוספות שלנו. יש רק שתי תשובות לשאלה מדוע יש שדה שני? אבל התשובה הראשונה היא לא כמו התשובה שיש לנו בגרסה שלנו. בגרסה שלנו המלווה היה צריך ללכת לגבות מלוקח ראשון משום שהשיעבוד כבר היה השדה הראשון. אבל בגרסה שלנו היה כבר השדה השני היינו משועבדים שניים כבר היו בזמן הגבייה. וזה למעשה מה שתוספות אומרים בגלוי. רק מהרש''א אומר שאין שדה שני (משועבדים) ולא מחוררין בעת הגבייה. הכל חוץ מהשדה הראשון נקנה לאחר הגבייה.
_____________________________________________________________________________
I should mention that the basic answer of Tosphot in Bava Metzia and Bava Batra goes with the idea that the lender must always go after the second field if it is available. And that is the answer of Tosphot in both places, that is that the first field was made an apotiki [guarantee ] for the loan. But then the Tosphot asks there in Bava Metzia if that is the case that the lender must always go after the second field then why not say simply that the reason there is a second field is because it was bought after the first field was collected. This is not the same as the answer of the Older Tosphot that the Maharsha brings. This answer still goes with the idea that even if bought after the first field was collected still if there is anything left of the debt the lender could go after the second field. The answer Tosphot gives whys not to say that is the scenario is that then the first buyer could go after the second field also for the improvement that he had done on the first field.
_______________________________________________________________________________
I should mention that the basic answer of תוספות in בבא מציעא and בבא בתרא goes with the idea that the lender must always go after the second field if it is available. And that is the answer of תוספות in both places, that is that the first field was made an אפותיקי for the הלוואה. But then the תוספות asks there in בבא מציעא if that is the case that the מלווה must always go after the שדה השני then why not say simply that the reason there is a second שדה is because it was bought after the first שדה was נגבה. This is not the same as the answer of the older תוספות that the מהרש''א brings. This answer still goes with the idea that even if שדה השני was bought after the first שדה was נגבה still if there is anything left of the debt the lender could go after the second field. The answer תוספות gives why not to say that is the scenario is that then the first buyer could go after the second field also for the improvement that he had done on the first field. This is because the only reason he does not in general collect for his loss of the שבח is that it has no limit. But here it has a limit after the field was נגבה.
The case is when the debt was paid by the first field. The question of Tosphot is on the order of collection.
I wanted today to discuss the Maharsha in Bava Batra 157. תוספות ד''ה גובה
He found an old Tosphot which had the version כבר לקח בעל חוב כל שיעבודו. The lender already received all of his שיעבוד. This is he says is the right version of our Tosphot. But I want to suggest this is simply an argument between our Tosphot and the regular old Tosphot. This is quite common in Yevamot. Our Tosphot says כבר שיעבודו על הלוקח
But in any case to get back to the point. The Mahrasha also says the borrower had no property at the time the loan was collected.
That means this the way the Maharsha understands our Tosphot there are only two answers on the question why is there a second field? But the first answer is not like the answer we have in our version. In our version the lender had to go collect from the first buyer because his שיעבוד was already on that first field.
But in our version there was already the second field משועבדים. And that is in fact what out Tosphot says openly. It is just the Maharsha says that there was no second field nor free property either at the time of the גבייה.
I have nothing new to add here but I just wanted to make things clear and to put what I had written to make this argument dependent on an idea of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik in another place
I used Reb Chaim to get this argument to be the same as another one between the Rambam and the Raavad.-If that is the case it ends up the Rambam going like the first answer in our Tosphot. That in the first place the lender was required to go after the first field.
_______________________________________________________________________________
You have a מלווה, לווה who sells a field after the loan and a לוקח. The borrower defaults. The lender gets the field. The לוקח gets a שדה שני that לווה sold after the הלוואה and after he bought the field. Why is there a second field?
I wanted to make it clear that if the מלווה had gotten all of his debt paid then we would not be having this discussion. We are only talking about when the חוב was beyond what could be collected from the שדה הראשון.
I wanted today to discuss the מהרש''א in בבא בתרא קנז: תוספות ד''ה גובה
He found an old תוספות which had the גרסה כבר לקח בעל חוב כל שיעבודו. The lender already received all of his שיעבוד. This is he says is the right גרסה of our תוספות. But I want to suggest this is simply an argument between our תוספות and the regular old תוספות. This is quite common in יבמות. Our תוספות says כבר שיעבודו על הלוקח
But in any case to get back to the point. The מהרש''א also says the borrower had no property at the time the loan was collected.
That means this the way the מהרש''א understands our תוספות there are only two answers on the question why is there a שדה שני? But the first answer is not like the answer we have in our גרסה. In our גרסה the מלווה had to go collect from the לוקח ראשון because his שיעבוד was already on that first field.
But in our version there was already the second field משועבדים. And that is in fact what out תוספות says openly. It is just the מהרש''א says that there was no שדה שני nor מחוררין either at the time of the גבייה. Everything besides the first field was bought after the גבייה/
בבא בתרא קנז: ב''מ יד: ב''מ קי: יש לך מלווה, לווה שמכר שדה לאחר ההלוואה, ולוקח. ויש המחדל של הלווה בתשלום. המלווה מקבל את השדה. הלוקח מקבל שדה שני שהלווה מכר לאחר ההלוואה ואחרי שהוא קנה את השדה הראשון. תוספות שואל מדוע יש שדה שני? אני רוצה להבהיר שאם המלווה קיבל את כל חובו אז לא היה צורך של דיון בזה. אנחנו רק מדברים כאשר החוב היה מעבר למה שיכול להיות נגבה מהשדה הראשון. אני רוצה לדון במהרש''א בבא בתרא קנז: תוספות ד''ה גובה הוא מצא תוספות ישנים שהייתה להם הגרסה "כבר לקח בעל חוב כל שיעבודו." המלווה כבר קיבל את כל שיעבוד. (אבל אני רוצה להציע שזה פשוט ויכוח בין התוספות שלנו והתוספות הישנים הרגילות. זה די נפוץ ביבמות.) התוספות שלנו אומרים "כבר שיעבודו על לוקח."
מהרש''א גם אומר ללווה אין רכוש בעת שההלוואה נגבה גם לא משועבדים. זה אומר שזה הדרך שהמהרש''א מבין תוספות שלנו. יש רק שתי תשובות לשאלה מדוע יש שדה שני? אבל התשובה הראשונה היא לא כמו התשובה שיש לנו בגרסה שלנו. בגרסה שלנו המלווה היה צריך ללכת לגבות מלוקח ראשון משום שהשיעבוד כבר היה השדה הראשון. אבל בגרסה שלנו היה כבר השדה השני היינו משועבדים שניים כבר היו בזמן הגבייה. וזה למעשה מה שתוספות אומרים בגלוי. רק מהרש''א אומר שאין שדה שני (משועבדים) ולא מחוררין בעת הגבייה. הכל חוץ מהשדה הראשון נקנה לאחר הגבייה.
_____________________________________________________________________________
I should mention that the basic answer of Tosphot in Bava Metzia and Bava Batra goes with the idea that the lender must always go after the second field if it is available. And that is the answer of Tosphot in both places, that is that the first field was made an apotiki [guarantee ] for the loan. But then the Tosphot asks there in Bava Metzia if that is the case that the lender must always go after the second field then why not say simply that the reason there is a second field is because it was bought after the first field was collected. This is not the same as the answer of the Older Tosphot that the Maharsha brings. This answer still goes with the idea that even if bought after the first field was collected still if there is anything left of the debt the lender could go after the second field. The answer Tosphot gives whys not to say that is the scenario is that then the first buyer could go after the second field also for the improvement that he had done on the first field.
_______________________________________________________________________________
I should mention that the basic answer of תוספות in בבא מציעא and בבא בתרא goes with the idea that the lender must always go after the second field if it is available. And that is the answer of תוספות in both places, that is that the first field was made an אפותיקי for the הלוואה. But then the תוספות asks there in בבא מציעא if that is the case that the מלווה must always go after the שדה השני then why not say simply that the reason there is a second שדה is because it was bought after the first שדה was נגבה. This is not the same as the answer of the older תוספות that the מהרש''א brings. This answer still goes with the idea that even if שדה השני was bought after the first שדה was נגבה still if there is anything left of the debt the lender could go after the second field. The answer תוספות gives why not to say that is the scenario is that then the first buyer could go after the second field also for the improvement that he had done on the first field. This is because the only reason he does not in general collect for his loss of the שבח is that it has no limit. But here it has a limit after the field was נגבה.
