I was looking at my notes on Bava Metzia 14 and right now I am not sure my I thought there is a difference between the answer of Tosphot about apotiki and the version of the older Tosphot that says there is a second field because the lender already took his "shiabud". The second answer is that there is a second filed because there was only one field at the time the loan was collected. Then the lender bought another field. Then the first buyer collects from the second field. According to this if there had been a second field that was bought later the lender would have had to have gone after it. That is the exact same idea as the second answer of Tosphot about the apotiki. There also the only reason the lender went after the first field was because it was made a guarantee for the loan.
THEREFORE IN TERMS OF LAW THE SECOND ANSWER OF TOSPHOT AND THE OLDER TOSPHOT HOLD THE EXACT SAME THING.
Actually not exactly. How can I put this? Perhaps thus: They hold the same in that the lender must go after the second field, if he can. But the second answer of Tosphot and the older Tosphot will differ in the case that the lender has already collected part of his loan. The Old Tosphot holds once he has collected any part of his loan according to the circumstances at the time, then he can not collect again. The second answer of Tosphot about the apotiki holds he could continue to collect
____________________________________________________________________________
Tosphot Bava Metzia 14 and Bava Batra 157.
You have a lender, borrower and a buyer of a field from the borrower who bought the field after the loan. Then you have another buyer of a field that the borrower bought after the loan.
There is default. The lender gets the first field.
The first buyer goes after the second.
Tosphot asks why is there a second field?
I am not sure why Tosphot is asking about why the second field is left. The braita can't be talking about the reverse case, because then it would not be possible to say the second buyer goes after the first one. The first field was already sold at the time the second buyer bought the second field from the borrower. And according to the answer of Tosphot about the אפותיקי the fact is in a normal case the lender would in fact go after the second buyer and there would be nothing for the second buyer to do.
But in the first answer of Tosphot in Bava Batra in fact the question is rhetorical because it just gives an opening for Tosphot to say the law is the lender in fact has to go after the first buyer in all cases.
In any case I do not think Tosphot is asking in a case where the loan was not totally paid by the first field --because Then the second field would in fact also be collected. It is only in a case where the second field was left and Tosphot is asking about the order of collection of the loan.
Or perhaps Tosphot is thinking that the second buyer could still go after the first buyer if it happened that his field was taken by the lender because of the loan?
_______________________________________________________________________
תוספות בבא מציעא 14 and בבא בתרא 157.
You have a מלווה לווה and a buyer of a field from the לווה who bought the field after the loan. Then you have another לוקח of a field that the לווה bought after the הלוואה.
There is default. The lender gets the first field.
The first buyer goes after the second.
תוספות asks why is there a second field?
I am not sure why תוספות is asking about why the second שדה is left. The ברייתא can't be talking about the reverse case, because then it would not be possible to say the second לוקח goes after the first לוקח. The first שדה was already sold at the time the second לוקח bought the second שדה from the לווה. And according to the answer of תוספות about the אפותיקי the fact is in a normal case the מלווה would in fact go after the second לוקח and there would be nothing for the second buyer to do.
But in the first answer of תוספות in בבא בתרא in fact the question is rhetorical because it just gives an opening for תוספות to say the law is the מלווה in fact has to go after the first לוקח in all cases.
In any case I do not think תוספות is asking in a case where the loan was not totally paid by the first שדה, because then the second שדה would in fact also be נגבה. It is only in a case where the second שדה was left and תוספות is asking about the order of collection of the loan.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Or perhaps תוספות is thinking that the second לוקח could still go after the first לוקח if it happened that שדה השני was taken by the מלווה because of the הלוואה?
תוספות בבא מציעא 14 ובתרא בבא 157. יש לך מלווה לווה וקונה של שדה מלווה ש קנה את השדה לאחר ההלוואה. אז יש לך לוקח אחר של שדה שלהווה קנה לאחר ההלוואה. יש ברירת מחדל. המלווה מקבל את השדה הראשון. הקונה הראשון הולך אחרי השני. תוספות שואלים מדוע יש שדה שני? אני לא בטוח למה תוספות שואלים מדוע שדה השני נשאר. לא יכולה להיות שהברייתא מדברת על המקרה ההפוך שהמלווה גבה מן שדה השני, כי אז זה לא יהיה אפשרי לומר לוקח השני הולך אחרי לוקח הראשון. השדה הראשון כבר נמכר בזמן שלוקח השני קנה שדה השני מהלווה. ולפי התשובה של תוספות על אפותיקי הדין במקרה רגיל הוא שהמלווה היה גובה מן לוקח השני ולא יהיה שום דבר ללוקח השני לעשות. אבל בתשובה הראשונה של תוספות בבא בתרא השאלה היא רטורית, כי השאלה פשוט נותנת פתח לתוספות לומר החוק הוא מלווה בעובדה שיש ללכת אחרי לוקח הראשון בכל המקרים. בכל מקרה אני לא חושב שתוספות שואלים במקרה שבו ההלוואה הייתה לא לגמרי שולם על ידי השדה הראשון, כי אז השדה השני היה למעשה גם נגבה. זה רק במקרה שבו השדה השני נשאר ותוספות שואל על סדר הגבייה של ההלוואה
THEREFORE IN TERMS OF LAW THE SECOND ANSWER OF TOSPHOT AND THE OLDER TOSPHOT HOLD THE EXACT SAME THING.
Actually not exactly. How can I put this? Perhaps thus: They hold the same in that the lender must go after the second field, if he can. But the second answer of Tosphot and the older Tosphot will differ in the case that the lender has already collected part of his loan. The Old Tosphot holds once he has collected any part of his loan according to the circumstances at the time, then he can not collect again. The second answer of Tosphot about the apotiki holds he could continue to collect
____________________________________________________________________________
Tosphot Bava Metzia 14 and Bava Batra 157.
You have a lender, borrower and a buyer of a field from the borrower who bought the field after the loan. Then you have another buyer of a field that the borrower bought after the loan.
There is default. The lender gets the first field.
The first buyer goes after the second.
Tosphot asks why is there a second field?
I am not sure why Tosphot is asking about why the second field is left. The braita can't be talking about the reverse case, because then it would not be possible to say the second buyer goes after the first one. The first field was already sold at the time the second buyer bought the second field from the borrower. And according to the answer of Tosphot about the אפותיקי the fact is in a normal case the lender would in fact go after the second buyer and there would be nothing for the second buyer to do.
But in the first answer of Tosphot in Bava Batra in fact the question is rhetorical because it just gives an opening for Tosphot to say the law is the lender in fact has to go after the first buyer in all cases.
In any case I do not think Tosphot is asking in a case where the loan was not totally paid by the first field --because Then the second field would in fact also be collected. It is only in a case where the second field was left and Tosphot is asking about the order of collection of the loan.
Or perhaps Tosphot is thinking that the second buyer could still go after the first buyer if it happened that his field was taken by the lender because of the loan?
_______________________________________________________________________
תוספות בבא מציעא 14 and בבא בתרא 157.
You have a מלווה לווה and a buyer of a field from the לווה who bought the field after the loan. Then you have another לוקח of a field that the לווה bought after the הלוואה.
There is default. The lender gets the first field.
The first buyer goes after the second.
תוספות asks why is there a second field?
I am not sure why תוספות is asking about why the second שדה is left. The ברייתא can't be talking about the reverse case, because then it would not be possible to say the second לוקח goes after the first לוקח. The first שדה was already sold at the time the second לוקח bought the second שדה from the לווה. And according to the answer of תוספות about the אפותיקי the fact is in a normal case the מלווה would in fact go after the second לוקח and there would be nothing for the second buyer to do.
But in the first answer of תוספות in בבא בתרא in fact the question is rhetorical because it just gives an opening for תוספות to say the law is the מלווה in fact has to go after the first לוקח in all cases.
In any case I do not think תוספות is asking in a case where the loan was not totally paid by the first שדה, because then the second שדה would in fact also be נגבה. It is only in a case where the second שדה was left and תוספות is asking about the order of collection of the loan.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Or perhaps תוספות is thinking that the second לוקח could still go after the first לוקח if it happened that שדה השני was taken by the מלווה because of the הלוואה?
תוספות בבא מציעא 14 ובתרא בבא 157. יש לך מלווה לווה וקונה של שדה מלווה ש קנה את השדה לאחר ההלוואה. אז יש לך לוקח אחר של שדה שלהווה קנה לאחר ההלוואה. יש ברירת מחדל. המלווה מקבל את השדה הראשון. הקונה הראשון הולך אחרי השני. תוספות שואלים מדוע יש שדה שני? אני לא בטוח למה תוספות שואלים מדוע שדה השני נשאר. לא יכולה להיות שהברייתא מדברת על המקרה ההפוך שהמלווה גבה מן שדה השני, כי אז זה לא יהיה אפשרי לומר לוקח השני הולך אחרי לוקח הראשון. השדה הראשון כבר נמכר בזמן שלוקח השני קנה שדה השני מהלווה. ולפי התשובה של תוספות על אפותיקי הדין במקרה רגיל הוא שהמלווה היה גובה מן לוקח השני ולא יהיה שום דבר ללוקח השני לעשות. אבל בתשובה הראשונה של תוספות בבא בתרא השאלה היא רטורית, כי השאלה פשוט נותנת פתח לתוספות לומר החוק הוא מלווה בעובדה שיש ללכת אחרי לוקח הראשון בכל המקרים. בכל מקרה אני לא חושב שתוספות שואלים במקרה שבו ההלוואה הייתה לא לגמרי שולם על ידי השדה הראשון, כי אז השדה השני היה למעשה גם נגבה. זה רק במקרה שבו השדה השני נשאר ותוספות שואל על סדר הגבייה של ההלוואה
