Bava Metzia 14b 110 b Bava Batra 157
You have a case of a lender borrower and a buyer from the borrower. The borrower defaults and the lender gets the field from the buyer. Then the buyer recoups the price of the field and his expenses from the next buyer.
I wanted to mention what I think is an important point. To Tosphot in Bava Batra there are only two possible reasons why there is a second field. Tospphot does ask in a fact how is there a second field? And in fact he does says at the time the lender got the first field there was no second field. The borrower at the time had no field nor did had he bought and sold any other field. That is what Tosphot says. But it is not the reason why the lender could not collect from the second field. I can't emphasize this enough. There are only two reason why there could be a second field one is that the lender was required to go after the first field. That is the first answer of Tosphot. The other reason is that the first field was an אפותיקי. The fact that the second field was bought after part of the loan was collected is not a reason why the lender could not go after it after it had been bought or bought and sold.
There is another תוספות that says a possible reason the lender did not go after the second field. כלה שיעבודו. This clearly shows that that Tosphot held that after the lender collected once he can't collect anymore. But that is clearly not like the Tosphot in Bava Batra where Tosphot gives two reasons why he did not collect from the second field and even though it was bought after the first collection Tosphot does not suggest that that could be a reason not to collect.
_____________________________________________________
Bava Metzia 14b 110 b Bava Batra 157
You have a case of a מלווה לווה ולוקח from the לווה. The לווה does not have money to repay the loan and the lender gets the field from the לוקח. Then the לוקח גובה the price of the field and his שבח from the לוקח שני.
I wanted to mention what I think is an important point. To תוספות in בבא בתרא קנז ע''ב there are only two possible reasons why there is a second field. תוספות does ask in a fact how is there a second field? And in fact he does says at the time the מלווה got the שדה ראשון there was no second field. The לווה at the time had no field nor did had he bought and sold any other field. That is what תוספות says. But it is not the reason why the lender could not collect from the second field. I can't emphasize this enough. There are only two סיבות why there could be a שדה שני. One is that the מלווה was required to go after the first field. That is the first answer of תוספות. The other reason is that the שדה ראשון was an אפותיקי. The fact that the second field was bought after part of the loan was collected is not a reason why the lender could not go after it after it had been bought or bought and sold.
There is another תוספות somewhere that says a possible reason the מלווה did not go after the שדה השני that is כלה שיעבודו. This clearly shows that that תוספות held that after the מלווה once was גובה he can not be גובה anymore. But that is clearly not like the תוספות in בבא בתרא where תוספות gives two reasons why he did not collect from the second field and even though it was bought after the first גבייה תוספות does not suggest that that could be a reason not to collect.
בבא מציעא 14 ב 110 בבבא בתרא 157 יש לך מקרה של מלווה לווה ולוקח מן הלווה. ללווה אין כסף כדי להחזיר את ההלוואה והמלווה מקבל את השדה מן הלוקח. אז הלוקח גובה המחיר של השדה והשבח מלוקח השני. אני רוצה לדבר על מה שאני חושב שזוהי נקודה חשובה. לתוספות בבא בתרא קנז ע''ב יש רק שתי סיבות אפשריות לכך שיש שדה שני. תוספות שואל איך יש שדה שני? ולמעשה הוא אומר בזמן מלווה גבה שדה הראשון לא היה שדה שני. הלווה בזמן בגבייה לא היה וגם לא היה שדה שקנה ומכר בכל אופן. זה מה שאומר תוספות. אבל זה לא הסיבה למלווה לא יכול לאסוף מהשדה השני. אני לא יכול להדגיש את זה מספיק. יש רק שתי סיבות למה יכול להיות שיש שדה שני. אחת מהן הוא שנדרש למלווה ללכת אחרי השדה הראשון. זו התשובה הראשונה של תוספות. סיבה אחרת היא ששדה ראשון היה אפותיקי. העובדה שהשדה השני נקנה אחרי חלק מההלוואה נאסף היא לא סיבה למלווה לא יכול ללכת אחריו לאחר שכבר הלווה קנה או קנה ומכר עוד שדה.
You have a case of a lender borrower and a buyer from the borrower. The borrower defaults and the lender gets the field from the buyer. Then the buyer recoups the price of the field and his expenses from the next buyer.
I wanted to mention what I think is an important point. To Tosphot in Bava Batra there are only two possible reasons why there is a second field. Tospphot does ask in a fact how is there a second field? And in fact he does says at the time the lender got the first field there was no second field. The borrower at the time had no field nor did had he bought and sold any other field. That is what Tosphot says. But it is not the reason why the lender could not collect from the second field. I can't emphasize this enough. There are only two reason why there could be a second field one is that the lender was required to go after the first field. That is the first answer of Tosphot. The other reason is that the first field was an אפותיקי. The fact that the second field was bought after part of the loan was collected is not a reason why the lender could not go after it after it had been bought or bought and sold.
There is another תוספות that says a possible reason the lender did not go after the second field. כלה שיעבודו. This clearly shows that that Tosphot held that after the lender collected once he can't collect anymore. But that is clearly not like the Tosphot in Bava Batra where Tosphot gives two reasons why he did not collect from the second field and even though it was bought after the first collection Tosphot does not suggest that that could be a reason not to collect.
_____________________________________________________
Bava Metzia 14b 110 b Bava Batra 157
You have a case of a מלווה לווה ולוקח from the לווה. The לווה does not have money to repay the loan and the lender gets the field from the לוקח. Then the לוקח גובה the price of the field and his שבח from the לוקח שני.
I wanted to mention what I think is an important point. To תוספות in בבא בתרא קנז ע''ב there are only two possible reasons why there is a second field. תוספות does ask in a fact how is there a second field? And in fact he does says at the time the מלווה got the שדה ראשון there was no second field. The לווה at the time had no field nor did had he bought and sold any other field. That is what תוספות says. But it is not the reason why the lender could not collect from the second field. I can't emphasize this enough. There are only two סיבות why there could be a שדה שני. One is that the מלווה was required to go after the first field. That is the first answer of תוספות. The other reason is that the שדה ראשון was an אפותיקי. The fact that the second field was bought after part of the loan was collected is not a reason why the lender could not go after it after it had been bought or bought and sold.
There is another תוספות somewhere that says a possible reason the מלווה did not go after the שדה השני that is כלה שיעבודו. This clearly shows that that תוספות held that after the מלווה once was גובה he can not be גובה anymore. But that is clearly not like the תוספות in בבא בתרא where תוספות gives two reasons why he did not collect from the second field and even though it was bought after the first גבייה תוספות does not suggest that that could be a reason not to collect.
בבא מציעא 14 ב 110 בבבא בתרא 157 יש לך מקרה של מלווה לווה ולוקח מן הלווה. ללווה אין כסף כדי להחזיר את ההלוואה והמלווה מקבל את השדה מן הלוקח. אז הלוקח גובה המחיר של השדה והשבח מלוקח השני. אני רוצה לדבר על מה שאני חושב שזוהי נקודה חשובה. לתוספות בבא בתרא קנז ע''ב יש רק שתי סיבות אפשריות לכך שיש שדה שני. תוספות שואל איך יש שדה שני? ולמעשה הוא אומר בזמן מלווה גבה שדה הראשון לא היה שדה שני. הלווה בזמן בגבייה לא היה וגם לא היה שדה שקנה ומכר בכל אופן. זה מה שאומר תוספות. אבל זה לא הסיבה למלווה לא יכול לאסוף מהשדה השני. אני לא יכול להדגיש את זה מספיק. יש רק שתי סיבות למה יכול להיות שיש שדה שני. אחת מהן הוא שנדרש למלווה ללכת אחרי השדה הראשון. זו התשובה הראשונה של תוספות. סיבה אחרת היא ששדה ראשון היה אפותיקי. העובדה שהשדה השני נקנה אחרי חלק מההלוואה נאסף היא לא סיבה למלווה לא יכול ללכת אחריו לאחר שכבר הלווה קנה או קנה ומכר עוד שדה.
