Ideas in Shas updated I had some idea that I wanted to add about the argument between Rav and Shmuel in Bava Metzia page 14. Mainly it is the thought about what Shmuel must have asked Rav, "Why would thief pay for the improvements to the buyer when it is the owner who is getting the benefits?" And I think it must be that Rav answered to him, "The owner gives the money for the improvements or the expenditure to the thief and the thief to the buyer." That is I am thinking that Rav must have said that the owner has to do only with the thief and the thief with the buyer. At last that is how I think Rashi and Tosphot both must have looked at this sugia.[That the owner can tell the person that bought the field from the thief דין ודברים אין לי אתך. I have nothing to do with you.]
It is important to see how the Rambam and Rav Shach deal with this sugia, but I do not have their books available at this time.
Later it occurred to me that this is not necessarily so. I was doing some sit-ups and it occurred to me that if the thief made the improvements then when the buyer bought the field he paid for the field and the improvements, [like if a fence was built on the property.] Therefore it does make sense for the thief to pay the buyer for the field and the improvements. So maybe my original scheme was right.
[See the original scheme in the link up above on ideas in Shas or at this link on ideas in Bava Metzia itself on page 101 of Bava Metzia.]
זה עלה בדעתי שאם הגנב עשה שיפורים אז כאשר הקונה רכש את השדה ששילם עבור השדה ואת השיפורים, כמו אם גדר נבנתה על הנכס. לכן זה הגיוני עבור הגנב לשלם הקונה עבור השדה ואת השיפורים. אז אולי התכנית המקורית שלי צדק.
________________________________________________________________________
It is important to see how the Rambam and Rav Shach deal with this sugia, but I do not have their books available at this time.
Later it occurred to me that this is not necessarily so. I was doing some sit-ups and it occurred to me that if the thief made the improvements then when the buyer bought the field he paid for the field and the improvements, [like if a fence was built on the property.] Therefore it does make sense for the thief to pay the buyer for the field and the improvements. So maybe my original scheme was right.
[See the original scheme in the link up above on ideas in Shas or at this link on ideas in Bava Metzia itself on page 101 of Bava Metzia.]
זה עלה בדעתי שאם הגנב עשה שיפורים אז כאשר הקונה רכש את השדה ששילם עבור השדה ואת השיפורים, כמו אם גדר נבנתה על הנכס. לכן זה הגיוני עבור הגנב לשלם הקונה עבור השדה ואת השיפורים. אז אולי התכנית המקורית שלי צדק.
