There is an argument of the Ri Migash and Ramban against the Rashba concerning the issue of a document of a loan that is signed and there was a kinyan sudar, if there is an obligation on the lender to make the loan? The Ri Migsh and Ramban hold yes. The Rashba holds not. The question I have on the Rashba is this. It might be that some of these opinions are going like Abaye that witnesses that signed on a document make the transition already valid. Or it might be that the Rashba decided the law like Rav Asi [Bava Mezia page 13] that a document of acquisition makes the transaction already valid. But in either case, both Rav Asi and Abaye are being brought there to answer the same question, that is the problem of a document that is signed and dated before the actual transaction takes place. That doc is invalid. If the Rashba would be right, then you could have a document that is signed and in which there is a kinyan sudar and yet the obligation to pay back the loan did not occur until money was exchanged. That automatically makes the document invalid. that is my question. ============================There is an argument of the ר’’י מיגש and רמב''ן against the רשב''א concerning the issue of a document of a loan that is signed and there was a קניין סודר, if there is an obligation on the lender to make the loan? The ר’’י מיגש and רמב''ן hold yes. The רשב''א holds not. The question I have on the רשב''א is this. It might be that some of these opinions are going like אביי that witnesses that signed on a document make the transition already valid. עדים בחתומיו זכים לו Or it might be that the רשב''א decided the law like רב אסי [בבא מציעא page 13] that a document of acquisition makes the transaction already valid. But in either case, both רב אסי and אביי are being brought there to answer the same question, that is the problem of a document that is signed and dated before the actual transaction takes place. That שטר is invalid. If the רשב''א would be right, then you could have a document that is signed and in which there is a קניין סודר and yet the obligation to pay back the loan did not occur until money was exchanged. That automatically makes the document invalid. that is my question. ------------------------Also, I would like to bring up two issues concerning Bava Mezia page 14 side b. One issue is a clarification in Rav Shach. For on page 13 we have a case of a robber of land who sold it and it goes back to the owner. The buyer gets his money back and the improvement of the land but the expersese he gets from the owner. Rav shach in sevral places makes a point that shibud obligation of all ones property to pay back a debt applies to the field itself that was sold. so there iss no questuion why the buyer gets the improvment to the land from the robber. It is because the obligation of shiabud mens the robber has to make good on the sale to the degree that he has to make good on the sale even to the degree of making sure that the entire value of the property goes to the buyer --even the improvements. (I think based on this you have to say that if the buyer cannot get back the expenses and labour spent on the property to make the improvements from the owner then he gets even that from the robber.) At any rate, what I would like to say here is from the Rambam laws of robbery chapter 9 law 1 that if one steals land and causes damage to u he has to repay the land or its value according to the time of the robbery. And if the damage was caused not by the robber, then the robber has to give back the land as it is. In neither case is there any discussion of what about a case where the robber makes improvement. the reason is the obligation on the robber is to return the land as it was at the time of the robbery by if the robber sold the land then there is an obligation of “sibud” where the robber has to pay back even the improvements to the land that was taken from the buyer. The other issue is that there is a congruence here between this case and a case of a borrower who sold land. We can under stand why you do not say in that case, the buyer gets his money back because if the borrower would have money, that would go to pay the loan in the first place. But in the case of the robber, we want to field itself to go back to the owner. However, I ask should not the law about the improvement be the same? That is we should say the buyer gets the improvement from the borrower. But, maybe it is? I have not checked.------------------------------Also, I would like to bring up two issues concerning בבא מציעא י''ד ע''ב. One issue is a clarification in רב שך. For on דף י''ד we have a case of a גזלן of land who sold it and it goes back to the owner. The לוקח gets his money back and theשבח of the land but the יציאות he gets from the owner. רב שך in several places makes a point that שיעבוד )obligation of all ones property to pay back a debt( applies to the field itself that was sold. So there is no question why the לוקח gets the improvement to the land from the גזלן. It is because the obligation of שיעבוד means the גזלן has to make good on the sale even to the degree of making sure that the entire value of the property goes to the לוקח ,even theשבח . (I think based on this, you have to say that if the לוקח cannot get back the יציאות (labour spent on the property) from the owner, then he gets even that from the גזלן.) At any rate, what I would like to say here is from theהלכות גזלה פרק ט' הלכה א' רמב''ם that if one גוזל land and causes damage to it, he has to repay the land or its value according to the time of the גזלה. And if the damage was caused not by the גזלן, then the גזלן has to give back the land as it is. In neither case is there any discussion of what about a case where the גזלן makesשבח . The reason is the obligation on the גזלן is to return the land as it was at the time of the גזלןy but if the גזלן sold the land then there is an obligation of שיעבוד where the גזלן has to pay back even theשבחs to the land that was taken from the לוקח. The other issue is that there is a congruence here between this case and a case of a borrower who sold land. We can understand why you do not say in that case, the לוקח gets his money back, because if the borrower would have money, that would go to pay the loan in the first place. But in the case of the גזלן, we want to field itself to go back to the owner. However, I ask should not the law about theשבח be the same? That is, we should say the לוקח gets theשבח from the לווה. But, maybe it is? I have not checked.Also, I would like to bring up two issues concerning בבא מציעא י''ד ע''ב. One issue is a clarification in רב שך. For on דף י''ד we have a case of a גזלן of land who sold it and it goes back to the owner. The לוקח gets his money back and theשבח of the land but the יציאות he gets from the owner. רב שך in several places makes a point that שיעבוד )obligation of all ones property to pay back a debt( applies to the field itself that was sold. So there is no question why the לוקח gets the improvement to the land from the גזלן. It is because the obligation of שיעבוד means the גזלן has to make good on the sale even to the degree of making sure that the entire value of the property goes to the לוקח ,even theשבח . (I think based on this, you have to say that if the לוקח cannot get back the יציאות (labour spent on the property) from the owner, then he gets even that from the גזלן.) At any rate, what I would like to say here is from theהלכות גזלה פרק ט' הלכה א' רמב''ם that if one גוזל land and causes damage to it, he has to repay the land or its value according to the time of the גזלה. And if the damage was caused not by the גזלן, then the גזלן has to give back the land as it is. In neither case is there any discussion of what about a case where the גזלן makesשבח . The reason is the obligation on the גזלן is to return the land as it was at the time of the גזלןy but if the גזלן sold the land then there is an obligation of שיעבוד where the גזלן has to pay back even theשבחs to the land that was taken from the לוקח. The other issue is that there is a congruence here between this case and a case of a borrower who sold land. We can understand why you do not say in that case, the לוקח gets his money back, because if the borrower would have money, that would go to pay the loan in the first place. But in the case of the גזלן, we want to field itself to go back to the owner. However, I ask should not the law about theשבח be the same? That is, we should say the לוקח gets theשבח from the לווה. But, maybe it is? I have not checked.