Baba Kamma 9a — Talmud de Babylone

▶ 💬 Guemara and claimants [asikin] come forth about the ownership of the land, disputing Reuven’s prior ownership, as long as Shimon…

and claimants [asikin] come forth about the ownership of the land, disputing Reuven’s prior ownership, as long as Shimon has not yet taken possession of the land, he can retract his agreement to the transaction and is not required to pay for the land. Once he has taken possession of the land, he cannot retract his agreement to the transaction. What is the reason that he cannot retract his agreement to the transaction once he has taken possession? As Reuven says to him: The purchase of the land was like purchasing a tied bag [ḥayta] whose contents are unknown and might not have any value. Since you were aware of and accepted that possibility, as you purchased it without a guarantee, you cannot retract your agreement. The Gemara asks: From when is it considered that he has taken possession of the property? He takes possession from the time that he walks upon the boundaries of the land to inspect it. The Gemara notes: And this is referring specifically to a case where the field was sold without a guarantee. But where it was sold with a guarantee this is not so, and Shimon can retract his agreement and refuse to pay for the land even after taking possession of it. The reason is that if the claimants succeed with their claims and seize the land, Reuven will then have to return the sum Shimon paid for it. In order to minimize judicial proceedings, the court allows Shimon to claim that there is no point in paying Reuven now only to have his money returned to him later. Therefore, he can retract his agreement to the transaction. And there are those who say that even where the field was sold with a guarantee, Shimon is unable to retract his agreement to the transaction, as Reuven has the legal right to say to him: First show me the claim authorization document, which a court provides to a buyer when the land he purchased is seized from him by a third party who proved that he had a lien on the land, and only then I will pay you. Consequently, Shimon cannot claim that there is no point in paying Reuven now, after he agreed to the sale but before a third party seized the land, as even if the land will be seized it does not automatically follow that Reuven will have to reimburse Shimon. § The Gemara returns to its earlier discussion concerning the form of the payment of damages: Rav Huna says: Damages are paid either with money or with one’s best-quality land. Rav Naḥman raised an objection to Rav Huna from a baraita: The verse states: “He shall recompense money to its owner” (Exodus 21:34), which serves to include items worth money, even bran, a relatively inferior commodity, as valid forms of payment. Rav Huna replied: With what are we dealing here in the baraita? We are dealing with a case where he does not have any money or land. The Gemara asks: If he does not have any other means with which to pay, isn’t it obvious that he can pay using what he has? The Gemara explains: Lest you say that we would say to him: Go to the trouble of selling whatever commodity you own, and thereby bring him money as payment for the damage, the baraita teaches us that it is unnecessary to sell one’s possessions and pay with money. Rav Asi says: Money is equivalent to land. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha are they equivalent? If we say that it is with regard to fulfilling the requirement of paying with one’s best-quality land, meaning that he can choose to pay with money instead, this is precisely the ruling of Rav Huna; and yet the ruling of Rav Asi is presented as an independent ruling. Rather, Rav Asi is referring to a case of two brothers who divided their inheritance, and one took land and the other one took money, and subsequently their father’s creditor came and took the land, as it was liened to his loan. Rav Asi’s ruling teaches that this brother whose land was taken can go and take a half share of the money together with his brother. The Gemara rejects this explanation: Isn’t that obvious? Is this one a son and that one not a son? Since they are both sons and equally inherited the estate of their father, they share responsibility for their father’s debts. If the creditor takes repayment of the debt from one brother, the other one must reimburse him. There are those who say that the Gemara rejects this explanation not because it is obvious, but on the contrary, because it is incorrect. As, one could look at it from the opposite direction, saying that one brother could say to the other: It was with this understanding that I took the money, that if it would be stolen from me I would not be reimbursed from your land, and it was with this understanding that you took the land, that if it would be seized from you by a creditor you would not be reimbursed from my money. Rather, Rav Asi is referring to a case of two brothers who divided the land they inherited from their father, and their father’s creditor came and took the portion of one of them. Since the brothers carry joint responsibility for their father’s debt, the one whose portion was seized has a right to be reimbursed by his brother. Rav Asi’s ruling teaches that this may be done either by redistributing the remaining portion of land or by reimbursing him with money. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav Asi already explicitly say that ruling once before? Therefore, this cannot be the explanation of this ruling. As it was stated: In a case of brothers who divided the land they inherited from their father, and their father’s creditor came and took the portion of one of them, Rav says that the initial division of the land is voided and any remaining land is divided equally between the brothers. Shmuel says that each brother, upon taking his portion, relinquished [viter] any rights to be reimbursed if his portion were lost. And Rav Asi says that the brother whose portion was seized has a right to receive half of the remaining inheritance: He takes a quarter in land, and he takes the other quarter in money. The Gemara explains the rationale behind each opinion: Rav says that the initial division of the land is voided. This is because he holds that brothers who divided their inheritance are considered to still be similar to heirs with respect to the inheritance, and therefore they continue to share joint responsibility for their father’s debts. Consequently, any remaining land is divided equally between the brothers. And Shmuel says that each brother, upon taking his portion, relinquished any rights to be reimbursed if his portion were lost, as he holds that brothers who divided their inheritance are considered to be like buyers of their respective portions, and each one is considered to be similar to a buyer who bought his portion without a guarantee that would have provided him with a right to be reimbursed if his portion were seized by a creditor. And Rav Asi says that the brother whose portion was seized has the right to receive half the remaining inheritance. He takes a quarter in land and he takes the other quarter in money. This is because he is uncertain as to whether they are similar to heirs, in which case the remaining land should be redistributed between them, or whether they are similar to buyers who bought their portions with a guarantee, in which case the brother whose portion was taken should be reimbursed by his brother with a sum of money equal to the value of the land that was seized from him. Therefore, he takes a quarter in land and he takes the other quarter in money. As Rav Asi had already stated the halakha of brothers who divided their inheritance, the Gemara suggests another explanation of his statement. Rather, with regard to what did Rav Asi state that money is equivalent to land? He stated it with regard to the requirement of paying with one’s best-quality land, and is teaching that one may choose to pay with money instead of land. The Gemara repeats its original rejection of this suggestion: If so, then this is precisely the ruling of Rav Huna, and yet Rav Asi is presented as an independent ruling. The Gemara resolves the problem: Emend the statement and say: And similarly, Rav Asi said. § Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Huna says: For the purchase of an object with which to fulfill a mitzva, one should spend up to one-third. The Gemara asks: To what does this one-third refer?

▶ 🇫🇷 Résumé en français et des réclamants [asikin] se présentent au sujet de la propriété du terrain, contestant la possession antérieure de Reu…

et des réclamants [asikin] se présentent au sujet de la propriété du terrain, contestant la possession antérieure de Reuven, tant que Shimon n’a pas encore pris possession du terrain, il peut se rétracter de son accord à la transaction et n’est pas tenu de payer pour le terrain. Une fois qu’il a pris possession du terrain, il ne peut pas se rétracter de son accord à la transaction. Quelle est la raison pour laquelle il ne peut pas se rétracter de son accord à la transaction une fois qu’il a pris possession ? Car Reuven lui dit : L’achat du terrain était comme l’achat d’un sac attaché [ḥayta] dont le contenu est inconnu et pourrait n’avoir aucune valeur. Puisque tu étais au courant et tu as accepté cette possibilité, car tu l’as acheté sans garantie, tu ne peux pas te rétracter de ton accord. La Guemara demande : À partir de quand est-il considéré qu’il a pris possession de la propriété ? Il prend possession à partir du moment où il marche sur les limites du terrain pour l’inspecter. La Guemara note : Et cela se réfère spécifiquement à un cas où le champ a été vendu sans garantie. Mais là où il a été vendu avec garantie, ce n’est pas le cas, et Shimon peut se rétracter de son accord et refuser de payer pour le terrain même après en avoir pris possession. La raison est que si les réclamants réussissent dans leurs revendications et saisissent le terrain, Reuven devra alors restituer la somme que Shimon a payée pour cela. Afin de minimiser les procédures judiciaires, le tribunal permet à Shimon de prétendre qu’il n’y a aucun intérêt à payer Reuven maintenant pour que son argent lui soit rendu plus tard. Par conséquent, il peut se rétracter de son accord à la transaction. Et il y a ceux qui disent que même là où le champ a été vendu avec garantie, Shimon ne peut pas se rétracter de son accord à la transaction, car Reuven a le droit légal de lui dire : D’abord montre-moi le document d’autorisation de réclamation, qu’un tribunal fournit à un acheteur lorsque le terrain qu’il a acheté lui est saisi par un tiers qui a prouvé qu’il avait un privilège sur le terrain, et seulement alors je te paierai. Par conséquent, Shimon ne peut pas prétendre qu’il n’y a aucun intérêt à payer Reuven maintenant, après qu’il a accepté la vente mais avant qu’un tiers ait saisi le terrain, car même si le terrain sera saisi, il ne s’ensuit pas automatiquement que Reuven devra rembourser Shimon. § La Guemara revient à sa discussion précédente concernant la forme du paiement des dommages : Rav Huna dit : Les dommages sont payés soit avec de l’argent, soit avec le terrain de la meilleure qualité. Rav Naḥman souleva une objection contre Rav Huna à partir d’une baraita : Le verset dit : « Il paiera de l’argent à son propriétaire » (Exode 21:34), qui sert à inclure les objets valant de l’argent, même du son, une marchandise relativement inférieure, comme formes valides de paiement. Rav Huna répondit : De quoi s’agit-il ici dans la baraita ? Il s’agit d’un cas où il n’a pas d’argent ni de terrain. La Guemara demande : S’il n’a pas d’autres moyens de payer, n’est-ce pas évident qu’il peut payer avec ce qu’il a ? La Guemara explique : De peur que tu dises que nous lui disions : Va à la peine de vendre la marchandise que tu possèdes, et ainsi apporte-lui de l’argent comme paiement pour le dommage, la baraita nous apprend qu’il n’est pas nécessaire de vendre ses biens et de payer avec de l’argent. Rav Asi dit : L’argent est équivalent au terrain. La Guemara demande : En ce qui concerne quelle halakha sont-ils équivalents ? Si nous disons que c’est en ce qui concerne l’accomplissement de l’exigence de payer avec le terrain de la meilleure qualité, ce qui signifie qu’il peut choisir de payer avec de l’argent à la place, c’est précisément la décision de Rav Huna ; et pourtant la décision de Rav Asi est présentée comme une décision indépendante. Plutôt, Rav Asi se réfère à un cas de deux frères qui ont divisé leur héritage, et l’un a pris le terrain et l’autre a pris l’argent, et ensuite le créancier de leur père est venu et a pris le terrain, car il était grevé d’un privilège pour son prêt. La décision de Rav Asi enseigne que ce frère dont le terrain a été pris peut aller prendre une moitié de part de l’argent avec son frère. La Guemara rejette cette explication : N’est-ce pas évident ? Est-ce que celui-ci est un fils et celui-là n’est pas un fils ? Puisqu’ils sont tous deux fils et ont également hérité de la succession de leur père, ils partagent la responsabilité des dettes de leur père. Si le créancier prend le remboursement de la dette d’un frère, l’autre doit le rembourser. Il y a ceux qui disent que la Guemara rejette cette explication non pas parce qu’elle est évidente, mais au contraire, parce qu’elle est incorrecte. Car on pourrait la voir de la direction opposée, en disant que un frère pourrait dire à l’autre : C’est avec cette compréhension que j’ai pris l’argent, que s’il était volé de moi je ne serais pas remboursé de ton terrain, et c’est avec cette compréhension que tu as pris le terrain, que s’il était saisi de toi par un créancier tu ne serais pas remboursé de mon argent. Plutôt, Rav Asi se réfère à un cas de deux frères qui ont divisé le terrain qu’ils ont hérité de leur père, et le créancier de leur père est venu et a pris la portion de l’un d’eux. Puisque les frères portent une responsabilité conjointe pour la dette de leur père, celui dont la portion a été saisie a le droit d’être remboursé par son frère. La décision de Rav Asi enseigne que cela peut être fait soit en redistribuant la portion restante du terrain, soit en le remboursant avec de l’argent. La Guemara demande : Mais Rav Asi n’a-t-il pas déjà explicitement dit cette décision une fois auparavant ? Par conséquent, cela ne peut pas [...]

📜 Baba Kamma — 9a

📋 Références bibliques — Baba Kamma 9a

✜️ Votre éternité se joue maintenant