 |
Amud 9aתוס' ד"ה ויצאוויצאו עליה עסיקין – And עסיקין came out on it Summary: If אנסים took possession of the field after the לוקח made a חזקה, he cannot nullify the sale even if he bought the field באחריות. He can nullify the sale only when there are עוררים who claim the field is theirs legitimately. תוס' ד"ה משהחזיקמשהחזיק בה אין יכול לחזור – Once he took possession of it, he cannot retract Summary: If a property is purchased with any קנין (besides קנין כסף), the buyer has the right to nullify the sale if יצאו עליה עוררים as long as he was not דייש אמצרי. And if he purchased it באחריות then even if דייש אמצרי it can be nullified. When the buyer must pay, he can claim שקול ארעך בזוזך (by יצאו עליו עוררים), if the value of the property remains the same as at the time of the sale. תוס' ד"ה רב הונארב הונא said either כסף or רב הונא אמר או כסף או מיטב - מיטב Summary: רב הונא statement is either in reference to the previous discussion of כסף and מיטב; or it is referencing our משנה. The רי"ף maintains that one may initially pay שוה כסף for נזיקין. The ר"ת (disagrees and) divides the payment obligation into three categories: A. For נזיקין you may initially pay with either כסף or (even) מיטב; if not available then (only) also with שוה כסף. B. For בע"ח and a לוקח (in a מקח טעות scenario) payment must be with כסף, not מיטב (and certainly not שוה כסף); if כסף is not available, also (even) with שוה כסף (and certainly with מיטב). C. For a worker only with כסף; period! תוס' ד"ה פשיטאפשיטא האי ברא והאי לאו ברא – It is obvious! This one is a son and this one is not a son?! Summary: When the sons both inherited property, then whosever property is taken away by their father’s creditor, suffers the loss. However where one son inherited land and the other money, the landowner must be compensated by his brother, if the land is confiscated by their father’s creditor. תוס' ד"ה וטרףוטרף חלקו של אחד מהם – And he confiscated the portion of one of them Summary: Generally the creditor collects from all the heirs equally; except if any property has been assigned as an אפותיקי. He takes the אפותיקי, regardless. תוס' ד"ה ורבורב אמר בטלה מחלוקת – And רב says that the division is nullified Summary: רב maintains that since the brothers are יורשים the חלוקה becomes בטל and it must be divided anew; while רב אסי maintains that while the disinherited brother must be compensated, the division remains. However if the מלוה is still in possession of the field it can be forcibly redeemed from him. תוס' ד"ה כיורשיםכיורשים הוו – They are considered as heirs Summary: If we were to maintain that האחים שחלקו כלקוחות באחריות דמי, then if a בע"ח collected his debt from one of the brothers the other brother would only be required to compensate with money. The division however would remain intact. תוס' ד"ה רב אסירב אסי - רב אסי מספקא ליה כולי is unsure, etc. Summary: The fact that there is a ספק if כיורשים דמי forces us to assume that רביע בקרקע means that he may insist on רביע בקרקע (in addition to רביע במעות). תוס' ד"ה הלכךהלכך נוטל רביע בקרקע ורביע במעות – Therefore he takes a fourth in land and a fourth in money Summary: The rule of המע"ה, is not applicable to our case. |
