Study Bava Batra folio 44B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
בסתמא דלא משתעבדא ליה, מאי טעמא? מטלטלי נינהו, ומטלטלי לבעל חוב לא משתעבדי – ואף על גב דכתב ליה מגלימא דעל כתפיה, הני מילי דאיתנהו בעינייהו, אבל ליתנהו בעינייהו – לא;
in a case where he sold a cow or cloak without specification, where it is not liened to the creditor. What is the reason for this? It is because these items are movable property, and movable property is not liened to a creditor. And even though it is so that the debtor wrote to the creditor that he can collect the debt even from the cloak that is on his shoulders, that matter applies only when it is as is and in the possession of the debtor, but if it is not as is, since it is in the possession of the buyer, then no, the creditor cannot collect from movable property. Therefore, the debtor can testify on behalf of the buyer.
אלא אפילו עשאו אפותיקי – נמי לא. מאי טעמא? כדרבא – דאמר רבא: עשה עבדו אפותיקי ומכרו – בעל חוב גובה ממנו. שורו וחמורו אפותיקי ומכרו – אין בעל חוב גובה הימנו,
The Talmud continues: But even in a case where he set the cow or cloak aside as designated repayment [apoteiki], the creditor cannot collect from it. What is the reasoning? It is in accordance with the statement of Rava, as Rava says: If a master set aside his slave as designated repayment of a debt and then sold him, the master’s creditor collects the debt from the proceeds from the sale of the slave. But if one set aside his ox or his donkey as designated repayment and then sold it, the creditor does not collect the debt from the proceeds of the sale of the ox or the donkey.
מאי טעמא? האי אית ליה קלא, והא לית ליה קלא.
What is the reason for this distinction? This setting aside of the slave as designated repayment generates publicity, and that setting aside of the ox or donkey as designated repayment does not generate publicity. Therefore, when the slave had been set aside as designated repayment, the buyer would have been aware of this. Since he bought the slave while having this knowledge, the slave can be seized from him by the seller’s creditor. By contrast, the buyer of the cow or cloak would not have been aware that it had been set aside as designated repayment, so the seller’s creditor cannot seize it from him.