Bava Kamma 33B

כיון דמשעבד ליה לניזק ⁠– לאו כל כמיניה? אמר ליה: אינו מכור.

does he say that since the ox is liened to the debt to the injured party, who will collect it should the ox’s owner not have sufficient funds, it is not in his power to sell it? Rav Naḥman said to him: It is not sold.

והתניא: מכרו ⁠– מכור! חוזר וגובהו. וכי מאחר שחוזר וגובהו, למה מכור? לרידיא.

Rava asked him: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that if he sold it, it is sold? Rav Naḥman replied: Nevertheless, the injured party then collects it from the purchaser. The Talmud asks: Since the injured party then collects it from the purchaser, with regard to what matter is it sold? His right to collect it negates the effectiveness of the sale. The Talmud answers: It is sold for the purpose of plowing [ridya]. The purchaser may use the ox for plowing until the injured party collects it from him, and the purchaser is not required to reimburse the injured party for the use of his ox.

שמע מינה: לוה ומוכר מטלטלין ⁠– בית דין גובין לו מהם? שאני התם, דכמאן דעשאו אפותיקי דמי.

The Talmud asks: Should one conclude from this ruling that with regard to one who borrows money and then sells his movable property, the court can collect the debt from this property on behalf of the creditor, as according to R' Yishmael the belligerent ox is only a lien for the debt owed to the injured party? The Talmud answers: There, in the case of the belligerent ox, it is different, as the owner of the ox is considered like one who rendered it designated payment of the debt, since the Torah specifies that the injured party collects damages from the ox. In general, however, movable property that is sold by a debtor cannot be collected by the creditor.