Bava Metzia 15A

שנטלוה מסיקין, בא נגזל לגבות קרן ⁠– גובה מנכסים משועבדים, בא נגזל לגבות פירות ⁠– גובה מנכסים בני חורין.

non-Jew thugs took the field from the robber by force due to previous dealings between them. In that case, when the robbery victim comes to collect the principal, he collects it from liened property, and when the robbery victim comes to collect payment for the produce, he can collect only from unsold property.

רבא לא אמר כרבה בר רב הונא: ״הרי היא יוצאה מתחת ידו״⁠ – בדינא משמע. ורבה בר רב הונא לא אמר כרבא: ״הרי היא יוצאה מתחת ידו״⁠ – בעינא משמע.

The Talmud explains: Rava did not state his explanation of the baraita in accordance with the explanation of Rabba bar Rav Huna, because the phrase: It is appropriated from his possession, indicates that the field was taken from him legally and not by thugs. And Rabba bar Rav Huna did not state his explanation of the baraita in accordance with the explanation of Rava, because the phrase: It is appropriated from his possession, indicates that the field is appropriated in its unadulterated form, and was not damaged.

רב אשי אמר: לצדדין קתני, כגון שגזל שדה מחבירו מלאה פירות ואכל את הפירות ומכר את השדה, בא לוקח לגבות קרן ⁠– גובה מנכסים משועבדים. בא נגזל לגבות פירות ⁠– גובה מנכסים בני חורין.

Rav Ashi stated that the baraita teaches its rulings disjunctively. According to Rav Ashi, the baraita is referring to a case where one robbed another of a field while it was full of produce, and he consumed the produce and sold the field. When, after the true owner recovers the field from purchaser, the purchaser comes to collect the principal from the robber, i.e., the amount that he paid for the field, he collects it from the robber’s liened property. When the robbery victim comes to collect payment for the produce, he collects only from unsold property.

בין לרבא בין לרבה בר רב הונא, מלוה על פה הוא, ומלוה על פה אינו גובה מנכסים משועבדים!

The Talmud raises a difficulty: According to both Rava and Rabba bar Rav Huna, the money that the robber owes the robbery victim has the status of a loan by oral agreement, as it is not accompanied by documentation, and one who is owed a loan by oral agreement cannot collect from liened property.