Study Ketubot folio 110A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
מתני׳ המוציא שטר חוב על חברו, והלה הוציא שמכר לו את השדה. אדמון אומר: יכול הוא שיאמר: אילו הייתי חייב לך — היה לך להפרע את שלך כשמכרת לי את השדה. וחכמים אומרים: זה היה פקח, שמכר לו את הקרקע מפני שהוא יכול למשכנו.
Mishnah: With regard to one who produces a promissory note against another, and this borrower produced a bill of sale dated after the promissory note that states that the lender sold him a field of his, Admon says that the borrower can say: Were I really indebted to you, you should have collected your loan when you sold me the field, and you would not have needed to sell it. And the Rabbis say: This is no proof, as it is possible that this lender was perspicacious, as he sold the borrower the land for a good reason, because now he can take the field as collateral from him in lieu of the outstanding loan.
גמ׳ מאי טעמא דרבנן? שפיר קאמר אדמון! באתרא דיהבי זוזי והדר כתבי שטרא — כולי עלמא לא פליגי דמצי אמר ליה: היה לך לפרוע את שלך כשמכרת לי את השדה.
Talmud: The Talmud asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis? After all, Admon is saying well. The Talmud explains: In a place where people first give money and only afterward they write the bill of sale, everyone agrees that the borrower can say to the lender: You should have collected your debt when you sold me the field, i.e., when you received money from me you should have said that it is not for the field but is repayment of the debt I owed you.
When they disagree is with regard to a place where people first write out the bill of sale and only afterward they give money. Admon holds that the lender should have put out a preemptive declaration, i.e., he should have earlier told witnesses that he is selling the field only so it can be used as collateral, and this transaction should not be taken as an indication that the buyer is not indebted to him. And the Rabbis hold that the lender may argue: Your friend has a friend and your friend’s friend has a friend, i.e., word of my intention to use the field as collateral would have come back to the borrower and he would not have agreed to the transaction, and that is why I did not issue any declaration.