There are two basic explanations in the Rishonim why there is no Shi'abud on Metaltelin. The Gemara mentions two lines of reasoning for this Halachah, and the question is which is primary and which is secondary. On one hand, we do not want there go be a possibility to reclaim Metaltelin from a buyer, for it would hinder the expediency of the marketplace (Takanas ha'Shuk). People who feared that they might lose their purchases would refrain from buying. On the other hand, it says that the reason why there is no Shi'abud on Metaltelin is because the lender does not rely on Metaltelin for repayment since they are easily disposed of and therefore the lien was only on the real estate to start with. (This reason does not apply to liabilities unwillingly imposed, such as damages.)

Although there is a lien, and the creditor has a right to the property, we were also concerned for the rights of the buyer who stands to lose innocently. One who buys land without checking for liens is responsible for his own loss; however, since there generally is no Shi'abud on Metaltelin , the buyer need not beware. The question is did the Chachamim start with the Takanas ha'Shuk, and therefore they had to do away with the Shi'abud in order that the marketplace run smoothly, or is the basic reason the fact that the lender did not rely on the Shi'abud of Metaltelin and therefore it does not take effect from the onset.

Dov Zupnik