More Discussions for this daf
1. A self-signed document 2. Rashbam DH u'Meshani Modi Rava d'Kasvinin

Elozer Kanner asks:

Sholom Rabbi Kornfeld,

And a frielichin Purim

RSBM D"H Umeshani

Pirush R"Chananel

The owner of the orchard will advise witnesses that he is being forced to sell his orchard and then get the the muchzik to claim in front of witnesses that he bought the orchard years ago (3)

and that he has a chazaka

Only then will he make a deal with the muchzik to quietly sell him the orchard and deliver to him a document attesting to the sale

Subsequently I will call him to court and say that he stole the orchard from me

He will counter and say that he bought it and has a shtar of purchase dated recently (he will not think to claim the earlier date and purchase since he doesn't have a shtar for that)

Only then will the owner of the orchard pull out his shtar moda'ah Etc.

However we learned back on 30b "avid inish dzabin dinei "

The muchzik can claim that in truth he purchased this orchard years ago however the reason he paid for it a second time recently was because it was simpler than a protracted complicated court case

Thank you for being such a invaluable resource for all of us who are learning the "DAF"

B'Kavod Rav

Elozer Kanner

And the White Shul Daf

The Kollel replies:

1) The Shitah Mekubetzes (DH vz"l ha'Ri b'Aliyosav) writes that the Muchzak could in fact argue "Avid Inish d'Zabin Dinei," but we assume that this argument will not occur to him.

2) We can understand this answer with the help of what the Rashbam writes (end of DH Hai Uvda) that when the Muchzak produces the deed of sale and then the owner of the orchard produces the Shtar Moda'ah, the Muchzak will no longer think of arguing that he possessed 3 years of Chazakah before this Shtar was written. This is because the Muchzak has decided to concentrate on the argument that he has the deed of sale, so he no longer thinks of the argument of Chazakah. The Me'iri connects these two arguments and writes that in the same way that the Muchzak no longer will think of arguing that he has 3 Chazakah years, also he will not think of arguing that even though he re-bought the field, this was only done because of "Avid Inish d'Zabin Dinei." The reason why the Muchzak will not think of saying this is because when he bought the field he really was intending to make a genuine purchase, so it will not occur to him to utilize the Halachah of "Avid Inish...."

3) This is not similar to the Gemara above on 30b. There, the original owner has to justify why he told somebody else to buy the field for him. It may be that the original owner really wanted to pay up a small amount of money in order to avoid a protracted court case. In contrast, on 40b, the Muchzak did not really intend to "buy his Din" but rather he thought he really was buying the field form the owner. Therefore, he will not think of the argument "Avid Inish..." even though if he would have thought of it, it would have been effective.

(See also Tosfos Rid and Rashash.)

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom