Why did Rava disagree with Rabbah bar Rav Huna about the case of Gozel Sadeh MeiChaveiro?
He understands that Gozel Sadeh MeiChaverio means that he was Mazik it.
If the case would be that the king afterwards took it as a tax, then the person who took it from the first owner would be Potur from paying Peiros.
Rava understands that Yotzei Mitachas Yado implies Beis Din obligates him to pay.
Machlokes between Answers A and B.
Machlokes between Answers B and C.
Why did Abayei establish the case as one where the “Mocher” has another property?
Because the seller can say he had intended to sell him the other property.
It’s called “Mecher,” and not “Halva’ah,” so there is no problem of Ribbis.
The “Mocher” having another property means that there is no Mechzi K’Ribbis, and so can pay him the Peiros.
The “Mocher” having another property means that there is no Mechzi K’Ribbis, and so can pay him the Shevach.
Because he that was the facts on the ground in the case.
What does Rav hold that someone who bought the property knowing that it didn’t belong to the seller get back, when the real owner comes and seizes it from him.
Both the money he paid, and the Shevach.
Only the money.
Only the Shevach.
Nothing.
It depends on which Beis Din the case comes before.
Why do Rav and Shmuel argue both in Mekadeish Achoso, and one who buys a Sadeh that he knows doesn’t belong to the seller?
We may have thought that in the Sadeh case, Rav would agree that the money is a Matanah.
We may have thought that in the Sadeh case, Rav would agree that the money is a Pikadon.
We may have thought that in the Mekadeish Achoso case, Shmuel would agree that the money is a Pikadon.
Answers A and B.
Answers A and C.
How did Rava rule about being reimbursed when buying a stolen field?
He gets back the money, and the Shevach, even if he didn’t specify that he wanted the Shevach back when buying the field.
He gets back the money, and the Shevach, only when he specifyed that he wanted the Shevach back when buying the field.