1)

(a)Rami bar Chama cites a case where Reuven sold a field to Shimon without taking responsibility, and Shimon subsequently sold it back to Reuven with Achrayus (responsibility).

(b)Should Reuven's creditor claim the field from Reuven, Rami bar Chama ruled - that Shimon would be obligated to try and appease him on behalf of Reuven (because he sold it to him with Achrayus), just as he would have had to do had he sold it to a third person with Achrayus.

(c)Rava disagreed with him however - on the grounds that Shimon may have accepted Achrayus for losses caused by a third party, but he certainly did not accept Achrayus for losses that he (Reuven) himself caused (seeing as the creditor was none other than his own).

2)

(a)In a similar case to the previous one, but when the property that Reuven first sold to Shimon was property that he had inherited from his father Yakov, and the creditor who then claimed it from him was Yakov's creditor - Rava would have conceded that Yakov would not considered like his own creditor, but as if he was the creditor of a third person who sold it to Reuven. Consequently, Shimon would be obligated to appease the creditor on behalf of Reuven.

3)

(a)Rami bar Chama then cites a case where Reuven sold Shimon a field for which he accepted responsibility. As for Shimon, he did not yet pay for the field, and Reuven converted the money owing into a loan. In the meantime, Reuven died. When Reuven's creditor claimed the field from Shimon - he appeased him with money.

(b)Had Shimon then come to claim compensation from Reuven's orphans - Rami bar Chama would have permitted them to counter that since it was Metaltelin (the money for the sale of the field) that their father had left with him (and the Metaltelin of orphans is not Meshubad to the creditor), Shimon had no authority to pay the creditor. For the same reason, they argued, they would not compensate him for his loss (seeing as their father had not left them any Karka with which to pay).

(c)Rava advised Shimon - to pay the orphans the outstanding debt with the plot of land, and then to reclaim it from them for the Achrayus that was still owing to them.

(d)Shimon would be able to claim back the land from them (despite the fact that they did not inherit it directly from their father), due to a statement of Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah, who said that - land which orphans claim as a debt that is owed to their father, may then be claimed by their father's creditor (even though he would not be permitted to claim land that the orphans obtained from other sources).

4)

(a)Assuming that Reuven sold all his fields to Shimon one after the other, and Shimon then sold one of them to Levi - Rabah would restrict Reuven's creditor to the last field that Shimon purchased, because, based on the principle that the creditor may only claim from the purchaser there where the debtor has nothing with which to pay, the purchaser can always say to the creditor 'I left you something from which to claim'! (unless he would have purchased all the debtor's property at once).

(b)Consequently, when Rabah stated that the purchaser may claim from Levi too, should he be so inclined - he was referring to a case where Reuven sold all his fields to Shimon at once (in one document).

(c)Assuming that Reuven himself had not sold any fields, and that he possessed Idis, Beinonis and Ziburis (good, medium and poor quality fields respectively) - his creditor's would be entitled to claim the medium-quality fields.

(d)Consequently, in our case - the creditor would not be able to claim from Levi, if the field that he purchased was either Idis or Ziburis.

5)

(a)Had Levi purchased the same Beinonis field directly from Reuven - Reuven's creditor would have been forced o claim from Reuven, because, as we explained earlier, Shimon could have told him that he left him something from which to claim.

(b)He cannot do so in this case however - because that argument only applies to someone who purchased directly from the owner, but not when he purchased it from another purchaser ...

(c)... unless he left other medium-quality fields with Shimon - in which case the argument 'I left you something from which to claim'! will still apply.

6)

(a)According to the first Lashon, if Reuven sold Shimon a field, Abaye authorizes Reuven to intercede on Shimon's behalf, should his creditors subsequently claim it from him - on the condition that he sold it with Achrayus ...

(b)... on the basis of the argument that, should the creditor win his case, Shimon will come back to him to be reimbursed.

(c)Reuven might be able to prevent the creditor from claiming the field - by claiming that the creditor owes him money (and making him swear that he does not, and via a Gilgul Shevu'ah, that the debt that he is claiming is valid), or he might demand a Shevu'ah to prove that he has not yet paid, arguments which Shimon could not possibly present (see also Tosfos DH 'Dina Hu').

(d)We would otherwise have thought that he is not permitted to do so - because the creditor can say to him 'I have no dealings with you! It is from Shimon that I am claiming.'

7)

(a)According to the second Lashon, Abaye's statement extends even to a case when he sold him the field without Achrayus. Even then, Abaye maintains, the creditor cannot stop him from interceding on Shimon's behalf - because Reuven can reply that he is indirectly involved, because, should the creditor win his claim, Shimon will hold it against him for the rest of his life.