Jewish audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכתא בבא קמא דף ח, but we will start on דף ז עמוד ב, 10 lines from the bottom of the עמוד. We're in middle of the סוגיא here concerning the מחלוקת between רבי ישמעאל and רבי עקיבא, whether we say בדמזיק שיימינן or בדיניזק שיימינן. This refers to the payment that a person pays for causing damage. And the דין is that when you pay for damage, if you want to pay with קרקע, with property, then you must pay מיטב, you must give the עידית, the best of your property. But the question was whether do we estimate עידית based on the מזיק, on the one that caused the damage, or on the ניזק, the one that was damaged. For instance, if the one that caused the damage has two kinds of property, one which is עידית, his עידית, his best, and then he has זיבורית, his worst, but his worst are of the same quality as the best of the ניזק. So according to רבי ישמעאל, he's able to give of his worst, being that they are the עידית of the ניזק, and בדיניזק שיימינן, we estimate עידית based on the ניזק, while רבי עקיבא holds בדמזיק שיימינן, we estimate it based on the מזיק, and therefore, he has to give his best, even if his worst are of the same quality as the best of the ניזק. But now the גמרא says, בעי מיניה רב שמואל בר אבא מאקרוניא מרב אבא, רב שמואל the son of אבא from אקרוניא asked a question of רב אבא, and he בעי of רב אבא, כי שיימינן, when they estimate the עידית of the fields, בשלו הן שיימינן, do they estimate it based on his עידית, what's considered by him, by the מזיק, the best, או בשל עולם הן שיימינן, do we estimate it based on what is considered עידית in the world? For instance, if the מזיק has two types of fields: he has one very good quality fields, and then he has worse quality fields, but his worse quality fields are the same quality as what is considered in the world as עידית, as the best. Now the question is, must he give from his best, which means his עידית, or can he give his זיבורית, being that this is the same quality as the עידית דעלמא, as the עידית of the world? And the גמרא explains the question: אליבא דרבי ישמעאל לא תיבעי לך, according to רבי ישמעאל, I don't have the question, דאמר, because he says, בדיניזק שיימינן, he says very clear that we have to estimate it based on the ניזק, and therefore, even if the מזיק's זיבורית is the same quality as the ניזק's עידית, he is able to give his זיבורית, and we don't have to look at what quality is considered עידית in the world. But כי תיבעי לך, where do I ask my question? אליבא דרבי עקיבא, according to רבי עקיבא, דאמר, he says בדמזיק שיימינן, that we estimate it based on the מזיק, it has to be עידית of the מזיק. So here the question is, מאי, what is the דין? מיטב שדהו אמר רחמנא, למיעוטי דניזק, since the תורה says you give the best of his fields, which, as we said in the גמרא before, that's where רבי עקיבא knows that you have to give the עידית of the מזיק. But what does that mean? Is that למיעוטי דניזק, is that to exclude the עידית of the ניזק? If your זיבורית is worth like the עידית of the ניזק, you still can't give your זיבורית, even though it's worth like the עידית of the ניזק, because the פסוק comes to tell us that we do not look at the עידית of the ניזק. But maybe we also don't look at the עידית of the מזיק, so therefore, if the מזיק has זיבורית which is considered עידית in the world, he could give that עידית, because we have to look at the עידית of the world, and we do not look at the עידית of the מזיק. או דילמא, or maybe, דעלמא נמי, maybe when the פסוק says he gives his עידית, it comes to exclude עידית of the world. So therefore, if he has עידית which are better than the עידית of the world, so he must give his עידית. And as תוספות add, that the reason why according to רבי ישמעאל there is no question, because since רבי ישמעאל learns it out from the גזירה שוה, שדה שדה, from the words ובער בשדה אחר, as we said in the גמרא before, that he makes a גזירה שוה in the פסוק מיטב שדהו to the פסוק ובער בשדה אחר, and in the פסוק ובער בשדה אחר it definitely means the שדה of the ניזק, so therefore, when it says that you have to give מיטב שדהו, it is clearly that you have to give the שדה of the ניזק, the מיטב of the ניזק. So therefore, the גמרא said that according to רבי ישמעאל, there is no שאלה that when it says מיטב שדהו, it means of the ניזק. So if you have זיבורית which is of the same quality as the מיטב, the עידית of the ניזק, you're able to give that. But according to רבי עקיבא, that רבי עקיבא only learns it out from the words of the פסוק, where the פסוק says he gives his his מיטב. So all we know that it doesn't depend on the מיטב of the ניזק. But does it mean that he has to give his best, or does it mean that he could give what is considered in the world the best? And therefore, if he has עידית, and he has זיבורית, which is of the same quality as עידית of the world, he is able to give his זיבורית, being that this is the עידית of the world, even though he himself has better ones. And that is the question of the גמרא. And the גמרא answers, אמר ליה, he said to him, רחמנא אמר מיטב שדהו, the תורה says his best field, ואת אמרת, and you want to tell me בשל עולם שמין, that you estimate it by the world? He answered to him that when the תורה says you give his best, it means his best. That if he has עידית, which are worth more than the עידית of the world, then he must give those עידית. Even if he has זיבורית, which is of the same quality as עידית of the world, he cannot give that, he must give his best. And the גמרא continues, איתיבי, I'll ask you a קושיא, we learn a ברייתא: אין לו אלא עידית. If a person who has three things to pay: he must pay somebody for a damage he caused, he must pay a loan that he borrowed to the בעל חוב, and he must pay a כתובה to his wife. And as we know from before, the דין is that when you pay for נזקין, you must give עידית. When you pay for a loan, a בעל חוב, you must give בינונית. And when you pay the כתובה, you could give זיבורית. So the ברייתא says, if you have a person who only has עידית, כולם גובין מן העידית, so all three would collect from עידית. בינונית, if he only has בינונית, כולם גובין בינונית, then they all would collect בינונית. זיבורית, if he only has זיבורית, כולם גובין זיבורית, so they all would take זיבורית. You can't collect from something he doesn't have. And the תורה is not מחייב a person to go out and buy עידית in order to pay for the נזקין, or to buy בינונית in order to pay for the בעל חוב. When we say that נזקין collects from the best, and a בעל חוב from the middle, and a כתובה from the זיבורית, it's only if he has all three. But if he doesn't, they collect from whatever he has. היו לו עידית ובינונית וזיבורית, if he had all three, he had the best and the middle and the worst, then it's the דין that נזקין בעידית, נזקין will collect from the best, ובעל חוב בבינונית, the בעל חוב will collect from the middle, וכתובת אשה בזיבורית, and the כתובה will collect from the worst. If he has עידית ובינונית, only עידית, only the best and only the middle kind, and he doesn't have any זיבורית, so here too, נזקין בעידית, the נזקין, the damage will collect from the best, בעל חוב וכתובת אשה בבינונית, the בעל חוב for the loan, and for the כתובה, he will give the בינונית. The בעל חוב will collect from the בינונית also like the דין is, and the כתובה will also collect from the בינונית, being that there is no זיבורית to give her. If he has בינונית וזיבורית, he only has the middle kind and the worst, so נזקין ובעל חוב בבינונית, the נזקין and the loan will get from the בינונית. The נזקין has to get from the בינונית because there is no עידית to give to the נזקין. So therefore, the נזקין will get from the בינונית, the בעל חוב will also get from a בינונית because that's the דין that you have to give a בעל חוב from בינונית, וכתובת אשה בזיבורית, and the כתובה will collect from the זיבורית. If he has only עידית וזיבורית, the best and the worst, and no בינונית, so here the דין is נזקין בעידית, the נזקין will get from the best as the דין is, ובעל חוב וכתובת אשה בזיבורית, and the בעל חוב, the loan, and the כתובה will get from זיבורית. And the reason that the בעל חוב collects from the זיבורית, because there is no בינונית to give him. Now, the question would be, why then do we say he goes down? Why doesn't he go up? Since he can't get from בינונית because there is no בינונית, why say that he should go down and get from זיבורית? Why doesn't he go up and get from the עידית? So רש״י explains, because באמת, as the גמרא says later on, מדאורייתא, a בעל חוב should collect from זיבורית, too. It's only a תקנה from the רבנן that he collects from the בינונית. So when did the חכמים make this תקנה? Only if there is בינונית. But if there is no בינונית, then it stays as it was מדאורייתא, and therefore, the בעל חוב collects from the זיבורית. This is the ברייתא. Now the גמרא says, קתני מיהת מציעא, at least we learn in the middle case of the ברייתא that if there is only בינונית וזיבורית, there's only the middle kind and the worst, נזקין ובעל חוב בבינונית, נזקין and the loan gets from the בינונית, וכתובת אשה בזיבורית, and the כתובה collects from the זיבורית, from the worst. So the question is, ואי אמרת בשלו הן שמין, if you say that we always estimate it based on the person himself, we do not look at what is considered עידית in the world, we look at what is considered עידית by this person person, תעשה בינונית שלו כעידית, let his בינונית become עידית, since he has no real עידית. So his best are the בינונית, and if we judge it, we estimate it, based on what he has, so since the בינונית is his best, let's consider the בינונית as עידית. So when he has בינונית וזיבורית, really he has עידית וזיבורית, because his בינונית is his best, and we say בשלו הן שמין. So now that we say he has עידית וזיבורית, what was the דין in the ברייתא? If there is עידית וזיבורית, we said in the ברייתא that נזקין gets עידית, and the בעל חוב and the כתובה gets זיבורית. So here too, when he has only בינונית וזיבורית, let's consider the בינונית as עידית, and we will say he has עידית וזיבורית, וידחה בעל חוב אצל זיבורית, and he could push the בעל חוב to the זיבורית, because the בינונית is really עידית, and עידית וזיבורית, if he has עידית וזיבורית, the בעל חוב gets from the זיבורית. So the דין should be that if he has בינונית and זיבורית, the בעל חוב should get from the זיבורית. Why does it say in the ברייתא that if he has בינונית וזיבורית, the בעל חוב gets בינונית? So that seems to prove that we say בשל עולם הן שמין, that we don't estimate it based on what he has, we estimate it based on what the world considers עידית. And therefore, since in the world this would be considered בינונית, so we say it is not called עידית, it is called בינונית, and therefore, the בעל חוב gets from the בינונית. So the גמרא says, no, הכא במאי עסקינן, we could say that this is talking in a case כגון שהיתה לו עידית ומכרה, that he originally had עידית. This person that we say has only בינונית וזיבורית, he originally had all three. He had עידית, בינונית, וזיבורית. So even if we will hold בשלו הן שמין, that we estimate it based on what he has, the בינונית are called בינונית, not עידית, because he had other עידית, and these were the בינונית. Now, since before they were considered בינונית, automatically the שיעבוד of the בעל חוב fell upon these בינונית, because as soon as you borrow money, there is a שיעבוד on your property, and since the דין is that a בעל חוב collects from בינונית, so the שיעבוד fell upon his בינונית. Now later on, when he sold his עידית, the בעל חוב still will collect from these בינונית, even though now he doesn't have any עידית, so if we would look at it now, we would say that these בינונית became עידית, because we say בשלו הן שמין, but nevertheless, being that before they were considered בינונית, and the שיעבוד already fell upon them, so now the בעל חוב will collect from them because they are משועבד to the בעל חוב. וכן אמר רב חסדא, so did רב חסדא say, כגון שהיתה לו עידית ומכרה, that this case where it says that if he has בינונית and זיבורית, the בעל חוב collects from the בינונית, is because it's in a case where he had originally עידית and he sold it. Therefore, the בינונית are משועבד to the בעל חוב. Then the גמרא says, הכא נמי מסתברא, the logic also tells us that we have to say that this is the case where he had originally עידית and he sold it, because מדקתני אחריתא, we learned in another ברייתא: בינונית וזיבורית, if a person owns בינונית and זיבורית, נזקין בבינונית, the נזקין gets from the בינונית, ובעל חוב וכתובת אשה בזיבורית, and the בעל חוב and the כתובה gets from the זיבורית. קשיא אהדדי, so there's a קשיא between the two ברייתות. In our ברייתא it says that if you have בינונית וזיבורית, the בעל חוב gets from the בינונית. In this other ברייתא that we just brought now, it says that the בעל חוב gets from the זיבורית. So there's a סתירה between two ברייתות. אלא לאו שמע מינה, doesn't this tell us that we have to say that the difference is, כאן שהיתה לו עידית ומכרה, that here in our ברייתא where it says that the בעל חוב will get from the בינונית, is the case where he originally had עידית and he sold it. So now, the בעל חוב still collects from the בינונית, because the שיעבוד fell upon the בינונית when the person still had the עידית. וכאן, the other ברייתא where it says the בעל חוב will collect from the זיבורית, is שלא היתה לו עידית ומכרה, that he did not have any עידית originally to sell, so then the בינונית become עידית because that's his best. And since the בינונית become עידית, the נזקין will get from the בינונית, which really is the עידית, and the בעל חוב will get from the זיבורית, as the דין is that when you have עידית וזיבורית, the בעל חוב gets from the זיבורית. But this תירוץ, to answer the סתירה between the two ברייתות, is only if we want to stick to the דין of בשלו הן שמין, that we estimate it based on the מזיק himself, not based on the world. And therefore, the answer we could give between these two ברייתות is, one is speaking in a case where he had עידית and he sold it, and one is speaking in a case where he didn't have עידית and he sold it. And therefore, the בינונית are turned into עידית. But now the גמרא says, ואיבעית אימא, if you want, I could answer the ברייתא different, that באמת everyone holds בשל עולם הן שמין. Both ברייתות hold that we do estimate it based on the עידית of the world. And also אידי ואידי, both ברייתות are the case שלא היתה לו עידית ומכרה. In both cases, there was no עידית originally that he sold. But then the question is, why in one ברייתא it says that the בעל חוב collects from the בינונית and in one ברייתא it says he collects from the זיבורית? ולא קשיא, it's no קשיא. הא דשויה בינונית שלו כעידית דעלמא, one ברייתא is the case where his בינונית are worth like the עידית of the world. וכאן, and here, דלא שויה בינונית שלו כעידית דעלמא, and his בינונית are not worth like the עידית of the world. That ברייתא where it says that a בעל חוב collects from the זיבורית is the ברייתא that talks in a case where the בינונית were as worth as the עידית of the

world, and therefore the בעל חוב does not collect from these בינונית, because the בינונית are really עידית, because since בשל עולם הן שמין, we base it on the way the world looks at it, and according to the way the world looks at it, this is really עידית. And therefore the בעל חוב collects from the זיבורית. In the other ברייתא where it says that the בעל חוב collects from the בינונית is a case where his בינונית are worth the same as the בינונית of the world, so it is considered בינונית, because as we said, בשל עולם הן שמין, so it is בינונית. Being that it's בינונית, the בעל חוב collects from the בינונית. The only question we could ask: according to this, that one ברייתא is talking about a case where his בינונית are worth as עידית of the world, then why is it called בינונית? If we say בשל עולם הן שמין, that we estimate it based on the world, and in the world this would be עידית, so why do we call it בינונית? Especially that we said that both ברייתות are talking in a case where he did not have עידית, his own עידית, better ones, that he sold. So it would seem that he himself doesn't have any better. In the world they are considered עידית, so why do we call them בינונית? So תוספות explains that when the גמרא said that both cases are talking when he didn't have עידית and he sold, it doesn't mean that both cases he didn't have עידית and he doesn't have עידית now either. What it means is that in both cases he didn't sell any עידית, but one case is speaking when he didn't have any עידית to sell, and the other case is that he had עידית, but he didn't sell them, he still has the עידית. That ברייתא where it says that the בינונית of the מזיק are worth like the עידית of the world is speaking in a case where he himself has other עידית that are worth more than these בינונית, and he still has it, he never sold them. And that is why they are called בינונית, because as far as he is concerned, they are his בינונית. But nevertheless, as far as the world is concerned, they are עידית, and therefore, in that ברייתא, the בעל חוב collects from the זיבורית and not from his בינונית, being that we say בשל עולם הן שמין, and in the world they are עידית. And the other ברייתא, where it says that the בעל חוב collects from the בינונית, is the case where these בינונית are worth like בינונית of the world, and he never had any עידית. Therefore, the בעל חוב collects from these בינונית, since the דין is that a בעל חוב collects from בינונית. Then the גמרא continues: ואיבעית אימא, if you want, there could be a different תירץ. אידי ואידי כגון שהיתה בינונית שלו כבינונית דעלמא, that both ברייתות could be talking if his בינונית are worth like the בינונית of the world. And the question is, what is the מחלוקת? Why does one ברייתא say that a בעל חוב collects from the זיבורית, why doesn't he collect from the בינונית if his בינונית are worth like בינונית of the world? ובהא בהא פליגי, here they are actually arguing in this מחלוקת. מר סבר בשלו הן שמין, one holds that we estimate it based on his עידית, ומר סבר בשל עולם הן שמין, and the other one holds that we estimate it based on the world. And that is the מחלוקת between the two ברייתות. In both cases he doesn't have any עידית, and he never had any עידית before, and therefore his בינונית are his best. So if we hold בשלו הן שמין, that we estimate it based on what he has, so these בינונית are really considered עידית, and that's why the ברייתא says that a בעל חוב collects from the זיבורית and not from the בינונית, because really the בינונית are עידית. The other ברייתא that says that a בעל חוב collects from the בינונית is because that ברייתא holds בשל עולם הן שמין, that you base it on the world, and since in the world this is considered בינונית, and therefore the בעל חוב collects from these בינונית, because the דין is a בעל חוב collects from בינונית. But רש״י brings another גירסא also in this תירוץ of the גמרא. And this תירוץ would say that אידי ואידי כגון שהייתה בינונית שלו כעידית דעלמא, that both ברייתות are talking in a case where his בינונית were like עידית of the world. And according to this פשט, in both cases it is that he had עידית before and he sold it. So therefore, if we look at him, they these are considered בינונית, because he had other עידית and he sold them, so these are בינונית. On the other hand, if you look at the world, since in both cases the בינונית are like עידית דעלמא, so they are considered like עידית. And that is the מחלוקת between the ברייתות. That the first ברייתא holds בשלו הן שמין, that everything depends on him. And since by him it is בינונית, therefore the בעל חוב collects from the בינונית. Even though that if you look at the world, they would be עידית, but since by him it's בינונית, the בעל חוב will collect from these בינונית. The other ברייתא, where it says that the בעל חוב collects from the זיבורית, is because that ברייתא holds בשל עולם הן שמין, it depends on the world. And since in the world this would be considered עידית, even though that by him it's בינונית, but since we look at the world, in the world it's עידית, therefore the בעל חוב cannot collect from these בינונית because really they are עידית, and the בעל חוב will collect from the זיבורית. And then the גמרא says, רבינא אמר, רבינא says, בדאולא פליגי, that the מחלוקת between the ברייתות could be a מחלוקת whether we hold like עולא or not. דאמר עולא, because עולא said דבר תורה מדאורייתא בעל חוב בזיבורית, that a בעל חוב really מדאורייתא has to collect from זיבורית, שנאמר, as the תורה says, בחוץ תעמוד, you should stand outside, והאיש אשר אתה נושה בו, and the person that you are claiming the money from, יוציא אליך את העבוט החוצה, he will take out the משכון to you to the outside. That when you come to collect something from the person who owes you money, so then you have to stand outside, or as תוספות says, the שליח בית דין will have to stand outside, and the person who owes the money will bring out the object outside. Now, מה דרכו של אדם להוציא לחוץ? What is the דרך or the custom of a person that he will take out? If it's up to the borrower to take out the object, he will definitely take out פחות שבכלים, the worst of the vessels. So since the תורה says that it's up to the borrower to bring out what he wants, which means he will bring out the worst, so the same would be concerning fields, that if he will pay with a field, it's up to him to pay with which field he wants, which בפשטות is that he will give זיבורית. So the תורה tells us that a בעל חוב is to collect from זיבורית. ומה טעם אמרו,

what is the reason the חכמים said that בעל חוב בבינונית, that a בעל חוב collects from the middle types of field? כדי שלא תנעול דלת בפני לוין, in order not to close the doors for the borrowers. Because if the people will know that when they will collect for their loan they will have to collect the זיבורית, they will not want to lend any money, so people won't have from whom to borrow. So in order to help out the borrowers, the חכמים made a תקנה that you collect from בינונית. So מר אית ליה תקנתא דעולא, one ברייתא holds of the תקנה of עולא, ומר לית ליה תקנתא דעולא, one ברייתא does not hold of the תקנה of עולא. So that ברייתא where it says that a בעל חוב will collect from the בינונית, that ברייתא holds like עולא, that there was a תקנה of the חכמים that בעל חוב should collect from the בינונית. That ברייתא where it says that a בעל חוב collects from זיבורית does not hold of the תקנה of עולא, and holds that even מדרבנן a בעל חוב collects from זיבורית, and therefore the ברייתא says that a בעל חוב should collect from the זיבורית. And according to this, the truth is that even if he would have עידית, בינונית and זיבורית, that ברייתא would still hold that a בעל חוב collects from זיבורית because he doesn't hold of the תקנה of עולא. This is the way רש״י learns.

But תוספות learns that when the גמרא says that that ברייתא does not hold of the תקנה of עולא, that is only in a case where he has בינונית and זיבורית, so the בינונית are his best, so then we say that we do not hold of the תקנה of עולא and he gets זיבורית. But if he would have עידית, בינונית and זיבורית, even that ברייתא תוספות says would agree that he collects from the בינונית. But תוספות asks an obvious קושיא. The גמרא learns out that מדאורייתא בעל חוב collects from זיבורית because the תורה says that it's up to the borrower to bring out which כלים he wants, and בפשטות he will bring out the worst כלים. So from there we see that you are able to give זיבורית. So תוספות asks, this is a contradiction to the גמרא before, because the גמרא before said that all מטלטלין are considered מיטב. That when we compare מטלטלין, movable objects, to a field, so all מטלטלין are considered מיטב, because if you can't sell them here, you could sell them someplace else. So how can we learn now from the fact that he's able to give the worst מטלטלין, that in the fields you also could give the worst? But we said before that the worst מטלטלין is equal to the best field. So maybe as If he wants to pay with the field, he must pay the best. And תוספות says the גמרא doesn't mean to say that since he could give the worst מטלטלין, that shows that he could give the worst field, too. What he means is that from here we see that whatever he gives, he could give the worst. Just like when it comes to כלים, we say he could give the worst כלים, so too if he'll give fields, he will be able to give from the worst field. Then the

גמרא continues, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, מכר לאחד או לשלשה בני אדם כאחד, כולן נכנסו תחת הבעלים. This refers to a person who had all three obligations. He owed money for נזקין, for damage he caused, and the דין is that you pay from the עידית. He owed money to a בעל חוב for a loan that he took, and that you have to pay from the בינונית. He owed money for a כתובה, and that you pay from the זיבורית. And this man had all three, he had עידית, בינונית, and זיבורית. But he sold all three fields. And the דין is that under certain conditions, if you owe money to somebody, all your property is משועבד to that person. And therefore, in this case, the עידית he owned before was משועבד to the נזקין, the בינונית he owned before was משועבד to the בעל חוב, and the זיבורית he owned before was משועבד to the כתובה. But what he did was, he sold these fields. And the דין is that if a field is משועבד to somebody, so even if you sell that field, the one that is owed the money is able to go to the לוקח, to the buyer, and to take that field away, being that that field was משועבד to him before it was sold yet to the לוקח. So the שיעבוד stays on the field, and he is able to go to the לוקח, to the buyer, and to take that field away. So here is a case when this person who had the three fields and owed the three things, he sold all his fields to one person, או לשלשה בני אדם כאחד, or he sold them to three separate people, but all together in the same day, כולן נכנסו תחת הבעלים, so all of them enter instead of the owner. In other words, whatever the owner would have done, now they do, which means that just like if the owner would have had the fields, the נזקין would collect the עידית, and the בעל חוב would collect the בינונית, and the כתובה would collect the זיבורית, so too now, the נזקין takes the עידית from the לוקח, the בעל חוב takes the בינונית from the לוקח, and the כתובה takes the זיבורית from the לוקח. But that's only if all three were sold together. But if

בזה אחר זה, if they were sold one after another in different days, כולן גובין מן האחרון, they all collect from the last one. Because the דין is that even though, as we said before, you're allowed to go to the לוקח and take the field that was משועבד to you before it was sold, but that is only if there are no free fields in the hands of the person who owes the money. But if the person who owes the money has other fields which he did not sell, so even though he sold a field that was משועבד, but since he still has fields which are called בני חורין, free fields, so then the דין is that the one that is owed cannot go to the לוקח to collect from the לוקח. Because the דין is that אין נפרעין מנכסים משועבדים במקום שיש בני חורין. You are not allowed to collect from נכסים, from property that was sold, even though it was משועבד to you, as long as he has, the one that owes the money has property that wasn't sold. So here too, if he sold the property one after another, not together, so then we do not follow the order as we said before, that the נזקין will go to the עידית, and the בעל חוב to the בינונית, and the כתובה to the זיבורית, because when he sold the first property, the other property was still left in the possession of the owner. And therefore, the שיעבוד was transferred from the property that was sold to the property that was left. Because, as we said before, as long as there's property left in the possession of the owner, the שיעבוד is transferred from the קרקע, that property that was משועבד to him, to the property that's left over. So therefore here too, if they sold the property one after another, so then all of them go to the last one. Because the last one that was left, that took the שיעבוד of everybody. אין לו, if the last one doesn't have enough to give them all, גובה משלפניו, then you collect from the one before. אין לו, if he doesn't have, גובה משלפני פניו, then you go to collect to the first one. Because the last one is the one that the שיעבוד is transferred, but if there is not enough, then you go to the one that was sold. Then the גמרא explains that. מכרם לאחד, the ברייתא says that if he sold all three to one person, so the דין is that he is instead of the owner, and the נזקין will collect the עידית, the בעל חוב from the בינונית, and the כתובה from the זיבורית. So the

גמרא asks, היכי דמי? Which case is it talking about? אילימא, if you'll tell me בבת אחת, that he sold all three to this one person together, and the question is, why does the ברייתא have to tell us that? It is self-understood, because השתא לשלשה, if we say the דין is that if you sell them to three people, and if you sold them all in one day, דאיכא למימר, even though we're able to say that חד מינייהו קדים, that one of them came first, since it was sold to three people, so בפשטות we should assume that one bought it before the other, אמרינן, we still say כולו נכנסו תחת הבעלים, they all take the place of the owner. Since they were all sold in one day, and we don't know which one came first, because as the דין is, we do not write the hours when it was sold, only in ירושלים they used to write the שעות, the hours, but otherwise we do not write the hours. And therefore when you come with a few שטרות, and in each document it says the same day, so as far as we're concerned, we are they are all sold on the same day at the same time. Even though there is a possibility to say that one came before the other, nevertheless we don't consider them as if one came before the other, but we say it is as if they were all sold together, and therefore the דין is that כולו נכנסו תחת הבעלים, they all take the place of the בעלים, and each one collects from what was משועבד to him. So מכרן לאחד מיבעיא? So if it was sold to one at the same time, do you have to tell us that? Certainly the דין would be that this one takes the place of the בעלים. Because if three, we say, had bought them in the same day, they all take the place of the בעלים, even though they are three separate people, and one came before the other, certainly the דין is that if one person bought them all together, that he takes the place of the בעלים. אלא, therefore, the גמרא says, פשיטא, we must say for sure בזה אחר זה, that this one person who bought all these three fields, bought them one after another in three separate days. But then the גמרא's question is, ומאי שנא שלשה? So what is the difference that if three people bought them, we said before that they all go to the last? If he doesn't have enough, then you go to the one before, and if he doesn't have enough, you go to the one before him. Why? Because דכל חד וחד אמר ליה, because each one could say to him, הנחתי לך מקום לגבות ממנו, I left you a place from where to collect. The first one who bought will claim that the reason I bought first and I wasn't afraid that it would be taken away from me, because I knew that I left over other fields in the possession of the owner where you could collect from, and so the second one could say the same. And therefore you go to the third first. If there is not enough by the third, that's when you come to the second and then you come to the first. So if you could say that when three people bought it, הכא נמי, this one, too, if one person bought it. But if he bought them in three separate days, על כל חד וחד, on each one, לימא ליה, let him say, הנחתי לך מקום לגבות ממנו, that I left you a place to collect. If let's say the ניזקין wants to collect from the עידית, so why can't he send him and tell him, you collect from the זיבורית which I bought at the end? If he bought עידית first and then בינונית and then זיבורית, why can't he have them all collect from the זיבורית? If there will not be enough, then they will go to the בינונית. Because when they want to collect from the עידית, he will tell them that when I bought the עידית, there was still some property which were the בינונית and זיבורית left over in the possession of the owner, and therefore the שעבוד was transferred to that. So why can't he push them all off to the last? And the גמרא answers, הכא במאי עסקינן, here we're talking in a case כגון שלקח עידית באחרונה, that he bought עידית at the end. The last one was the עידית, and therefore he would rather not push them all off to the end, because they would all collect from the עידית. And therefore we say that each one collects from the one that is משועבד to him. וכן אמר רב ששת, so did רב ששת, too, say, כגון שלקח עידית באחרונה, that he bought עידית at the end. So רב ששת gave the same תרץ. Then the גמרא asks, אי הכי, if so, that he bought עידית at the end, and that is the reason he'd rather that they collect each one like his דין, not all go to the end, but ליתו כולהו וליגבו מעידית, let them all come and collect from the עידית! Who cares what he says, that he'd rather have them collect each one like his דין? But why can't they claim that since you bought עידית at the end, so there was a time when the עידית was left in the possession of the owner, and there was no other property left in his possession, so the שעבוד all was transferred to the עידית, so why can't they all collect from the עידית? And the גמרא answers, משום דאמר להו, because he could say to them, אי שתקיתו שתקיתו, if you will be quiet, ושקליתו כדינייכו, and you each one will take as his דין, the ניזקין from the עידית, the בעל חוב from the בינונית, and the כתובה from the זיבורית, שקליתו, go ahead and take. ואי לא, if not, מהדרנא שטרא דזיבורית למריה, I will return the שטר that I bought the זיבורית to its owner. So then the זיבורית will be turned into בני חורין, into property that is in the ownership of the owner, ושקליתו כולכו מזיבורית, and all of you will have to take from זיבורית. Because, as we said before, the דין is that you cannot collect from the נכסים משועבדים when there is בני חורין. If he will give back the זיבורית to the owner, the זיבורית will be בני חורין, so they will all automatically have to collect from the זיבורית. And that's why he could tell them that you should all take כדין instead of everyone taking from the עידית. Because if you all want to take from the עידית, I'll make it worse for you, I'll have you collect all from the זיבורית. Then the גמרא asks: אי הכי, בנזקין נמי נימא הכי? Why can't he say the same thing to the נזקין? We said before that each one collects like his דין. The נזקין collects from the עידית, and the בעל חוב from the בינונית, and the כתובה from the זיבורית. Why does he have to give the נזקין from the עידית? If we use this logic that we said before, why can't he tell the נזקין to collect from the בינונית? Let him tell the נזקין: Or you take from the בינונית, if not, you're going to have to take from the זיבורית, because I'm going to give back the field of זיבורית to the owner, and then you'll automatically have to collect from the זיבורית. So it's worth for you to take from the בינונית, and not ask דווקא for the עידית, because if you do that, you're going to have to take from the זיבורית because I'll give back. The reason the גמרא's קושיא is only from נזקין, לכאורה the גמרא could have asked the same קושיא from a בעל חוב. Why is the דין that a בעל חוב collects from the בינונית? Why can't he force the בעל חוב to collect from the זיבורית and tell him that if you will not take from the זיבורית, I will give the שטר back, and automatically you will have to take from the זיבורית? So you might as well take from זיבורית now. So why did the גמרא ask the קושיא from נזקין, that why does the נזקין take from the עידית? Why doesn't he tell him that he wants him to take from the from the בינונית? And otherwise, if he doesn't, he will give it back. The same question could be concerning a בעל חוב, that a בעל חוב should take from the זיבורית, if not, he'll make him take from the זיבורית anyway. And the same קושיא maybe could be on נזקין, that he wants the נזקין to take from the זיבורית by saying that if you do not take from the זיבורית, I'll force you to take from the זיבורית anyway by giving the שטר back. So רש"י says this couldn't be a קושיא, because if he would say that, then the person could answer him: אין הכי נמי, give it back. If you want me to take from the זיבורית anyway, what will I lose if you give the שטר back? You're trying to threaten me and to say that if I don't take what you want to give me, you're going to give it back. If you want to give me זיבורית anyway, so what am I afraid if you're going to give the שטר back? If you give the שטר back, I'll take זיבורית anyway. So you might as well give it back. And as long as you don't give it back, I'm not taking from the זיבורית, I want to take from the בינונית. But this only the בעל חוב could answer if he wants him to take from the זיבורית. So he'll tell him: Okay, go ahead and give back. The same if he would tell the נזקין: I want you to take from the זיבורית, the נזקין will tell him: לכי תהדר, when you give it back I'll take from the זיבורית, you want to give me זיבורית anyway. That's why the גמרא's קושיא is from נזקין, that why can't he tell the נזקין: I want you to take from the בינונית, because if not, then I will give back the זיבורית and you'll have to take זיבורית. And here he cannot answer him: Okay, go ahead and give back, because if he does give back, he's going to lose out. Now he wants to give him בינונית, if he'll give back, he's going to have to take זיבורית. And that was the גמרא's קושיא that why can't he force the נזקין to take from the בינונית. The only thing that remains not understood is why can't the כתובה tell him that? Why can't the כתובת אשה, the woman who's collecting a כתובה, tell him that she wants to collect from the עידית? Because, as we said before, we're talking here in a case where the עידית were left for the last. So why can't she claim she wants the עידית? And if he's going to tell her that if you want the עידית, I'm going to give back the זיבורית so you'll have to collect from the זיבורית, so let her answer to him: לכי תהדר, okay, if you will give back I will have no choice, I will have to collect from the זיבורית, but I'm not going to lose anything because you want to give me זיבורית anyway. What I want, she says, I want the עידית, because the עידית is the last one, so the שיעבוד is transferred to the עידית. Why can't she say that? And תוספות says that she can't say it, because באמת, originally the דין of a כתובה is to collect from the זיבורית. So there we don't say that she could say: I'm only going to collect from the זיבורית if you give the זיבורית back, now I want the עידית, because her עצמות'דיקע דין is to collect from the זיבורית. The only one that could say that is the בעל חוב. Since the בעל חוב has to collect from בינונית, and he wants to give him זיבורית, so then the בעל חוב could say: I want to collect like my דין. If you don't want to give me and you're threatening me to take זיבורית, because if not you're going to give that שטר of זיבורית back, go ahead, if you'll give it back I'll have no choice. As long as you don't give it back, I want to take from the בינונית. This is the way רש"י and תוספות learn. But the רא"ש

learns different. The רא"ש learns that when the גמרא asked the קושיא: Why can't he say the same thing to the נזקין? The גמרא טאקע meant that why can't he say to the נזקין to collect from the זיבורית? And the גמרא really meant that the same קושיא applies to בעל חוב also. Why does he have to give the בעל חוב the בינונית? Why can't he tell the בעל חוב to take from זיבורית? And if the בעל חוב will answer him, or if the נזקין will answer him: לכי תהדר, You're threatening us to take from the זיבורית because if not you'll give it back, go ahead and give it back! But as long as you don't give back, we want to collect from the way we're supposed to. So the רא״ש says they can't answer that. No one could answer לכי תהדר, because since the דין is that he is able to give this back, and then they would have to collect from זיבורית, so it's as if it's done already. And therefore, he could force them now to collect from זיבורית. And that is the reason why the כתובה can't say that either. When he tells the כתובה to collect from the זיבורית because if not he'll give the שטר of the זיבורית back, she can't answer him לכי תהדר. Okay, go ahead and give it back, but as long as you didn't give back, I want to collect from the עידית because that was last, because you cannot answer לכי תהדר. It is not like תוספות says that the reason the כתובה can't say it because her דין is that she collects from זיבורית, but the reason is because we could never say לכי תהדר. We could never say okay, go ahead and give it back, but as long as you don't, I am not collecting from the זיבורית, because since it could be done, it is as if it's done. And this is what the גמרא meant to ask, that if we're using the logic that he tells them, I want you to collect from the זיבורית because otherwise I'm going to give it back, and the גמרא asks, if so, why doesn't the ניזקין also have to collect not from the עידית? The גמרא טאקע meant, why doesn't the ניזקין collect from the זיבורית? And the same applies to the בעל חוב, why can't he force all three to collect from the זיבורית based on this סברא that if they will not take from the זיבורית, then he will give the זיבורית back and they will automatically have to collect from the זיבורית anyway? But whichever פשט we're going to learn, whether it's תוספות's פשט or the רא״ש's פשט, the גמרא's קשיא here is that if we're using the סברא of אי שתקת, why is the דין that the בעל חוב collects from the בינונית, and the ניזקין collects from the עידית? So therefore we must say that here we're talking in a case where he cannot tell them אי שתקת. He cannot threaten them that he will give back the שטר of the זיבורית. How is that possible? So the גמרא says, אלא הכא במאי עסקינן, we're talking here in a case ביתמי, that the one that owed the money to begin with died. And now who is left? Only the יתומים, the יורשים, those that inherited from him. So

when he threatens that he will give back the שטר of זיבורית to its owner, the owner is not around anymore. So whom will he be able to give it back? To the יתום, to the יורש, the one that inherited from the original person. Now if he'll do that, he won't gain anything, because דלאו בני פירעון נינהו, the יתומים are not obligated to pay the חוב, the responsibilities of the father. ושיעבודא דיליה עליה דידיה רמיא. The שיעבוד is on him now. The שיעבוד to pay the חוב is on the לוקח, on the one that bought the field now, because the דין is that only if the יתומים inherit property of the father, that's when they are obligated to pay the חוב that the father owed. But if they only inherit מטלטלין, other kinds of objects, movable objects, then they are not מחוייב to pay the חוב. Now in this case, since when they inherited, the field was already sold, if he will give back the field to them, it's as if they have bought a new field. So then they would not be obligated to pay for the חוב of their father with this new field. So who does have the שיעבוד of paying for that חוב? The לוקח. So the לוקח cannot threaten them and say: I will give back the זיבורית to original owner, because he'll give it back to the יתומים, and then they won't have to collect from the זיבורית anyway, because this קרקע will not be משועבד to them. Because it will be as if the יתומים bought a new קרקע, and a קרקע that is bought by the יתומים is not משועבד to the חוב of the father. So therefore, he cannot threaten them and say that I will give the זיבורית back and you'll automatically have to take from the זיבורית. הלכך, therefore, ליכא למימר הכא, he cannot say that way. Now the question is, since he cannot say that way, and we said before that here it's in a case where he bought the עידית at the end, so the question is back: why can't they all go and collect from the עידית? Since he can't threaten them and tell them he will give back the זיבורית because we're talking in a case of יתומים, so why can't they say, since when you bought the other fields, the עידית was still left as בני חורין in the hands of the owner, so all the שיעבודים transferred to the עידית, so we all want to collect from the עידית? So why is the דין that the ניזקין collects from the עידית, and the בעל חוב from the בינונית, and the כתובה from the זיבורית? Now the גמרא answers, אלא, the reason is, משום דאמר להו, because he's saying to them: טעמא מאי אמור רבנן? What is the reason that רבנן said, אין נפרעין מנכסים משועבדים במקום שיש בני חורין, that you're not allowed to collect from fields that were sold as long as there are fields which are free, which are still in the possession of the owner, the reason the חכמים said that was משום תקנתא דידי, was for the תקנה of me, it was for the sake of the buyer. So that a person who bought a field, when he left still over some fields in the hand of the seller, should not lose his fields. So the

חכמים made a תקנה for the benefit of the לוקח, of the buyer. So the buyer in this case could say: אנא בהא תקנתא לא ניחא לי, I don't want this תקנה. כי דרבא, because like רבא said, דאמר רבא, רבא said, כל האומר אי אפשי בתקנת חכמים, anybody who says that I don't want the תקנה of the חכמים, if the חכמים made a תקנה for the benefit of a certain person, so that person says, "I don't want the תקנת חכמים כגון זו, like this one," and the גמרא will explain which one רבא referred to, but then the דין is שומעין לו, we listen to him. So therefore here too, he says that באמת the שיעבוד is of the ניזקין on the עידית, of the בעל חוב on the בינונית, and of the כתובה on the זיבורית. The only reason you claim that you all want עידית is because it was left over as בני חורין, and there is a תקנת חכמים that that שיעבוד is transferred to the בני חורין. But the whole reason for the תקנה was for my benefit. I don't want the תקנה, so therefore, he doesn't have the תקנה. And what? So it remains as if it would be without the תקנה, and without the תקנה, even if you sell the fields, and there are leftover בני חורין, you still could go to the field that was משועבד to you. And therefore here too, he could tell them, "I don't want the special תקנה, and therefore the ניזקין will take from the עידית, and the בעל חוב from the בינונית, and the כתובה from the זיבורית." But then the גמרא asks, מאי כגון זו? What did רבא mean when he said if a person says, "I don't want the תקנת חכמים like this one," he could do it? Now, which one was he referring to? כי

דרב הונא, like רב הונא. דאמר רב הונא, רב הונא said, יכולה אשה שתאמר לבעלה, a woman could say to her husband, איני ניזונית ואיני עושה, "I don't want to get support from you. I don't want to be fed from you, and I don't want to work for you." The חכמים made a תקנה that when a woman works, all the money she makes has to go to her husband. But this תקנה was for the benefit of the woman, because otherwise, the דין would be that the husband doesn't have to support her, and the woman works herself, and whatever she makes, that she uses for her support. But the חכמים were afraid that maybe she will not make enough, and she won't be able to support herself. So therefore, the חכמים made a תקנה that whatever she works goes to her husband, but because of that, her husband has to support her as much as she needs. So it comes out that this whole תקנה that her money that she works goes to her husband, and the husband has to support her, was for her benefit just in case she will not have enough money from her own working. But if a woman says, "I don't want this תקנה, I'd rather work and make my own money and keep the money, and you don't support me," so the חכמים said then she's allowed to do it. Because since the תקנה was for her benefit, she's able to say that אי אפשי בתקנת חכמים, "I don't want this תקנה," and the דין is that שומעין לו, that we listen to her. So, too, here, since the תקנה that you cannot collect from נכסים משועבדים when there are בני חורין was for the benefit of the buyer, if the buyer feels that he doesn't want the תקנה, we listen to him, and this תקנה doesn't apply. And therefore, here the דין would remain that even though he bought עידית at the end, they don't all collect from the עידית, but each one collects the way the דין is. Then the גמרא continues, פשיטא, this is a sure thing that מכר לוקח, this לוקח, the one that we are talking about, the לוקח who bought all three fields, and he bought the עידית at the end, if he sold the בינונית וזיבורית, ושייר עידית לפניו, and he left the עידית for himself, לייתו כולם וליגבו מעידית, then they all could come and collect from the עידית.

Even though if he wouldn't have sold them, if he would have kept all three, then the דין was, as we said before, that only the ניזקין takes from the עידית, but the בעל חוב takes from the בינונית, and the כתובה takes from the זיבורית. But if he sold, this לוקח ראשון, the first לוקח, sold the fields to a second person, he sold the בינונית and the זיבורית, and he left עידית for himself, then they all could come and collect from the עידית, דהא אחרונה היא, because that was the last one he bought. And the whole reason we said before why they don't all collect from the עידית right away is because he's able to say, "I don't want the תקנת חכמים." But here, ובינונית וזיבורית ליתנהו גביה, the בינונית and the זיבורית he doesn't have, דמצי למימר להו that he should be able to tell them, גבו מבינונית וזיבורית, "You should collect from the בינונית and זיבורית, because דלא ניחא לי בתקנתא דרבנן, because I don't want the תקנה of the רבנן." When could he say that? If he has all three, then he could say, "I don't want the תקנה of the רבנן, and therefore each one could collect like the דין is." But here, he can't say that because he doesn't own the בינונית and the זיבורית anymore. So therefore, they all come and collect from the עידית. But that's only if he sold the בינונית and the זיבורית, and he left עידית for himself. אבל מכר עידית, but what would be the דין if he sold עידית, ושייר בינונית וזיבורית, and he left for himself the בינונית and the זיבורית, מאי? What is the דין? Do they all come to the second buyer and collect from the עידית? Because באמת they should all collect from the עידית, because the עידית was bought the last. The only reason we said before that they don't all collect from the עידית is because the buyer says, "I don't want the תקנת חכמים," and therefore, each one collects as his דין. But in this case, the first buyer says, "I do want the תקנת חכמים." And therefore, the שיעבוד all of all of them goes on the עידית, and he sends them all to the second buyer and says, "Collect from the עידית." Or don't we say that? So סבר אביי למימר, and אביי thought to say, אתו כולהו גבו מעידית, that they all collect from the עידית for this reason: Since באמת they have to collect from the עידית, and the first buyer says in this case, "I want the תקנת חכמים," because he sold the עידית, so they all go to collect from the עידית, because that was the one that was sold the last. אמר ליה רבא, so רבא said to him, מאי מכר ראשון לשני, you know what the first one sold to the second? When a person sells something to someone else, so he sells to him כל זכות שתבא לידו, any זכות, any benefit that the first person would have had, he sold that benefit to the second person. So here too וכיון, since דאי לא אתו גבי לוקח ראשון, if they would come to the first buyer, מצי אגבי להו מבינונית ומזיבורית, he would be able to give the בעל חוב from the בינונית, and the כתובה from the זיבורית, ואף על פי, even though דכי זבן בינונית וזיבורית, when he bought the בינונית and the זיבורית, אכתי עידית בני חורין הואי, the עידית was still free, the עידית was left as the last, it was still in the possession of the owner. And the דין is ואין נפרעין מנכסים משועבדים כל זמן שיש בני חורין, and we do not collect from sold property as long as you have free property. So automatically the דין should have been that they should all collect from the עידית, because that was free while the other ones were sold. Nevertheless, the first לוקח, the first buyer, would not have to give them all the עידית, because מצי אמר ליה, because he could say to them, לא ניחא לי בהאי תקנתא, that "I don't want this תקנה of the חכמים, that the שיעבוד transfers to the בני חורין." So since this was the זכות that the first buyer had to say, לוקח שני נמי, the second buyer also מצי אמר להו, he could say to them, גבו מבינונית ומזיבורית, go collect from the בינונית and the זיבורית. Because דכי זבין לוקח שני, when the second buyer bought, אדעתא דכל זכותא דהוה ליה לראשון וקא זבין, he bought on condition that all the זכותים, all the benefits the first one will have, he should also have. And therefore, since the first one had the benefit of not having to give them all from עידית, but giving the בעל חוב from the בינונית and the כתובה from the זיבורית, so the second לוקח could do the same. Then the גמרא continues,

אמר רבא, רבא said, ראובן שמכר כל שדותיו לשמעון, if ראובן sold all his fields to שמעון, והלך שמעון, and שמעון went, ומכר שדה אחת ללוי, and he sold one field to לוי. And as the גמרא will explain, it means that he sold the בינונית to לוי. So he bought all the fields of ראובן, which included בינונית and זיבורית, but the בינונית he sold to לוי. ובא בעל חוב דראובן, and now the בעל חוב of ראובן, the lender of ראובן comes and he wants to collect his loan. Now ראובן doesn't have any fields anymore. So now he has to go to collect his חוב from the sold property that was sold. So the דין is רצה מזה גובה רצה מזה גובה, if he wants he could collect from שמעון, if he wants he could collect from לוי. He could collect from שמעון if he wants, because שמעון was the first buyer. So he says to him, "You bought all the fields from ראובן, so now the שיעבוד fell upon you." So he could collect from שמעון if he wants. But if he wants, he could also collect from לוי. Since לוי bought the בינונית, so then he could tell לוי, "The שיעבוד that was for me was sold to you, and therefore I could collect from you because you bought the בינונית." ולא אמרן, and this was only said, אלא דזבן בינונית, only if לוי bought the בינונית. אבל זבן עידית וזיבורית, but if לוי bought עידית and זיבורית, but didn't buy the בינונית, לא, he cannot come to לוי to collect his חוב. דאמר ליה, because לוי could tell him, להכי דייקי וזבני עידית וזיבורית, this is the reason why I was מדייק, I was careful only to buy עידית and זיבורית, and not בינונית, ארעא דלא חזיא לך, it's a I bought a field which is not ready for you, not fit for you to collect, because I know a בעל חוב collects from בינונית, so I specially didn't buy the בינונית. But if לוי would have bought בינונית, then he could come and collect from לוי as we said before. ואפילו זבן בינונית נמי לא אמרן, and even when we said that if he bought בינונית he could collect from לוי, it was only אלא דלא שייר בינונית דכוותה, and he didn't leave over any בינונית by שמעון, that when לוי bought בינונית from שמעון, he bought all the בינונית that שמעון bought from ראובן. דלא מצי אמר ליה, so then he cannot tell him, הנחתי לך מקום לגבי שמעון, that "I left over a place for you to collect from שמעון." אבל שייר בינונית דכוותה גבי שמעון, but if when לוי bought בינונית from שמעון he left over some בינונית by שמעון, he didn't buy all the בינונית, לא גבי מיניה, so then the בעל חוב cannot collect from לוי, even though that לוי bought some בינונית. דמצי אמר ליה, because לוי could say to the בעל חוב, הנחתי לך מקום לגבות הימנו, "I left over a place for you from which to collect, because when I bought בינונית, I knew there was some בינונית left, and therefore, go to שמעון, who is the first buyer, and collect from the בינונית that שמעון has. But

תוספות says that when the גמרא says that לוי is able to say to the בעל חוב that go to שמעון to collect from his בינונית that I left, and I didn't buy it from him, because I left you over some place from where to collect, this expression is usually used when a לקוח buys property from the original owner who owes the money, so then he could say to the בעל חוב, I left over some property at the possession of the owner from where you should collect. But here, he is saying it לגבי the first לקוח. So the expression that he is using, the way the גמרא says, is not an exact expression because he cannot say to the בעל חוב, I left over other property from where you to collect, because where he left them over was also not by the original owner, was also by a לקוח, by the first לקוח. But really what the גמרא means is that the second לקוח is able to tell the בעל חוב that since I bought property from the first לקוח, I bought it with all the benefits that come along with it. And since the first לקוח had a benefit to give you from whichever בינונית he wanted, in other words, he could push you and say, take from those בינונית, not from these בינונית, so I have that benefit, too. And I could say, don't take from the בינונית that I bought, take from the other בינונית. And since the דין is, as we said before, that the לקוח buys all the benefits, so he has this benefit, too, and he could push him over to the בינונית that remained in the possession of the first לקוח, and therefore, the בעל חוב cannot collect from the second לקוח.