Today's daf is sponsored by Medinah Korn in memory of Reuven Cohn, HaRav Reuven Zvi ben HaRav Moshe Yeshaya HaCohen uDevorah Breina, on his fifth Yahrzeit. Reuven was a dear family friend and master teacher. We miss his warmth, humor and zest for engaging with people. Yehi Zichro Baruch. Two rulings of Rami bar Chama are brought in which someone sells a field with a lien on it. In one case, the seller bought back the land and then it was taken by one of his creditors. Rami bar Hama allows him to demand the money back from the one he bought it back from - why? Rava disagrees with his ruling. In the second case, the buyer didn't have the money and borrowed the money (as a loan) from the seller. The seller then died. When a creditor of the seller came to claim the land back, the buyer paid for it in exchange for his loan. Rami bar Hama ruled that he has no right to do that. Why? Rava adds his advice for the buyer to protect himself in this situation. Raba discusses what happens when one sells all of one's fields to one person and then the buyer sells one field to another. Can a creditor collect from the second buyer or only from the first? On what does it depend? Abaye ruled that if one sold a field to another with a guarantee, and the creditor of the debtor came straight to the buyer instead of first going to the debtor to claim the land, the debtor can intervene and pay the creditor back without involving the buyer and the creditor cannot try to claim that the debtor is an uninvolved party. Others say that it would be the same ruling even if it was sold without a guarantee as the buyer will still have a complaint against the seller and therefore, that is enough reason to claim that he is an involved party. Another ruling brought by Abaye: if one bought a field and then found out that there were those who claimed the field was theirs originally and not the seller's, at what point can the buyer back out of the deal? On what does it depend? Two different versions of Abaye's ruling are brought.