Siman 113

A creditor does not collect from purchasers except from land that the debtor sold; however, from movable property that he sold or gave, he does not collect, even if they were in his possession at the time of the loan. And even though in this time movable property is like land regarding heirs, as was written in siman 107, nevertheless, regarding purchasers it is not like land, for the lender does not rely upon them so much since he can smuggle them away [Tur]. And even if he made them an apoteiki and relied upon them, he does not collect from them, as will be explained in siman 117, for if not so, you would have no person who would buy movable property from his fellow, for he would fear that the seller's creditor would collect them, as they have no "voice" and they would not know to be careful of this [Sma]. And even if the lender warned the purchasers not to buy them, he does not collect, for his encumbrance does not take effect upon them, and the sages did not differentiate in their enactment. And likewise, he does not collect from a recipient of a gift, for a gift is like a sale, as has been written several times. But if he gave them as a gift of a shekhiv mera, the lender collects from them, as will be explained in siman 252, because a gift of a shekhiv mera does not take effect until after death, and the encumbrance of the lender is during the lifetime upon the debtor himself; therefore, his status is like an heir. And it has already been explained in siman 60 that if he encumbered to the lender in his deed "movable property along with land" (agav karka), he can collect by the law of the Gemara the movable property from the purchasers like land, and this is superior to an explicit apoteiki, for upon this the owner of the land relied and this has a "voice" [Sma], for with agav karka it is as if he transferred the movable property to him with a complete kinyan [see the Rif, chapter 3 of Bava Batra]. And although we wrote that the sages did not differentiate in their enactment, nevertheless, with agav karka they are like actual land. And because there is no complete kinyan in this and it somewhat resembles an asmakhta, the sages required that he write in the deed "not as an asmakhta and not as a mere form of a deed" to make known that his mind relies upon them as upon the land and it was written for a complete encumbrance [Tur], or that he write that he encumbers them to him "from now" (me'akhshav), for with "from now" there is no law of asmakhta, as was written in siman 207. And even according to the one who holds that with "from now" alone, if there is no kinyan in a distinguished beit din, it is an asmakhta, nevertheless, since this is not a complete asmakhta, "from now" alone is sufficient [Urim VeTumim]. But a kinyan is not effective in this [Netivot HaMishpat]. And if he desires to encumber also the movable property that he will acquire afterwards, he must write "that I will acquire" (de'ikne), and then even if he sold the lands before he acquired the movable property, the encumbrance takes effect upon them from the time of the writing of the deed, since he had land at the time of the loan [Sma]. But with the writing of "from now," it is only effective for movable property that he had at the time of the loan, for how is "from now" relevant to movable property that he did not have then [Urim VeTumim]. And there are those who disagree on this [Netivot HaMishpat], for an encumbrance is lighter than a sale, as will be explained in section 3, and so it appears from the wording of our teacher the Tur and the Shulchan Arukh; see there.

And it has already been explained in siman 60 that in this time one does not collect movable property from purchasers even with the writing of agav karka due to the market enactment, and the same applies to recipients of a gift, for they equated it to a sale. Nevertheless, there is a benefit in writing agav karka regarding collecting from the debtor himself, for the law of precedence applies to them for the earlier one just as with land. And so too if he wrote to him "that which I will acquire" and afterwards borrowed from another and also wrote to him "that which I will acquire," and in both cases he subordinated to them movable property agav karka, and the second one preceded and seized movable property that he had acquired before he borrowed from him, the first one comes and removes it from him even in this time, for there is no market enactment in this since both of them are creditors and not purchasers. And all the more so regarding movable property that he possessed at the time of the loan, that seizure by the later one is not effective even where he did not write "that which I will acquire." And it has already been explained there that there are those who disagree on this, for it is no worse than a gift; see there.

When one subjects movables to a lien incidental to land, it is not necessary for the movables to be piled within the land, for even in a sale it is not necessary, as will be explained in siman 202. And even mobile movables, such as animals and slaves, are subjected to the lien, even though in a sale incidental to land they are not acquired unless they are within the land, as is written there; nevertheless, regarding a lien it is not necessary, for whenever one subjects them to a lien incidental to land, it generates a rumor and the lien takes effect upon them [Sma], as in several matters a lien is more lenient than a sale, such as regarding a matter that has not yet come into the world, which one cannot sell but can subject to a lien through his power. Therefore, it was explained in section 1 that he can subject to a lien even movables that he will acquire, for this is like a matter that has not yet come into the world, and it is obvious that they are not piled there. And even land of any size can subject many movables to a lien, and in this regard it is also so in a sale, as is written there. And even if the borrower has no land, and the lender granted him title within his field through one of the modes of acquisition by which lands are acquired, or lent him or rented him land of any size, he may transfer to him any movables he desires incidental to it. And he does not need to specify the place that he acquired incidental to which are the movables, as is written there. And even if the lender also has no land, and he wrote, "I have transferred to him four cubits in my courtyard and incidental to them I have transferred to him the movables," it is perfectly fine; even though we do not know of any land belonging to him, the admission of a litigant is like a hundred witnesses when it is to his own detriment. And there this law will be explained, that even in a sale it is effective, and all the more so regarding a lien. And he must write to him explicitly that he is subjecting movables to a lien incidental to land.