Siman 118

A creditor who removed himself from his lien upon a purchaser cannot seize from him. And how is the removal performed? That they perform a kinyan from his hand that he removed himself from the lien and the right that he has in this field. But if he said or wrote, "I have no legal claim or words with you regarding this field," this is nothing; and even if they performed a kinyan from his hand regarding "legal claim and words," it is nothing, for he removed himself from "legal claim and words" and not from the lien [Sma siman 37, subsection 7, and see the beginning of chapter 9 of Ketubot and in the Hagahot Ashri there]. And a debtor who sold his properties to two people one after the other, and the creditor wrote to the second purchaser, "I have no legal claim or words with you," and they performed a kinyan from his hand regarding the removal of the lien, he cannot seize from the first purchaser, for he says to him: "I left you a place to collect from your debtor from the properties that the second one bought after me, and you, who removed yourself from them, have caused your own loss." And the same law applies to a woman's ketubah when the husband sold two fields to two people one after the other: if she wrote to the second purchaser, she has lost her ketubah. And there are those who disagree regarding a ketubah, and it was explained in Even HaEzer siman 100. And likewise, if he liened a field to the creditor as an explicit apothiki, which was explained in the previous siman, and sold it, and afterwards sold another field, and the creditor wrote to the first that he removes his lien from it, he cannot seize from the second purchaser either, for he will say to him: "Since you did not have permission to seize from another field, I did not take on your lien" [Taz]. But in an ordinary apothiki, and certainly without an apothiki at all, if he wrote to the first, he may seize from the second, for even without his writing, he seizes from the later one. And that which we said, that when he wrote to the second he cannot collect from the first, even if it is now in the hand of another to whom the first sold it, we do not consider him as a later purchaser than the second, for every right that the first has belongs also to the one who bought it from him, and they do not seize from him just as it was not possible to seize it from the one who sold it to him.

That which we said, that he cannot seize from the first, this is specifically when his debt is only equivalent to one field; but when his debt amounts to the value of both fields, he collects from the first even though he wrote a waiver to the second, for behold, even if he were to seize from the second, he would seize from the first as well. Nevertheless, they are all forced by the law to make a compromise between them, for if not so, each one’s collection would not stand. For the first purchaser would remove it from the second according to the law of a purchaser who seizes from purchasers who bought after him from the debtor; and when the first seizes it, the creditor will seize it from him, since it is also against his debt and to him he did not write a waiver; and when the creditor seizes it, the second will remove it from his hand, for he wrote him a waiver. And so they would constantly revolve with one another. Therefore, they are forced to make a compromise between them. And so too a woman regarding her ketubah in such a case. And even though every person whose property is seized can say to the one seizing it: "What gain is there for you in your seizure? Behold, so-and-so will take it from your hand," and also it is within the power of each one to say: "Behold, it is in my power to act so that you will not take it from me"—for example, the first who wants to remove it from the second, the second can say to him: "Behold, it is in my power to waive the waiver to the creditor and he will seize it"—and so too the creditor, when he wants to seize it from the first, [the first] can say to him: "If you are silent, you are silent, and if not, I will return it to the second and you will not collect from him," and so the creditor will say to the second. And a reasoning such as this we say regarding medium-quality land and inferior-quality land, as will be explained in siman 119, section 7. However, this is only regarding the difference between medium-quality and inferior-quality land that we say this, whereas in this case where it is an entire loss, we do not say this reasoning that he can say to him "when you will do so," but rather "now I will collect it from you." [As appears to me; and that which the Tur wrote at the end of this siman regarding the Rambam, the intention is because of "what the first sold etc." and not like the Be'er HaGolah subsection 3, and the difficulty of the Shach subsection 2 is well-settled, and also the precision of the Taz is well-settled; and delve into it].

And such is the law if the debt is a maneh and he sold to two purchasers, to each one for a maneh, and the creditor wrote to the second purchaser that he removes himself from him, and it was found that the field purchased by the first was not the borrower's at all, as it was stolen in his possession, and the victim of the theft came and seized it from the purchaser—for the victim of theft does not need to return to the thief first as a creditor does to a borrower, but rather wherever he finds his field he takes it from him, and the purchaser shall claim from the thief who sold it, as will be explained in siman 371—then the first seizes from the second, and the creditor seizes from the first, and the second removes it from the creditor; and therefore they are forced beforehand to make a compromise between them, as I have written.

And similarly, if that field which the first bought was an apothiki for another earlier creditor, and the second creditor wrote to the second buyer that he removes himself from it, the owner of the apothiki comes and seizes from the first, and the first seizes from the second, and the other creditor seizes from the first, and the second buyer takes it from the creditor. And since this is so, they are compelled by law to make a compromise between them. And it is not specifically that the owner of the apothiki is earlier than the other creditor, for even if the other is earlier, he cannot collect from the apothiki since at the time of the making of the apothiki the debtor had another field, and he caused his own loss by removing himself from it [Sma]. And there are those who disagree on this and hold that regarding a creditor we do not say this reasoning, only regarding a buyer; and if the other was the earlier one, he would be able to collect from the first, and the first from the second, and the owner of the apothiki would collect nothing [Urim VeTumim].