Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 1, 2016 | 讗壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bava Metzia 66

If someone commits during or following a transaction to something exaggerated, is it considered valid or not? 聽Do we say that he never intended to commit to that and was only saying it to inspire confidence. 聽Various cases are brought regarding these types of statements.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

驻讟讜诪讬 诪讬诇讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讜拽讞 讘注讬 诇讗转谞讜讬讬 讜讛讻讗 诪讜讻专 拽讗 诪转谞讬 讗诪专转 驻讟讜诪讬 诪讬诇讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

These are merely words of enticement [pittumei millei] designed to encourage the buyer, but they are not part of a legal contract and therefore do not obligate the seller. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What is the reason for this? Since the buyer is the one who needs to stipulate this condition but he neglected to do so, and here it was the seller who stipulated the condition, is that why you said that these are merely words of enticement?

讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讚拽转谞讬 诇讻砖讬讛讬讜 诇讱 诪注讜转 讗讞讝讬专 诇讱 诪讜转专 讚诪讜讻专 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬 诇讗转谞讜讬讬 诪讜讻专 诇讗 讗转谞讬 讜诇讜拽讞 拽讗 诪转谞讬

But according to this reasoning, consider the baraita, as it teaches that if the buyer says: When you have money I will give the property back to you, this is permitted. Now in this case it is the seller who needs to stipulate this condition, but the seller did not stipulate it and it was the buyer who stipulated it. Accordingly, they should likewise be regarded as words of enticement.

讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 住讬驻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讚注转讬讛 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讚注转讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讚注转讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 驻讟讜诪讬 诪讬诇讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

And we said concerning the baraita: What is different in the first clause and what is different in the latter clause? And Rava says that the latter clause is referring to a situation where the buyer said he would return the field of his own accord. Rav Ashi infers: The reason the condition is invalid is that the buyer said to him that he would return the field of his own accord. But if he did not say to him that he would return the field of his own accord, we would not say that these are merely words of enticement, even though the statement was made by the buyer about himself, and not as a condition by the seller.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞注砖讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讚注转讬讛 讗转诪专

Ameimar said to him: In fact, any condition stated by the wrong person is invalid, but it was stated in the baraita that whenever the buyer states such a condition, he is considered like one who said that he would return the field of his own accord.

讛讛讜讗 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讚讻转讘 诇讛 讙讬讟讗 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讗谞讙讬讚 讜讗转谞讞 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 拽讗 诪转谞讞转 讗讬 拽讬讬诪转 讚讬讚讱 讗谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 驻讟讜诪讬 诪讬诇讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain person on his deathbed who wrote a bill of divorce for his wife in order to exempt her from the obligation of 岣litza in the event of his death, and he moaned and sighed at the time, in distress over having to divorce her. She said to him: Why do you sigh? If you recover from this illness, I am yours, as I will marry you again. The Gemara discusses the legal validity of this promise. Rav Zevid said: These are merely words of enticement designed to encourage him to grant the divorce, but they do not actually obligate the wife to remarry him if he lives.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 驻讟讜诪讬 诪讬诇讬 诪讗讬 讘讚讬讚讛 拽讬讬诪讗 诇诪讬砖讚讬 转谞讗讛 讘讙讬讟讗 讘讚讬讚讬讛 拽讬讬诪讗 诇诪砖讚讬 转谞讗讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗 讙讜驻讬讛 讗讚注转讗 讚讬讚讛 拽讗 讙诪讬专 讜讬讛讬讘 讙讬讟讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: And even if they were not merely words of enticement, but she had made an actual condition upheld by an oath or an act of acquisition, what of it? Is it her prerogative to stipulate a condition concerning her bill of divorce? It is not in her power to do so, as it is his right to establish such a condition, and since he failed to do so explicitly, any condition she accepts upon herself is of no consequence. The Gemara answers: This statement of Rav Zevid is necessary, lest you say that he himself relied upon her condition when he decided to give her the bill of divorce, and therefore it is as though he stipulated the condition. Rav Zevid therefore teaches us that this is not the case.

讛诇讜讛讜 注诇 砖讚讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘砖注转 诪转谉 诪注讜转 拽谞讛 讛讻诇 诇讗讞专 诪转谉 诪注讜转 诇讗 拽谞讛 讗诇讗 讻谞讙讚 诪注讜转讬讜 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 诪转谉 诪注讜转 拽谞讛 讛讻诇

搂 The mishna teaches: If one lent money to another on the basis of his field serving as a guarantee, and he said to borrower: If you do not give me the money from now until three years have passed, your field is mine, then if his money is not returned within three years, the field is his. Rav Huna says: If the lender stated the condition at the time of the giving of the money, he has acquired it all, meaning that if the borrower fails to pay the debt, the entire field is transferred to the lender. But if the lender stated his condition at some point after the giving of the money, he has acquired only a portion of the field corresponding to the money that he lent. And Rav Na岣an says: Even if the lender stated his condition after the giving of the money, he has acquired it all.

注讘讚 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注讜讘讚讗 讙讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讻砖诪注转讬讛 拽专注讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇砖讟专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 拽专注 诇砖讟专讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚专讚拽讗 拽专注讬讛 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 拽专注讬讛 讞讝讗 讘讬讛 讟注诪讗 讜拽专注讬讛

The Gemara relates: Rav Na岣an performed an action in the court of the Exilarch in accordance with his statement that even if the lender states his condition after the loan is granted, the lender acquires the entire field if the loan isn鈥檛 repaid within the specified time period. The case then came before Rav Yehuda, who tore up the lender鈥檚 deed of ownership of the field, claiming it was invalid. The Exilarch said to Rav Na岣an: Rav Yehuda tore up your document, i.e., he overruled your decision. Rav Na岣an said to him: Did a child tear it up? A great man tore it up; he must have seen in it some reason to invalidate it, and that is why he tore it up.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚专讚拽讗 拽专注讬讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讙讘讬 讚讬讚讬 讘讚讬谞讗 讚专讚拽讬 谞讬谞讛讜

There are those who say a different version of this exchange, according to which Rav Na岣an said to him: A child tore it up, i.e., there is no need to take his opinion into consideration, as everyone is like a child relative to me with regard to monetary laws. Rav Na岣an was the greatest expert of his generation with regard to monetary matters, and therefore he could discount the opinions of others.

讛讚专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注转 诪转谉 诪注讜转 诇讗 拽谞讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诐 讗讬 讗转讛 谞讜转谉 诇讬 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讛专讬 讛讬讗 砖诇讬 讛专讬 讛讬讗 砖诇讜

After examining the matter again, Rav Na岣an retracted his words and then said the opposite of his initial ruling: Even if the lender stated his condition at the time of the giving of the money, he has not acquired anything. Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from the mishna, which teaches: If one lent money to another on the basis of the borrower鈥檚 field serving as a guarantee, and said to him: If you do not give me the money now and instead delay your payment from now until three years have passed, the field is mine, then after three years, the field is his. Evidently, a condition of this kind is valid.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗住诪讻转讗 拽谞讬讗 讜诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 讗住诪讻转讗 诇讗 拽谞讬讗

Rav Na岣an said to him: I used to say that a transaction with inconclusive consent [asmakhta] effects acquisition, meaning that any obligation one accepts to serve as a penalty over and above the value of what he actually owes is nevertheless binding. But Minyumi said that an asmakhta does not effect acquisition, and the transaction under discussion is an asmakhta. Now that he convinced me that his opinion is correct, I have retracted my previous opinion.

讜诇诪谞讬讜诪讬 拽砖讬讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗住诪讻转讗 拽谞讬讗

The Gemara asks: But if so, the mishna is difficult according to Minyumi. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that an asmakhta effects acquisition, but his is a minority opinion.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 诪注讻砖讬讜

If you wish, say instead that the mishna is referring to a case where the borrower said to the lender: If I do not repay you within three years, you will acquire the field from now, and they performed a formal act of acquisition. Since an act of acquisition was performed at the time, this is a proper sale and not an asmakhta.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪专 讬谞讜拽讗 讜诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘谞讬 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讗讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗讬 讗住诪讻转讗 讘讝诪谞讬讛 拽谞讬讗 讘诇讗 讝诪谞讬讛 诇讗 拽谞讬讗

Mar Yanuka and Mar Kashisha, the younger and elder sons of Rav 岣sda, said to Rav Ashi: This is what the Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say in the name of Rav Na岣an: With regard to this asmakhta described in the mishna, it effects acquisition at its proper time, but it does not effect acquisition not at its proper time.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讘讝诪谞讬讛 拽谞讬 讘诇讗 讝诪谞讬讛 诇讗 拽谞讬

Rav Ashi understood them to be saying that the lender acquires the field only when the loan is due, and he said to them: This statement seems to teach no novel ruling, as the same is true of every matter: It effects acquisition at its proper time, but it does not effect acquisition not at its proper time.

讚诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬转讜 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讘讙讜 讝诪谞讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 拽谞讬 讘转专 讝诪谞讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讞诪转 讻讬住讜驻讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛

Rav Ashi suggests: Perhaps you meant to say this: If the borrower encountered the lender within its time, i.e., before the payment of the loan was due, and told him to acquire the field, the lender acquires the field, as it is assumed that the borrower was sincere. But if the borrower encountered the lender after its time, i.e., when the payment of the loan was due, and told the lender to acquire the field, he does not acquire it. What is the reason for this? The borrower says this to the lender out of shame with regard to his failure to pay the debt, but he did not really intend for him to acquire the field.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讙讜 讝诪谞讬讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 拽讗 住讘专 讻讬 诪讟讬 讝诪谞讬讛 诇讗 诇讬转讬 诇讬讟专讚谉

The Gemara comments: But this is not so, as the halakha is that the lender does not acquire the field even if the borrower stated this within its time. And as for the fact that the borrower told him to acquire it, he told him this only because he thinks: This will ensure that when the time for payment arrives, he will not come and disturb me. In other words, he is trying to buy time until he can repay the loan, but he was not sincere in his statement that the lender may acquire the field.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 讗住诪讻转讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 拽谞讬讗 讜讝讬诪谞讬谉 诇讗 拽谞讬讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚拽讗 砖转讬 砖讻专讗 拽谞讬 讚拽讗 诪讛驻讱 讗讝讜讝讬 诇讗 拽谞讬

Rav Pappa says: With regard to this asmakhta, sometimes it effects acquisition and sometimes it does not effect acquisition. How so? If the lender encountered the borrower while the borrower was drinking beer, it effects acquisition, as, if the borrower agreed to transfer ownership of his field when he did not appear to be in financial stress, such as when he was enjoying a drink, he assumedly did so with full acceptance of the consequences, and therefore the transaction is valid. By contrast, if the lender encountered the borrower when he was searching for money with which to repay the loan, his agreement does not effect acquisition, as it is clear the borrower made the statement under duress.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讚诇诪讗 诇驻讻讜讞讬 驻讞讚讬讛 拽讗 砖转讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗住诪讻讬讛 讗讝讜讝讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗讬 拽驻讬讚 讘讚诪讬 讜讚讗讬 拽谞讬

Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: In the case where the lender encountered the borrower while he was drinking beer, perhaps he was drinking to neutralize his fear, and he really was under financial pressure. Or, perhaps someone else promised him money, and therefore he remains in a precarious position even though he can repay the debt, which would again mean that his promise is merely an asmakhta. Rather, Ravina said that there is a different distinction: If the borrower is particular about the money, i.e., if he is unwilling to sell his property at less than its market value, the lender has certainly acquired the field, as the borrower is clearly not in such a precarious financial position, and he is therefore assumed to have willingly stated his agreement to give the field to the lender.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讚诇诪讗 住讘专 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 转讬转讝讬诇 讗专注讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬 拽驻讬讚 讘讗专注讗 讜讚讗讬 拽谞讬

Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: Even in that case, perhaps the borrower thinks that he ought to present himself as particular about the price of his property in order that the price of his other lands not be lowered. If people know that he is in need of money they will pressure to him to lower the price, and therefore he acts as though he is particular about the price, but in reality he did not wish to sell the property at all. Rather, Rav Pappa said that there is a different distinction: If he is particular about any other land he owns and does not want to sell it even at its market rate, he is clearly not suffering from financial problems, and in that case the creditor certainly acquires the field.

讜讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讗住诪讻转讗 诇讗 拽谞讬讗 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讛讜讬讗 诇诪讬讙讘讗 诪讬谞讛

And Rav Pappa said: Even though the Sages said that an asmakhta does not effect acquisition, and therefore even if he stipulated that the lender can collect the debt by seizing land, the lender does not acquire that land, nevertheless, the land is considered to be set aside as designated repayment [apoteiki] for the lender to collect repayment from it up to the amount of money owed.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 诇专讘 驻驻讗 诪讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 诇讙讜讘讬讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜讗讬 讗诪专 拽谞讬 诇诪讬讙讘讗 诪讬谞讬讛 拽谞讬 住讜祝 住讜祝 讗住诪讻转讗 讛讬讗 讜讗住诪讻转讗 诇讗 拽谞讬讗

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: Did the borrower say to the lender: Acquire it for the sake of debt collection? Since the borrower did not specify that transferring ownership of the field was in place of the payment of the debt, his statement is considered an asmakhta, and the field is not set aside as designated repayment. Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: And if he had said to him: Acquire it for the sake of debt collection, would the lender then acquire it? Ultimately, it is an asmakhta, and the halakha is that an asmakhta does not effect acquisition.

讗诇讗 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讛讗 诇讱 驻专注讜谉 讗诇讗 诪讝讜

The Gemara poses a question: But in that case, what is the designated repayment spoken of by Rav Pappa? According to Mar Zutra鈥檚 analysis, it makes no difference whether or not he said it was set aside as designated repayment of the loan. The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa is referring to a case, for example, where the borrower said to the lender: Not only will I give you the land if I fail to repay the loan, but even if I do pay you will receive payment only from this land alone, as I will pay off my debt to you by giving you land from this field. In that case the asmakhta is negated, while the promise of repayment from the land remains intact.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讗专注讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 讘讗讞专讬讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讟专驻讜 诇讬讛 诪谞讗讬 诪讙讘讬转 诇讬 诪注讬讚讬 注讬讚讬转 讚讗讬转 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪注讬讚讬 注讬讚讬转 诇讗 诪讙讘讬谞讗 诇讱 讚讘注讬谞谉 诇诪讬拽诐 拽诪讗讬 讗诇讗 诪讙讘讬谞讗 诇讱 诪注讬讚讬转 讗讞专讬诐 讚讗讬转 诇讬 诇住讜祝 讟专驻讜讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗转讗 讘讚拽讗 砖拽讬诇 诇注讬讚讬 注讬讚讬转

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who sold land to another with a property guarantee, meaning that in the event that land is seized by the seller鈥檚 creditors, the seller will reimburse the buyer his purchase money. The buyer said to him: If your creditors seize the land from me, will you allow me to collect that which is owed to me from the most superior quality of the superior-quality land that you have? The seller said to him: I will not allow you to collect from the most superior quality of my superior-quality land, as I want to keep those before me. But I will allow you to collect from other superior-quality land I have. Ultimately, creditors seized the field from the buyer, and in the meantime a flood came and flooded the seller鈥檚 most superior quality of his superior-quality land.

住讘专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪注讬讚讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗

As his remaining superior-quality land was now the best he had, the seller was unwilling to give them to the buyer and sought to repay him with intermediate-quality land, in accordance with the standard halakha concerning reimbursement to a buyer. Rav Pappa thought to say: Since the seller said to the buyer that he could collect from his superior-quality land, and this superior-quality land is intact, the seller must give it to him, in accordance with his promise.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗诪专讬 诇讱 讗谞讗 诪讙讘讬谞讗 诇讱 讚讛讜讛 注讬讚讬转 拽讬讬诪讗 讛砖转讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇讬讛 注讬讚讬转 讘诪拽讜诐 注讬讚讬 注讬讚讬转

Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: But let the seller say to the buyer: When I said to you that I would allow you to collect from my superior-quality land, that was when the most superior quality of my superior-quality land was intact. But now my superior-quality land stands for me in place of the most superior quality of the superior-quality land I had before, and I am not obligated to give you the very best of my property.

专讘 讘专 砖讘讗 讛讜讛 诪住讬拽 讘讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讝讜讝讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗 驻专注谞讗 诇讱 诇讬讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讙讘讬 诪讛讗讬 讞诪专讗 住讘专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗住诪讻转讗 诇讗 拽谞讬讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讗专注讗 讚诇讗讜 诇讝讘讜谞讬 拽讬讬诪讗 讗讘诇 讞诪专讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讝讘讜谞讬 拽讗讬 讻讝讜讝讬 讚诪讬

The Gemara relates: Rav bar Shabba owed money to Rav Kahana. Rav bar Shabba said to him: If I do not repay you by such and such a date, you can collect the debt from this wine. Rav Pappa thought to say: When we said that an asmakhta does not effect acquisition, this matter applies only to land, which does not stand to be sold, i.e., which is not typically bought and sold on the market, and therefore the promise is invalid, as he did not genuinely intend to give it to him. But in the case of wine, since it does stand to be sold, it is considered like money, and therefore he can claim the debt from wine, as he can claim the debt from any other item with monetary worth.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讻诇 讚讗讬 诇讗 拽谞讬

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: This is what we say in the name of Rabba: Any statement including a condition introduced with the word: If, does not effect acquistion. Any agreement that does not involve a definitive commitment but does obligate one in the event of a particular outcome has the status of an asmakhta and does not effect acquisition, as the one setting the condition did not really intend to fulfill the commitment.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讗住诪讻转讗 诇讗 拽谞讬讗 讛讚专 讗专注讗 讜讛讚专讬 驻讬专讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚住讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞讬诇讛 讘讟注讜转 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬诇讛

Rav Na岣an said: Now that the Sages have said that an asmakhta does not effect acquisition, in a case such as that in the mishna, when one promised another land for the repayment of a debt, if the lender in fact took it, the land must be returned and the value of any produce the creditor consumed from this land must also be returned. The Gemara poses a question: Is this to say that Rav Na岣an maintains that mistaken forgiveness of payment is not valid forgiveness, meaning that if one forgoes repayment of a loan of a certain amount of money in error, he can change his mind? In this case, the borrower had thought that the lender had acquired the land, and he therefore allowed him to consume the produce.

讜讛讗讬转诪专 讛诪讜讻专 驻讬专讜转 讚拽诇 诇讞讘讬专讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 注讚 砖诇讗 讘讗讜 诇注讜诇诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 诪砖讘讗讜 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗祝 诪砖讘讗讜 诇注讜诇诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜

But it was stated that amora鈥檌m disputed this very issue: If one sells the fruit of a palm tree to another before the fruit ripens, Rav Huna says: He can retract and cancel the sale until the fruits have come into the world, as the fruit is not yet in existence. But once they have come into the world, even if they are still unripe, he cannot retract, as once the fruits that are being acquired exist, the sale has gone into effect. And Rav Na岣an says: He can retract even once they have come into the world, as one cannot transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world, and the actual transaction was performed before the fruits existed.

讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讜讚讬谞讗 讚讗讬 砖诪讬讟 讜讗讻讬诇 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讛转诐 讝讘讬谞讬 讛讻讗 讛诇讜讗讛

And Rav Na岣an said: I concede that if the buyer seized the fruit and consumed it, we do not take its value from him. The reason is that since the seller initially accepted the transaction, although it involved a legal error, it can be assumed that he decided to waive his rights to the fruit and allowed the other to take it. Consequently, it can be demonstrated that Rav Na岣an holds that mistaken forgiveness is forgiveness. The Gemara rejects this proof: There, the discussion involves a sale, with regard to which it can be said that the seller waived his rights to the fruit. Here, it is referring to a loan, and not requiring the lender to reimburse the borrower for the produce consumed is considered a form of interest.

讗诪专 专讘讗

Rava said:

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 66

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 66

驻讟讜诪讬 诪讬诇讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讜拽讞 讘注讬 诇讗转谞讜讬讬 讜讛讻讗 诪讜讻专 拽讗 诪转谞讬 讗诪专转 驻讟讜诪讬 诪讬诇讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

These are merely words of enticement [pittumei millei] designed to encourage the buyer, but they are not part of a legal contract and therefore do not obligate the seller. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What is the reason for this? Since the buyer is the one who needs to stipulate this condition but he neglected to do so, and here it was the seller who stipulated the condition, is that why you said that these are merely words of enticement?

讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讚拽转谞讬 诇讻砖讬讛讬讜 诇讱 诪注讜转 讗讞讝讬专 诇讱 诪讜转专 讚诪讜讻专 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬 诇讗转谞讜讬讬 诪讜讻专 诇讗 讗转谞讬 讜诇讜拽讞 拽讗 诪转谞讬

But according to this reasoning, consider the baraita, as it teaches that if the buyer says: When you have money I will give the property back to you, this is permitted. Now in this case it is the seller who needs to stipulate this condition, but the seller did not stipulate it and it was the buyer who stipulated it. Accordingly, they should likewise be regarded as words of enticement.

讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 住讬驻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讚注转讬讛 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讚注转讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讚注转讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 驻讟讜诪讬 诪讬诇讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

And we said concerning the baraita: What is different in the first clause and what is different in the latter clause? And Rava says that the latter clause is referring to a situation where the buyer said he would return the field of his own accord. Rav Ashi infers: The reason the condition is invalid is that the buyer said to him that he would return the field of his own accord. But if he did not say to him that he would return the field of his own accord, we would not say that these are merely words of enticement, even though the statement was made by the buyer about himself, and not as a condition by the seller.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞注砖讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讚注转讬讛 讗转诪专

Ameimar said to him: In fact, any condition stated by the wrong person is invalid, but it was stated in the baraita that whenever the buyer states such a condition, he is considered like one who said that he would return the field of his own accord.

讛讛讜讗 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讚讻转讘 诇讛 讙讬讟讗 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讗谞讙讬讚 讜讗转谞讞 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 拽讗 诪转谞讞转 讗讬 拽讬讬诪转 讚讬讚讱 讗谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 驻讟讜诪讬 诪讬诇讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain person on his deathbed who wrote a bill of divorce for his wife in order to exempt her from the obligation of 岣litza in the event of his death, and he moaned and sighed at the time, in distress over having to divorce her. She said to him: Why do you sigh? If you recover from this illness, I am yours, as I will marry you again. The Gemara discusses the legal validity of this promise. Rav Zevid said: These are merely words of enticement designed to encourage him to grant the divorce, but they do not actually obligate the wife to remarry him if he lives.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 驻讟讜诪讬 诪讬诇讬 诪讗讬 讘讚讬讚讛 拽讬讬诪讗 诇诪讬砖讚讬 转谞讗讛 讘讙讬讟讗 讘讚讬讚讬讛 拽讬讬诪讗 诇诪砖讚讬 转谞讗讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗 讙讜驻讬讛 讗讚注转讗 讚讬讚讛 拽讗 讙诪讬专 讜讬讛讬讘 讙讬讟讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: And even if they were not merely words of enticement, but she had made an actual condition upheld by an oath or an act of acquisition, what of it? Is it her prerogative to stipulate a condition concerning her bill of divorce? It is not in her power to do so, as it is his right to establish such a condition, and since he failed to do so explicitly, any condition she accepts upon herself is of no consequence. The Gemara answers: This statement of Rav Zevid is necessary, lest you say that he himself relied upon her condition when he decided to give her the bill of divorce, and therefore it is as though he stipulated the condition. Rav Zevid therefore teaches us that this is not the case.

讛诇讜讛讜 注诇 砖讚讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘砖注转 诪转谉 诪注讜转 拽谞讛 讛讻诇 诇讗讞专 诪转谉 诪注讜转 诇讗 拽谞讛 讗诇讗 讻谞讙讚 诪注讜转讬讜 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 诪转谉 诪注讜转 拽谞讛 讛讻诇

搂 The mishna teaches: If one lent money to another on the basis of his field serving as a guarantee, and he said to borrower: If you do not give me the money from now until three years have passed, your field is mine, then if his money is not returned within three years, the field is his. Rav Huna says: If the lender stated the condition at the time of the giving of the money, he has acquired it all, meaning that if the borrower fails to pay the debt, the entire field is transferred to the lender. But if the lender stated his condition at some point after the giving of the money, he has acquired only a portion of the field corresponding to the money that he lent. And Rav Na岣an says: Even if the lender stated his condition after the giving of the money, he has acquired it all.

注讘讚 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注讜讘讚讗 讙讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讻砖诪注转讬讛 拽专注讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇砖讟专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 拽专注 诇砖讟专讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚专讚拽讗 拽专注讬讛 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 拽专注讬讛 讞讝讗 讘讬讛 讟注诪讗 讜拽专注讬讛

The Gemara relates: Rav Na岣an performed an action in the court of the Exilarch in accordance with his statement that even if the lender states his condition after the loan is granted, the lender acquires the entire field if the loan isn鈥檛 repaid within the specified time period. The case then came before Rav Yehuda, who tore up the lender鈥檚 deed of ownership of the field, claiming it was invalid. The Exilarch said to Rav Na岣an: Rav Yehuda tore up your document, i.e., he overruled your decision. Rav Na岣an said to him: Did a child tear it up? A great man tore it up; he must have seen in it some reason to invalidate it, and that is why he tore it up.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚专讚拽讗 拽专注讬讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讙讘讬 讚讬讚讬 讘讚讬谞讗 讚专讚拽讬 谞讬谞讛讜

There are those who say a different version of this exchange, according to which Rav Na岣an said to him: A child tore it up, i.e., there is no need to take his opinion into consideration, as everyone is like a child relative to me with regard to monetary laws. Rav Na岣an was the greatest expert of his generation with regard to monetary matters, and therefore he could discount the opinions of others.

讛讚专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注转 诪转谉 诪注讜转 诇讗 拽谞讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诐 讗讬 讗转讛 谞讜转谉 诇讬 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讛专讬 讛讬讗 砖诇讬 讛专讬 讛讬讗 砖诇讜

After examining the matter again, Rav Na岣an retracted his words and then said the opposite of his initial ruling: Even if the lender stated his condition at the time of the giving of the money, he has not acquired anything. Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from the mishna, which teaches: If one lent money to another on the basis of the borrower鈥檚 field serving as a guarantee, and said to him: If you do not give me the money now and instead delay your payment from now until three years have passed, the field is mine, then after three years, the field is his. Evidently, a condition of this kind is valid.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗住诪讻转讗 拽谞讬讗 讜诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 讗住诪讻转讗 诇讗 拽谞讬讗

Rav Na岣an said to him: I used to say that a transaction with inconclusive consent [asmakhta] effects acquisition, meaning that any obligation one accepts to serve as a penalty over and above the value of what he actually owes is nevertheless binding. But Minyumi said that an asmakhta does not effect acquisition, and the transaction under discussion is an asmakhta. Now that he convinced me that his opinion is correct, I have retracted my previous opinion.

讜诇诪谞讬讜诪讬 拽砖讬讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗住诪讻转讗 拽谞讬讗

The Gemara asks: But if so, the mishna is difficult according to Minyumi. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that an asmakhta effects acquisition, but his is a minority opinion.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 诪注讻砖讬讜

If you wish, say instead that the mishna is referring to a case where the borrower said to the lender: If I do not repay you within three years, you will acquire the field from now, and they performed a formal act of acquisition. Since an act of acquisition was performed at the time, this is a proper sale and not an asmakhta.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪专 讬谞讜拽讗 讜诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘谞讬 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讗讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗讬 讗住诪讻转讗 讘讝诪谞讬讛 拽谞讬讗 讘诇讗 讝诪谞讬讛 诇讗 拽谞讬讗

Mar Yanuka and Mar Kashisha, the younger and elder sons of Rav 岣sda, said to Rav Ashi: This is what the Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say in the name of Rav Na岣an: With regard to this asmakhta described in the mishna, it effects acquisition at its proper time, but it does not effect acquisition not at its proper time.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讘讝诪谞讬讛 拽谞讬 讘诇讗 讝诪谞讬讛 诇讗 拽谞讬

Rav Ashi understood them to be saying that the lender acquires the field only when the loan is due, and he said to them: This statement seems to teach no novel ruling, as the same is true of every matter: It effects acquisition at its proper time, but it does not effect acquisition not at its proper time.

讚诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬转讜 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讘讙讜 讝诪谞讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 拽谞讬 讘转专 讝诪谞讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讞诪转 讻讬住讜驻讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛

Rav Ashi suggests: Perhaps you meant to say this: If the borrower encountered the lender within its time, i.e., before the payment of the loan was due, and told him to acquire the field, the lender acquires the field, as it is assumed that the borrower was sincere. But if the borrower encountered the lender after its time, i.e., when the payment of the loan was due, and told the lender to acquire the field, he does not acquire it. What is the reason for this? The borrower says this to the lender out of shame with regard to his failure to pay the debt, but he did not really intend for him to acquire the field.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讙讜 讝诪谞讬讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 拽讗 住讘专 讻讬 诪讟讬 讝诪谞讬讛 诇讗 诇讬转讬 诇讬讟专讚谉

The Gemara comments: But this is not so, as the halakha is that the lender does not acquire the field even if the borrower stated this within its time. And as for the fact that the borrower told him to acquire it, he told him this only because he thinks: This will ensure that when the time for payment arrives, he will not come and disturb me. In other words, he is trying to buy time until he can repay the loan, but he was not sincere in his statement that the lender may acquire the field.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 讗住诪讻转讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 拽谞讬讗 讜讝讬诪谞讬谉 诇讗 拽谞讬讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚拽讗 砖转讬 砖讻专讗 拽谞讬 讚拽讗 诪讛驻讱 讗讝讜讝讬 诇讗 拽谞讬

Rav Pappa says: With regard to this asmakhta, sometimes it effects acquisition and sometimes it does not effect acquisition. How so? If the lender encountered the borrower while the borrower was drinking beer, it effects acquisition, as, if the borrower agreed to transfer ownership of his field when he did not appear to be in financial stress, such as when he was enjoying a drink, he assumedly did so with full acceptance of the consequences, and therefore the transaction is valid. By contrast, if the lender encountered the borrower when he was searching for money with which to repay the loan, his agreement does not effect acquisition, as it is clear the borrower made the statement under duress.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讚诇诪讗 诇驻讻讜讞讬 驻讞讚讬讛 拽讗 砖转讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗住诪讻讬讛 讗讝讜讝讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗讬 拽驻讬讚 讘讚诪讬 讜讚讗讬 拽谞讬

Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: In the case where the lender encountered the borrower while he was drinking beer, perhaps he was drinking to neutralize his fear, and he really was under financial pressure. Or, perhaps someone else promised him money, and therefore he remains in a precarious position even though he can repay the debt, which would again mean that his promise is merely an asmakhta. Rather, Ravina said that there is a different distinction: If the borrower is particular about the money, i.e., if he is unwilling to sell his property at less than its market value, the lender has certainly acquired the field, as the borrower is clearly not in such a precarious financial position, and he is therefore assumed to have willingly stated his agreement to give the field to the lender.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讚诇诪讗 住讘专 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 转讬转讝讬诇 讗专注讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬 拽驻讬讚 讘讗专注讗 讜讚讗讬 拽谞讬

Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: Even in that case, perhaps the borrower thinks that he ought to present himself as particular about the price of his property in order that the price of his other lands not be lowered. If people know that he is in need of money they will pressure to him to lower the price, and therefore he acts as though he is particular about the price, but in reality he did not wish to sell the property at all. Rather, Rav Pappa said that there is a different distinction: If he is particular about any other land he owns and does not want to sell it even at its market rate, he is clearly not suffering from financial problems, and in that case the creditor certainly acquires the field.

讜讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讗住诪讻转讗 诇讗 拽谞讬讗 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讛讜讬讗 诇诪讬讙讘讗 诪讬谞讛

And Rav Pappa said: Even though the Sages said that an asmakhta does not effect acquisition, and therefore even if he stipulated that the lender can collect the debt by seizing land, the lender does not acquire that land, nevertheless, the land is considered to be set aside as designated repayment [apoteiki] for the lender to collect repayment from it up to the amount of money owed.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 诇专讘 驻驻讗 诪讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 诇讙讜讘讬讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜讗讬 讗诪专 拽谞讬 诇诪讬讙讘讗 诪讬谞讬讛 拽谞讬 住讜祝 住讜祝 讗住诪讻转讗 讛讬讗 讜讗住诪讻转讗 诇讗 拽谞讬讗

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: Did the borrower say to the lender: Acquire it for the sake of debt collection? Since the borrower did not specify that transferring ownership of the field was in place of the payment of the debt, his statement is considered an asmakhta, and the field is not set aside as designated repayment. Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: And if he had said to him: Acquire it for the sake of debt collection, would the lender then acquire it? Ultimately, it is an asmakhta, and the halakha is that an asmakhta does not effect acquisition.

讗诇讗 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讛讗 诇讱 驻专注讜谉 讗诇讗 诪讝讜

The Gemara poses a question: But in that case, what is the designated repayment spoken of by Rav Pappa? According to Mar Zutra鈥檚 analysis, it makes no difference whether or not he said it was set aside as designated repayment of the loan. The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa is referring to a case, for example, where the borrower said to the lender: Not only will I give you the land if I fail to repay the loan, but even if I do pay you will receive payment only from this land alone, as I will pay off my debt to you by giving you land from this field. In that case the asmakhta is negated, while the promise of repayment from the land remains intact.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讗专注讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 讘讗讞专讬讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讟专驻讜 诇讬讛 诪谞讗讬 诪讙讘讬转 诇讬 诪注讬讚讬 注讬讚讬转 讚讗讬转 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪注讬讚讬 注讬讚讬转 诇讗 诪讙讘讬谞讗 诇讱 讚讘注讬谞谉 诇诪讬拽诐 拽诪讗讬 讗诇讗 诪讙讘讬谞讗 诇讱 诪注讬讚讬转 讗讞专讬诐 讚讗讬转 诇讬 诇住讜祝 讟专驻讜讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗转讗 讘讚拽讗 砖拽讬诇 诇注讬讚讬 注讬讚讬转

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who sold land to another with a property guarantee, meaning that in the event that land is seized by the seller鈥檚 creditors, the seller will reimburse the buyer his purchase money. The buyer said to him: If your creditors seize the land from me, will you allow me to collect that which is owed to me from the most superior quality of the superior-quality land that you have? The seller said to him: I will not allow you to collect from the most superior quality of my superior-quality land, as I want to keep those before me. But I will allow you to collect from other superior-quality land I have. Ultimately, creditors seized the field from the buyer, and in the meantime a flood came and flooded the seller鈥檚 most superior quality of his superior-quality land.

住讘专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪注讬讚讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗

As his remaining superior-quality land was now the best he had, the seller was unwilling to give them to the buyer and sought to repay him with intermediate-quality land, in accordance with the standard halakha concerning reimbursement to a buyer. Rav Pappa thought to say: Since the seller said to the buyer that he could collect from his superior-quality land, and this superior-quality land is intact, the seller must give it to him, in accordance with his promise.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗诪专讬 诇讱 讗谞讗 诪讙讘讬谞讗 诇讱 讚讛讜讛 注讬讚讬转 拽讬讬诪讗 讛砖转讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇讬讛 注讬讚讬转 讘诪拽讜诐 注讬讚讬 注讬讚讬转

Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: But let the seller say to the buyer: When I said to you that I would allow you to collect from my superior-quality land, that was when the most superior quality of my superior-quality land was intact. But now my superior-quality land stands for me in place of the most superior quality of the superior-quality land I had before, and I am not obligated to give you the very best of my property.

专讘 讘专 砖讘讗 讛讜讛 诪住讬拽 讘讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讝讜讝讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗 驻专注谞讗 诇讱 诇讬讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讙讘讬 诪讛讗讬 讞诪专讗 住讘专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗住诪讻转讗 诇讗 拽谞讬讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讗专注讗 讚诇讗讜 诇讝讘讜谞讬 拽讬讬诪讗 讗讘诇 讞诪专讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讝讘讜谞讬 拽讗讬 讻讝讜讝讬 讚诪讬

The Gemara relates: Rav bar Shabba owed money to Rav Kahana. Rav bar Shabba said to him: If I do not repay you by such and such a date, you can collect the debt from this wine. Rav Pappa thought to say: When we said that an asmakhta does not effect acquisition, this matter applies only to land, which does not stand to be sold, i.e., which is not typically bought and sold on the market, and therefore the promise is invalid, as he did not genuinely intend to give it to him. But in the case of wine, since it does stand to be sold, it is considered like money, and therefore he can claim the debt from wine, as he can claim the debt from any other item with monetary worth.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讻诇 讚讗讬 诇讗 拽谞讬

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: This is what we say in the name of Rabba: Any statement including a condition introduced with the word: If, does not effect acquistion. Any agreement that does not involve a definitive commitment but does obligate one in the event of a particular outcome has the status of an asmakhta and does not effect acquisition, as the one setting the condition did not really intend to fulfill the commitment.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讗住诪讻转讗 诇讗 拽谞讬讗 讛讚专 讗专注讗 讜讛讚专讬 驻讬专讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚住讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞讬诇讛 讘讟注讜转 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬诇讛

Rav Na岣an said: Now that the Sages have said that an asmakhta does not effect acquisition, in a case such as that in the mishna, when one promised another land for the repayment of a debt, if the lender in fact took it, the land must be returned and the value of any produce the creditor consumed from this land must also be returned. The Gemara poses a question: Is this to say that Rav Na岣an maintains that mistaken forgiveness of payment is not valid forgiveness, meaning that if one forgoes repayment of a loan of a certain amount of money in error, he can change his mind? In this case, the borrower had thought that the lender had acquired the land, and he therefore allowed him to consume the produce.

讜讛讗讬转诪专 讛诪讜讻专 驻讬专讜转 讚拽诇 诇讞讘讬专讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 注讚 砖诇讗 讘讗讜 诇注讜诇诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 诪砖讘讗讜 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗祝 诪砖讘讗讜 诇注讜诇诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜

But it was stated that amora鈥檌m disputed this very issue: If one sells the fruit of a palm tree to another before the fruit ripens, Rav Huna says: He can retract and cancel the sale until the fruits have come into the world, as the fruit is not yet in existence. But once they have come into the world, even if they are still unripe, he cannot retract, as once the fruits that are being acquired exist, the sale has gone into effect. And Rav Na岣an says: He can retract even once they have come into the world, as one cannot transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world, and the actual transaction was performed before the fruits existed.

讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讜讚讬谞讗 讚讗讬 砖诪讬讟 讜讗讻讬诇 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讛转诐 讝讘讬谞讬 讛讻讗 讛诇讜讗讛

And Rav Na岣an said: I concede that if the buyer seized the fruit and consumed it, we do not take its value from him. The reason is that since the seller initially accepted the transaction, although it involved a legal error, it can be assumed that he decided to waive his rights to the fruit and allowed the other to take it. Consequently, it can be demonstrated that Rav Na岣an holds that mistaken forgiveness is forgiveness. The Gemara rejects this proof: There, the discussion involves a sale, with regard to which it can be said that the seller waived his rights to the fruit. Here, it is referring to a loan, and not requiring the lender to reimburse the borrower for the produce consumed is considered a form of interest.

讗诪专 专讘讗

Rava said:

Scroll To Top