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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 2, 2016 | 讘壮 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 67

Does the law that asmachta is not a valid sale apply only to land or also to moveable property? 聽If someone is allows someone to take something of theirs without complaining mechila and later finds out that it was a mistake, is this valid or not? 聽Does it depend on the situation? 聽Cases are discussed regarding one who eats fruit off of property given to him as collateral – does it need to be returned or not (is it interest from the rabbis or from the Torah)? 聽Does depend on the whether it is a place where the borrower can kick the lender off the property as soon as he pays back his loan or whether it is a place where the borrower does not have rights to kick the lender off his property until the time of the loan has ended. 聽What other differences are聽there between land in the hands of the lender in each of these places?


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

讛讜讛 讬转讬讘谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讘注讬 诇讗讜转讘讬讛 讗讜谞讗讛 讜讗讜讚讬拽 讞讝讬转谉 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讜讛专讬 讗讜谞讗讛 讚诪讞讬诇讛 讘讟注讜转 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬诇讛 讜讗讜讚讬拽 讞讝讬转谉 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讛专讬 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讚诪讞讬诇讛 讘讟注讜转 讛讬讗 讜讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬诇讛

I was sitting before Rav Na岣an when he said that mistaken forgiveness is valid, and I wanted to raise an objection to him from the halakha of exploitation, and he observed me, anticipated my objection, and showed me that he was correct based on the halakha of a sexually underdeveloped woman who is incapable of bearing children [ailonit]. The Gemara explains: Rava wanted to ask: But there is the case of exploitation, where the price paid in a sale was in excess of the market value (see 50b), which is a case of mistaken forgiveness at the time of the sale, and yet it is not considered forgiveness. The seller must return the excess money paid. And he observed me and showed me the halakha of an ailonit. Doesn鈥檛 the case of an ailonit involve mistaken forgiveness, and yet it is valid forgiveness?

讚转谞谉 讛诪诪讗谞转 讜讛砖谞讬讬讛 讜讛讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 诇讗 讻转讜讘讛 讜诇讗 驻讬专讜转 讜诇讗 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜诇讗 讘诇讗讜转

Rava explains: As we learned in a mishna (Ketubot 100b): In the case of a minor girl married off by her mother or brother who refuses to continue living with her husband, and in the case of a woman who is a secondary forbidden relative, and in the case of an ailonit, each of these women is not entitled to payment of a marriage contract, and they are not entitled to remuneration for the produce that the husband consumed from her property while they were together, and they are not entitled to sustenance, and they are not entitled to their worn clothes that were brought into the marriage as part of their dowry and became worn out during the marriage. The ailonit granted the rights to the profits the husband earned from her property while under the mistaken premise that she was married. Yet after the marriage was determined to have been contracted in error, the husband does not have to return these profits.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诇讗 讗讜谞讗讛 讛讜讬讗 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讜诇讗 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛

The Gemara comments: But that is not so; the halakha of exploitation is not a refutation of Rav Na岣an鈥檚 opinion, nor does the case of a sexually underdeveloped woman support his opinion, as there are differences between the cases.

诇讗 讗讜谞讗讛 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚诇讗 讬讚注 讚讗讬转讬讛 讗讜谞讗讛 讚诪讞讬诇 讙讘讬讛 讜诇讗 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讛 讚转讬驻讜拽 注诇讛 砖诪讗 讚讗讬砖讜转

The Gemara clarifies: Exploitation is not a refutation of his opinion, as the buyer does not know that there is exploitation at the time of the sale that would enable him to forgive him the amount he was overcharged, and therefore there is no forgiveness in this case at all. Nor does the case of a sexually underdeveloped woman support his opinion, as it is amenable to her for her husband to receive the profits in order that she receive the name of a married woman. She wants to be known as a woman who was once married, and therefore she willingly relinquishes her rights to the profits from her property during her marriage even if it will be found to have been contracted in error. There is no mistaken forgiveness in that case.

讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讝讬诇 讝讘讬谉 诇讬 讗专注讗 诪拽专讬讘讬讬 讗讝诇 讝讘谉 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讜讜 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 诪讛讚专转 诇讛 谞讬讛诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 讜谞讜讜诇讗 讗讞讬

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who said to a certain man: Go purchase land for me from my relatives. He went and purchased land for her. The relative who sold her the property said to the man acting as her agent: If I will have money in the future, will you give the field back to me? The agent said to him: You and she [venavla] are relatives, and I assume that you will be able to come to an arrangement between the two of you.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻诇 讗转 讜谞讜讜诇讗 讗讞讬 讗诪专 住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讛 讜诇讗 讙诪专 讜诪拽谞讬

The Gemara discusses the halakhic significance of this response. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: In the case of any expression such as: You and she are relatives, that the agent says, the seller relies on the assumption that he will be able to come to an agreement with his relative, and therefore he does not conclusively resolve to enable the other to acquire the field.

讗专注讗 讛讚专讛 驻讬专讬 诪讗讬 专讘讬转 拽爪讜爪讛 讛讜讜 讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讚讬讬谞讬谉 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬 讗讘拽 专讘讬转 讛讜讜 讜讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉

The Gemara comments: In that case, the land itself must be returned to its owner, but what is the halakha with regard to the produce consumed by the buyer in the interim? Is it deemed fixed interest, prohibited by Torah law, and can it be removed from the buyer by means of legal proceedings adjudicated by judges? Or perhaps it is considered like a hint of interest, prohibited by rabbinic law, and therefore it cannot be removed from the buyer by means of legal proceedings adjudicated by judges?

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 讻讬 讗讘拽 专讘讬转 讛讜讜 讜讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讚讬讬谞讬谉 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讬 讗讘拽 专讘讬转 讛讜讜 讜讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讚讬讬谞讬谉

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: It stands to reason that it is like a hint of interest, and it cannot be removed from the buyer by means of legal proceedings adjudicated by judges. And Rava similarly said: It is like a hint of interest, and it cannot be removed from the buyer by means of legal proceedings adjudicated by judges.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讛 诪砖讻谞转讗 诪讗讬 讛转诐 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 拽抓 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽抓 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛转诐 讝讘讬谞讬 讛讻讗 讛诇讜讗讛

Abaye said to Rava: With regard to a mortgage, if the borrower pledged a field to the lender, who worked the field and consumed its produce during the term of the loan without any agreement allowing him to do so, what is the halakha? There, in the previous case, what is the reason it is merely a hint of interest? Is it because the seller did not fix a particular sum for the buyer as interest? Here too, the lender did not fix a particular sum for the borrower, and accordingly, this would also be merely a hint of interest. Or perhaps the key issue is that there, it is a sale, whereas here, it is a loan, with regard to which there is a greater concern about interest.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 拽抓 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽抓 诇讬讛

Rava said to him: There, what is the reason it is merely a hint of interest? It is considered a hint of interest because the seller did not fix a particular sum for the buyer as interest. Here too, the lender did not fix a particular sum for the borrower, and therefore this is not fixed interest.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讬 注讘讚 专讘讬谞讗 注讜讘讚讗 讜讞砖讬讘 讜讗驻讬拽 驻讬专讬 讚诇讗 讻专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗

Rav Pappi said: Ravina performed an action with regard to a case like this, and he calculated and removed from the lender the value of the produce he had consumed in the interim. This decision was not in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna.

讗诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛讗 诪砖讻谞转讗 讘讗转专讗 讚诪住诇拽讬 讗讻诇 砖讬注讜专 讝讜讝讬 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛

Mar, son of Rav Yosef, said in the name of Rava: With regard to this following type of mortgage, in which the lender holds part of the borrower鈥檚 land and may consume its produce, the halakha depends on the local custom. In a place where the custom is that the borrower can repay the loan at any time and the court removes the lender from the land once the loan is repaid, then once the lender consumed a measure of produce equivalent to the amount of money that he lent, we remove him from the land at that point, as the produce consumed is considered repayment of the loan.

讗讻诇 讟驻讬 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讞砖讘讬谞谉 诪砖讟专讗 诇砖讟专讗

If the lender consumed a measure of produce worth more than the value of the loan, we do not remove the value of the excess produce from him, as that which he consumed is already gone. And similarly, we do not calculate any extra produce as payment from one document to another. If the same borrower owed the lender an additional sum from another debt recorded in a different document, we do not consider the additional produce he consumed as part of the payment for the second document; rather, each loan is treated on its own terms.

讜讘讚讬转诪讬 讗讻诇 砖讬注讜专 讝讜讝讬 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讻诇 讟驻讬 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讜诪讞砖讘讬谞谉 诪砖讟专讗 诇砖讟专讗

And if the field belonged to orphans, once the lender consumed a measure of produce equivalent to the amount of money he was owed, we remove him from the field. And if he consumed a measure of produce worth more than the value of the loan, we take the additional amount from him; and we do calculate extra produce as payment from one document to another. The reason is that the owner of the field generally forgives payment for the extra produce the lender consumed, but minor orphans are too young to forgive a debt, and the case is therefore judged according to the letter of the law.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讗讻诇 讟驻讬 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讻诇 砖讬注讜专 讝讜讝讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讘诇讗 讝讜讝讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 住诇讜拽讬 讘诇讗 讝讜讝讬 讗驻讜拽讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讜讗 讛讜讬 讗讘拽 专讘讬转 讜讗讘拽 专讘讬转 讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讚讬讬谞讬谉

Rav Ashi said: Now that you have said that if he consumed more than the value of the loan we do not take it from him, as it is considered merely a hint of interest, it follows that if he consumed a measure of produce equivalent to the amount of the money owed him, we also do not remove him from the land without the borrower鈥檚 paying him money. What is the reason for this? To remove him from the land without the borrower鈥檚 paying him money is like taking money from him, and this consumption of the produce is only a hint of interest, and the halakha is that a hint of interest cannot be removed by legal proceedings adjudicated by judges.

注讘讚 专讘 讗砖讬 注讜讘讚讗 讘讬转讜诪讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐

The Gemara relates: Rav Ashi performed an action in a case of this kind even involving minor orphans,

讻讙讚讜诇讬诐

as though they were adults. Even if the lender consumed produce equivalent to the amount of the debt, Rav Ashi would not collect the value of the produce from him, as this is merely a hint of interest and therefore it cannot be claimed in court.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪砖讻谞转讗 讘讗转专讗 讚诪住诇拽讬 诇讗 谞讬讻讜诇 讗诇讗 讘谞讻讬讬转讗 讜爪讜专讘讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讻讬讬转讗 诇讗 谞讬讻讜诇 讗诇讗 讘诪讗讬 谞讬讻讜诇 讘拽讬爪讜转讗

Rava, son of Rav Yosef, says in the name of Rava: With regard to this following type of mortgage, in which the lender holds part of the borrower鈥檚 land and may consume its produce, the halakha depends on the local custom. In a place where the custom is that the borrower can repay the loan at any time and the court removes the lender from the land, the lender may consume the produce of the land only with a deduction in the amount of the loan granted to the borrower, equivalent in value to that of the produce consumed by the lender. And a Torah scholar [tzurva miderabbanan], who must be especially careful with regard to his conduct, may not consume the produce even with a deduction in the amount of the loan. The Gemara poses a question: But if so, in what manner may he consume the produce? The Gemara answers: By a fixed payment, the details of which the Gemara will soon explain.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讬爪讜转讗 砖专讬讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讬爪讜转讗 讗住讬专讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚讗转诪专 拽讬爪讜转讗 驻诇讬讙讗 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 拽讬爪讜转讗 砖专讬讗 讜讞讚 讗诪专 拽讬爪讜转讗 讗住讬专讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 拽讬爪讜转讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讚 讞诪砖 砖谞讬谉 讗讻讬诇谞讗 诇讛 讘诇讗 谞讻讬讬转讗 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 砖讬讬诪谞讗 诇讱 讻讜诇讛讜 驻讬专讬

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that a fixed payment is permitted, but according to the one who says that a fixed payment is forbidden, what is there to say? As it was stated: With regard to a fixed payment, Rav A岣 and Ravina disagreed: One said that a fixed payment is permitted, and one said a fixed payment is forbidden. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this fixed payment? The Gemara explains: One case of a fixed payment is where the lender says to the borrower: For a period of up to five years, I will consume the produce of the field without a deduction in the amount of the loan; from that point forward I will appraise for you the value of all the produce I consume and subtract this sum from the debt.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻诇 讘诇讗 谞讻讬讬转讗 讗住讜专 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 拽讬爪讜转讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讚 讞诪砖 砖谞讬谉 讗讻讬诇谞讗 讘谞讻讬讬转讗 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 砖讬讬诪谞讗 诇讱 讻讜诇讛讜 驻讬专讬

There are those who say a different version of this discussion: Any consumption of produce by the lender without a deduction in the amount of the loan is prohibited as interest. And what are the circumstances of a permitted fixed payment? When the lender says to the borrower: For a period of up to five years I will consume the produce with a fixed deduction in the amount of the loan; from this point forward I will appraise for you the value of all the produce I consume and deduct the sum from the loan.

诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讘拽诪讬讬转讗 砖专讬 讘讘转专讬讬转讗 诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讘讘转专讬讬转讗 讛讬讻讬 砖专讬 诇诪讬讻诇 砖专讬 讻讬 诪砖讻谞转讗 讚住讜专讗 讚讻转讘讬 讘讛 讛讻讬 讘诪砖诇诐 砖谞讬讗 讗讬诇讬谉 转讬驻讜拽 讗专注讗 讚讗 讘诇讗 讻住祝

The Gemara comments: The one who prohibits the practice according to the first version permits the practice described in the second. The Gemara asks: But according to the one who also prohibits the practice described in the second version, how is it permitted to consume the produce of a mortgaged field? The Gemara replies: It is permitted in a case like that of a mortgage according to the custom in Sura, a city in Babylonia, in which this is written in the loan document: Upon the completion of these years, during which the lender may consume the produce of the field, this land shall leave his possession without money and return to the owner, as the entire amount of the loan will have been repaid by means of the consumption of the produce.

专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讗讬 诪砖讻谞转讗 讘讗转专讗 讚诪住诇拽讬 讗讬谉 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 讛讬诪谞讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 讘讛 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讜砖讘讬注讬转 诪砖诪讟转讛

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, both say: With regard to this type of mortgage, the halakha depends on the local custom. In a place where the custom is that the borrower can repay the loan at any time and the court removes the lender from the land, the land is not considered his property at all, and therefore another creditor cannot collect a debt owed by the lender by repossessing it; and if the lender dies, his firstborn son does not receive a double portion of it as part of his inheritance, as it did not belong to his father; and the Sabbatical Year cancels a debt of this kind, because it is not viewed as having already been collected.

讜讘讗转专讗 讚诇讗 诪住诇拽讬 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讜讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 讘讜 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 砖讘讬注讬转 诪砖诪讟转讛

But in a place where they do not remove him from the land before the appointed time even if the debt is paid, then the land has been temporarily transferred to him, and therefore a creditor can collect a debt owed by the lender by repossessing it, and his firstborn receives a double portion of it, and the Sabbatical Year does not cancel the debt.

讜讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 诪砖讻谞转讗 讘讗转专讗 讚诪住诇拽讬 诪住诇拽讬 诇讬讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪转诪专讬 讚讗讘讜讚讬讗 讜讗讬 讗讙讘讛谞讛讜 讘住讬住谞讬 拽谞谞讛讜 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 诇讜拽讞 讘专砖讜转 诪讜讻专 拽谞讛 诇讜拽讞 讗驻讬诇讜 讚诇讗 讗讙讘讛谞讛讜 讘住讬住谞讬 拽谞谞讛讜

And Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa: With regard to this type of mortgage, the halakha depends on the local custom. In a place where the custom is that the borrower can repay the loan at any time and the court removes the lender from the land, they remove him even from dates he has already harvested and spread out on the mats. But if he has lifted them and placed them in the baskets [besisanei], he has thereby acquired them, and they are his. And according to the one who says that when an act of acquisition is performed by means of placing items in the buyer鈥檚 vessels that are located in the seller鈥檚 domain the buyer has acquired the items, even if he did not lift them while they were in the baskets, he acquired them when they were placed on the mats.

驻砖讬讟讗 讘讗转专讗 讚诪住诇拽讬 讜讗诪专 诇讗 诪住转诇拽谞讗 讛讗 拽讗诪专 讚诇讗 诪住转诇拽谞讗 讗诇讗 讘讗转专讗 讚诇讗 诪住诇拽讬 讜讗诪专 诪住转诇拽谞讗 诪讗讬 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬拽谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讜 诇讗

搂 The Gemara discusses other halakhot of mortgages. It is obvious that if the loan was given in a place where they generally remove the lender from the field upon the repayment of the debt, but upon lending the money, the lender said: I will not be removed, his stipulation is respected, as he said that he will not be removed, and he gave him the money only subject to this condition. But if the loan took place in a place where they generally do not remove him, and he said: I will be removed when the money is returned, what is the halakha? Is it necessary to perform a formal act of acquisition with him to formalize this commitment, or is it not necessary, as his statement alone is binding?

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪拽谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 爪专讬讱 诇诪拽谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪拽谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛

Rav Pappa said: It is not necessary to perform an act of acquisition with him. Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: It is necessary to perform an act of acquisition with him. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that it is necessary to perform an act of acquisition with him.

讗诪专 讗讬讝讬诇 讜讗讬讬转讬 讝讜讝讬 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讗讬讝讬诇 讜讗讟专讞 讜讗讬讬转讬 讝讜讝讬 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讗讻讬诇 讜诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讜讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 讗讻讬诇

The Gemara addresses another case. If the borrower said to the lender: I will go to get the money to repay you, the lender may not consume any more of the produce, as this statement is sufficient to remove him from the property. But if he said: I am going to make an effort to get the money, amora鈥檌m engaged in a dispute concerning the halakha. Ravina said: The lender may continue to consume the produce until the borrower actually brings the payment, as he cannot be certain the borrower will manage to get the money. And Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said: He may not consume the produce. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that he may not consume the produce.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 讗讻诇讬 讘谞讻讬讬转讗 专讘讬谞讗 讗讻讬诇 讘谞讻讬讬转讗

The Gemara relates: Rav Kahana, and Rav Pappa, and Rav Ashi would not consume the produce of mortgaged fields even with a deduction in the amount of the loan, as they were concerned about the possible violation of the prohibition of interest. Ravina would consume this produce with a deduction in the amount of the loan.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗讻讬诇 讘谞讻讬讬转讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讗 讗讻讬诇 驻讬专讬 讟讜讘讗 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗

Mar Zutra said: The explanation for the practice of the one who does consume the produce with a deduction in the amount of the loan is just as it is in the case of an ancestral field, i.e., a field that one inherits from his ancestors within his family holdings in Eretz Yisrael. The Torah states that one who consecrates his ancestral field can redeem it from the Temple treasury in return for one sela, which is four dinars, for each year remaining until the Jubilee (see Leviticus 27:16鈥19). The comparison is as follows: With regard to an ancestral field, is it not the case that even though he consumes abundant produce over the course of the years, nevertheless, the Merciful One states in the Torah

  • 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 67

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 67

讛讜讛 讬转讬讘谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讘注讬 诇讗讜转讘讬讛 讗讜谞讗讛 讜讗讜讚讬拽 讞讝讬转谉 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讜讛专讬 讗讜谞讗讛 讚诪讞讬诇讛 讘讟注讜转 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬诇讛 讜讗讜讚讬拽 讞讝讬转谉 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讛专讬 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讚诪讞讬诇讛 讘讟注讜转 讛讬讗 讜讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬诇讛

I was sitting before Rav Na岣an when he said that mistaken forgiveness is valid, and I wanted to raise an objection to him from the halakha of exploitation, and he observed me, anticipated my objection, and showed me that he was correct based on the halakha of a sexually underdeveloped woman who is incapable of bearing children [ailonit]. The Gemara explains: Rava wanted to ask: But there is the case of exploitation, where the price paid in a sale was in excess of the market value (see 50b), which is a case of mistaken forgiveness at the time of the sale, and yet it is not considered forgiveness. The seller must return the excess money paid. And he observed me and showed me the halakha of an ailonit. Doesn鈥檛 the case of an ailonit involve mistaken forgiveness, and yet it is valid forgiveness?

讚转谞谉 讛诪诪讗谞转 讜讛砖谞讬讬讛 讜讛讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 诇讗 讻转讜讘讛 讜诇讗 驻讬专讜转 讜诇讗 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜诇讗 讘诇讗讜转

Rava explains: As we learned in a mishna (Ketubot 100b): In the case of a minor girl married off by her mother or brother who refuses to continue living with her husband, and in the case of a woman who is a secondary forbidden relative, and in the case of an ailonit, each of these women is not entitled to payment of a marriage contract, and they are not entitled to remuneration for the produce that the husband consumed from her property while they were together, and they are not entitled to sustenance, and they are not entitled to their worn clothes that were brought into the marriage as part of their dowry and became worn out during the marriage. The ailonit granted the rights to the profits the husband earned from her property while under the mistaken premise that she was married. Yet after the marriage was determined to have been contracted in error, the husband does not have to return these profits.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诇讗 讗讜谞讗讛 讛讜讬讗 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讜诇讗 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛

The Gemara comments: But that is not so; the halakha of exploitation is not a refutation of Rav Na岣an鈥檚 opinion, nor does the case of a sexually underdeveloped woman support his opinion, as there are differences between the cases.

诇讗 讗讜谞讗讛 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚诇讗 讬讚注 讚讗讬转讬讛 讗讜谞讗讛 讚诪讞讬诇 讙讘讬讛 讜诇讗 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讛 讚转讬驻讜拽 注诇讛 砖诪讗 讚讗讬砖讜转

The Gemara clarifies: Exploitation is not a refutation of his opinion, as the buyer does not know that there is exploitation at the time of the sale that would enable him to forgive him the amount he was overcharged, and therefore there is no forgiveness in this case at all. Nor does the case of a sexually underdeveloped woman support his opinion, as it is amenable to her for her husband to receive the profits in order that she receive the name of a married woman. She wants to be known as a woman who was once married, and therefore she willingly relinquishes her rights to the profits from her property during her marriage even if it will be found to have been contracted in error. There is no mistaken forgiveness in that case.

讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讝讬诇 讝讘讬谉 诇讬 讗专注讗 诪拽专讬讘讬讬 讗讝诇 讝讘谉 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讜讜 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 诪讛讚专转 诇讛 谞讬讛诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 讜谞讜讜诇讗 讗讞讬

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who said to a certain man: Go purchase land for me from my relatives. He went and purchased land for her. The relative who sold her the property said to the man acting as her agent: If I will have money in the future, will you give the field back to me? The agent said to him: You and she [venavla] are relatives, and I assume that you will be able to come to an arrangement between the two of you.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻诇 讗转 讜谞讜讜诇讗 讗讞讬 讗诪专 住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讛 讜诇讗 讙诪专 讜诪拽谞讬

The Gemara discusses the halakhic significance of this response. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: In the case of any expression such as: You and she are relatives, that the agent says, the seller relies on the assumption that he will be able to come to an agreement with his relative, and therefore he does not conclusively resolve to enable the other to acquire the field.

讗专注讗 讛讚专讛 驻讬专讬 诪讗讬 专讘讬转 拽爪讜爪讛 讛讜讜 讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讚讬讬谞讬谉 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬 讗讘拽 专讘讬转 讛讜讜 讜讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉

The Gemara comments: In that case, the land itself must be returned to its owner, but what is the halakha with regard to the produce consumed by the buyer in the interim? Is it deemed fixed interest, prohibited by Torah law, and can it be removed from the buyer by means of legal proceedings adjudicated by judges? Or perhaps it is considered like a hint of interest, prohibited by rabbinic law, and therefore it cannot be removed from the buyer by means of legal proceedings adjudicated by judges?

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 讻讬 讗讘拽 专讘讬转 讛讜讜 讜讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讚讬讬谞讬谉 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讬 讗讘拽 专讘讬转 讛讜讜 讜讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讚讬讬谞讬谉

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: It stands to reason that it is like a hint of interest, and it cannot be removed from the buyer by means of legal proceedings adjudicated by judges. And Rava similarly said: It is like a hint of interest, and it cannot be removed from the buyer by means of legal proceedings adjudicated by judges.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讛 诪砖讻谞转讗 诪讗讬 讛转诐 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 拽抓 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽抓 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛转诐 讝讘讬谞讬 讛讻讗 讛诇讜讗讛

Abaye said to Rava: With regard to a mortgage, if the borrower pledged a field to the lender, who worked the field and consumed its produce during the term of the loan without any agreement allowing him to do so, what is the halakha? There, in the previous case, what is the reason it is merely a hint of interest? Is it because the seller did not fix a particular sum for the buyer as interest? Here too, the lender did not fix a particular sum for the borrower, and accordingly, this would also be merely a hint of interest. Or perhaps the key issue is that there, it is a sale, whereas here, it is a loan, with regard to which there is a greater concern about interest.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 拽抓 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽抓 诇讬讛

Rava said to him: There, what is the reason it is merely a hint of interest? It is considered a hint of interest because the seller did not fix a particular sum for the buyer as interest. Here too, the lender did not fix a particular sum for the borrower, and therefore this is not fixed interest.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讬 注讘讚 专讘讬谞讗 注讜讘讚讗 讜讞砖讬讘 讜讗驻讬拽 驻讬专讬 讚诇讗 讻专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗

Rav Pappi said: Ravina performed an action with regard to a case like this, and he calculated and removed from the lender the value of the produce he had consumed in the interim. This decision was not in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna.

讗诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛讗 诪砖讻谞转讗 讘讗转专讗 讚诪住诇拽讬 讗讻诇 砖讬注讜专 讝讜讝讬 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛

Mar, son of Rav Yosef, said in the name of Rava: With regard to this following type of mortgage, in which the lender holds part of the borrower鈥檚 land and may consume its produce, the halakha depends on the local custom. In a place where the custom is that the borrower can repay the loan at any time and the court removes the lender from the land once the loan is repaid, then once the lender consumed a measure of produce equivalent to the amount of money that he lent, we remove him from the land at that point, as the produce consumed is considered repayment of the loan.

讗讻诇 讟驻讬 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讞砖讘讬谞谉 诪砖讟专讗 诇砖讟专讗

If the lender consumed a measure of produce worth more than the value of the loan, we do not remove the value of the excess produce from him, as that which he consumed is already gone. And similarly, we do not calculate any extra produce as payment from one document to another. If the same borrower owed the lender an additional sum from another debt recorded in a different document, we do not consider the additional produce he consumed as part of the payment for the second document; rather, each loan is treated on its own terms.

讜讘讚讬转诪讬 讗讻诇 砖讬注讜专 讝讜讝讬 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讻诇 讟驻讬 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讜诪讞砖讘讬谞谉 诪砖讟专讗 诇砖讟专讗

And if the field belonged to orphans, once the lender consumed a measure of produce equivalent to the amount of money he was owed, we remove him from the field. And if he consumed a measure of produce worth more than the value of the loan, we take the additional amount from him; and we do calculate extra produce as payment from one document to another. The reason is that the owner of the field generally forgives payment for the extra produce the lender consumed, but minor orphans are too young to forgive a debt, and the case is therefore judged according to the letter of the law.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讗讻诇 讟驻讬 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讻诇 砖讬注讜专 讝讜讝讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讘诇讗 讝讜讝讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 住诇讜拽讬 讘诇讗 讝讜讝讬 讗驻讜拽讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讜讗 讛讜讬 讗讘拽 专讘讬转 讜讗讘拽 专讘讬转 讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讚讬讬谞讬谉

Rav Ashi said: Now that you have said that if he consumed more than the value of the loan we do not take it from him, as it is considered merely a hint of interest, it follows that if he consumed a measure of produce equivalent to the amount of the money owed him, we also do not remove him from the land without the borrower鈥檚 paying him money. What is the reason for this? To remove him from the land without the borrower鈥檚 paying him money is like taking money from him, and this consumption of the produce is only a hint of interest, and the halakha is that a hint of interest cannot be removed by legal proceedings adjudicated by judges.

注讘讚 专讘 讗砖讬 注讜讘讚讗 讘讬转讜诪讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐

The Gemara relates: Rav Ashi performed an action in a case of this kind even involving minor orphans,

讻讙讚讜诇讬诐

as though they were adults. Even if the lender consumed produce equivalent to the amount of the debt, Rav Ashi would not collect the value of the produce from him, as this is merely a hint of interest and therefore it cannot be claimed in court.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪砖讻谞转讗 讘讗转专讗 讚诪住诇拽讬 诇讗 谞讬讻讜诇 讗诇讗 讘谞讻讬讬转讗 讜爪讜专讘讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讻讬讬转讗 诇讗 谞讬讻讜诇 讗诇讗 讘诪讗讬 谞讬讻讜诇 讘拽讬爪讜转讗

Rava, son of Rav Yosef, says in the name of Rava: With regard to this following type of mortgage, in which the lender holds part of the borrower鈥檚 land and may consume its produce, the halakha depends on the local custom. In a place where the custom is that the borrower can repay the loan at any time and the court removes the lender from the land, the lender may consume the produce of the land only with a deduction in the amount of the loan granted to the borrower, equivalent in value to that of the produce consumed by the lender. And a Torah scholar [tzurva miderabbanan], who must be especially careful with regard to his conduct, may not consume the produce even with a deduction in the amount of the loan. The Gemara poses a question: But if so, in what manner may he consume the produce? The Gemara answers: By a fixed payment, the details of which the Gemara will soon explain.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讬爪讜转讗 砖专讬讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讬爪讜转讗 讗住讬专讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚讗转诪专 拽讬爪讜转讗 驻诇讬讙讗 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 拽讬爪讜转讗 砖专讬讗 讜讞讚 讗诪专 拽讬爪讜转讗 讗住讬专讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 拽讬爪讜转讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讚 讞诪砖 砖谞讬谉 讗讻讬诇谞讗 诇讛 讘诇讗 谞讻讬讬转讗 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 砖讬讬诪谞讗 诇讱 讻讜诇讛讜 驻讬专讬

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that a fixed payment is permitted, but according to the one who says that a fixed payment is forbidden, what is there to say? As it was stated: With regard to a fixed payment, Rav A岣 and Ravina disagreed: One said that a fixed payment is permitted, and one said a fixed payment is forbidden. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this fixed payment? The Gemara explains: One case of a fixed payment is where the lender says to the borrower: For a period of up to five years, I will consume the produce of the field without a deduction in the amount of the loan; from that point forward I will appraise for you the value of all the produce I consume and subtract this sum from the debt.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻诇 讘诇讗 谞讻讬讬转讗 讗住讜专 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 拽讬爪讜转讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讚 讞诪砖 砖谞讬谉 讗讻讬诇谞讗 讘谞讻讬讬转讗 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 砖讬讬诪谞讗 诇讱 讻讜诇讛讜 驻讬专讬

There are those who say a different version of this discussion: Any consumption of produce by the lender without a deduction in the amount of the loan is prohibited as interest. And what are the circumstances of a permitted fixed payment? When the lender says to the borrower: For a period of up to five years I will consume the produce with a fixed deduction in the amount of the loan; from this point forward I will appraise for you the value of all the produce I consume and deduct the sum from the loan.

诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讘拽诪讬讬转讗 砖专讬 讘讘转专讬讬转讗 诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讘讘转专讬讬转讗 讛讬讻讬 砖专讬 诇诪讬讻诇 砖专讬 讻讬 诪砖讻谞转讗 讚住讜专讗 讚讻转讘讬 讘讛 讛讻讬 讘诪砖诇诐 砖谞讬讗 讗讬诇讬谉 转讬驻讜拽 讗专注讗 讚讗 讘诇讗 讻住祝

The Gemara comments: The one who prohibits the practice according to the first version permits the practice described in the second. The Gemara asks: But according to the one who also prohibits the practice described in the second version, how is it permitted to consume the produce of a mortgaged field? The Gemara replies: It is permitted in a case like that of a mortgage according to the custom in Sura, a city in Babylonia, in which this is written in the loan document: Upon the completion of these years, during which the lender may consume the produce of the field, this land shall leave his possession without money and return to the owner, as the entire amount of the loan will have been repaid by means of the consumption of the produce.

专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讗讬 诪砖讻谞转讗 讘讗转专讗 讚诪住诇拽讬 讗讬谉 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 讛讬诪谞讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 讘讛 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讜砖讘讬注讬转 诪砖诪讟转讛

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, both say: With regard to this type of mortgage, the halakha depends on the local custom. In a place where the custom is that the borrower can repay the loan at any time and the court removes the lender from the land, the land is not considered his property at all, and therefore another creditor cannot collect a debt owed by the lender by repossessing it; and if the lender dies, his firstborn son does not receive a double portion of it as part of his inheritance, as it did not belong to his father; and the Sabbatical Year cancels a debt of this kind, because it is not viewed as having already been collected.

讜讘讗转专讗 讚诇讗 诪住诇拽讬 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讜讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 讘讜 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 砖讘讬注讬转 诪砖诪讟转讛

But in a place where they do not remove him from the land before the appointed time even if the debt is paid, then the land has been temporarily transferred to him, and therefore a creditor can collect a debt owed by the lender by repossessing it, and his firstborn receives a double portion of it, and the Sabbatical Year does not cancel the debt.

讜讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 诪砖讻谞转讗 讘讗转专讗 讚诪住诇拽讬 诪住诇拽讬 诇讬讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪转诪专讬 讚讗讘讜讚讬讗 讜讗讬 讗讙讘讛谞讛讜 讘住讬住谞讬 拽谞谞讛讜 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 诇讜拽讞 讘专砖讜转 诪讜讻专 拽谞讛 诇讜拽讞 讗驻讬诇讜 讚诇讗 讗讙讘讛谞讛讜 讘住讬住谞讬 拽谞谞讛讜

And Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa: With regard to this type of mortgage, the halakha depends on the local custom. In a place where the custom is that the borrower can repay the loan at any time and the court removes the lender from the land, they remove him even from dates he has already harvested and spread out on the mats. But if he has lifted them and placed them in the baskets [besisanei], he has thereby acquired them, and they are his. And according to the one who says that when an act of acquisition is performed by means of placing items in the buyer鈥檚 vessels that are located in the seller鈥檚 domain the buyer has acquired the items, even if he did not lift them while they were in the baskets, he acquired them when they were placed on the mats.

驻砖讬讟讗 讘讗转专讗 讚诪住诇拽讬 讜讗诪专 诇讗 诪住转诇拽谞讗 讛讗 拽讗诪专 讚诇讗 诪住转诇拽谞讗 讗诇讗 讘讗转专讗 讚诇讗 诪住诇拽讬 讜讗诪专 诪住转诇拽谞讗 诪讗讬 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬拽谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讜 诇讗

搂 The Gemara discusses other halakhot of mortgages. It is obvious that if the loan was given in a place where they generally remove the lender from the field upon the repayment of the debt, but upon lending the money, the lender said: I will not be removed, his stipulation is respected, as he said that he will not be removed, and he gave him the money only subject to this condition. But if the loan took place in a place where they generally do not remove him, and he said: I will be removed when the money is returned, what is the halakha? Is it necessary to perform a formal act of acquisition with him to formalize this commitment, or is it not necessary, as his statement alone is binding?

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪拽谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 爪专讬讱 诇诪拽谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪拽谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛

Rav Pappa said: It is not necessary to perform an act of acquisition with him. Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: It is necessary to perform an act of acquisition with him. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that it is necessary to perform an act of acquisition with him.

讗诪专 讗讬讝讬诇 讜讗讬讬转讬 讝讜讝讬 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讗讬讝讬诇 讜讗讟专讞 讜讗讬讬转讬 讝讜讝讬 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讗讻讬诇 讜诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讜讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 讗讻讬诇

The Gemara addresses another case. If the borrower said to the lender: I will go to get the money to repay you, the lender may not consume any more of the produce, as this statement is sufficient to remove him from the property. But if he said: I am going to make an effort to get the money, amora鈥檌m engaged in a dispute concerning the halakha. Ravina said: The lender may continue to consume the produce until the borrower actually brings the payment, as he cannot be certain the borrower will manage to get the money. And Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said: He may not consume the produce. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that he may not consume the produce.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 讗讻诇讬 讘谞讻讬讬转讗 专讘讬谞讗 讗讻讬诇 讘谞讻讬讬转讗

The Gemara relates: Rav Kahana, and Rav Pappa, and Rav Ashi would not consume the produce of mortgaged fields even with a deduction in the amount of the loan, as they were concerned about the possible violation of the prohibition of interest. Ravina would consume this produce with a deduction in the amount of the loan.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗讻讬诇 讘谞讻讬讬转讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讗 讗讻讬诇 驻讬专讬 讟讜讘讗 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗

Mar Zutra said: The explanation for the practice of the one who does consume the produce with a deduction in the amount of the loan is just as it is in the case of an ancestral field, i.e., a field that one inherits from his ancestors within his family holdings in Eretz Yisrael. The Torah states that one who consecrates his ancestral field can redeem it from the Temple treasury in return for one sela, which is four dinars, for each year remaining until the Jubilee (see Leviticus 27:16鈥19). The comparison is as follows: With regard to an ancestral field, is it not the case that even though he consumes abundant produce over the course of the years, nevertheless, the Merciful One states in the Torah

Scroll To Top