ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 66
(a) That Shechiv-Mera wrote his wife a Get - to prevent her from falling to
his brother for Yibum.
(b) His wife found him sighing and moaning - because he had not added the
stipulation that the Get would be invalid should he survive.
(c) She then commented - that he need not worry, because, in the event that
he survived, she would remain his wife.
(a) Rav Z'vid ruled that, seeing as it was her husband who ought to have
made the stipulation and not her, what she said was merely to placate him
and had no Halachic ramifications.
(b) This implies that, had she meant it seriously, the Get would have been
negated. Rav Acha mi'Difti's problem with this is - that ulike
money-matters, where a person can obligate himself with his words, a Get and
its conditions are entirely the realm of the husband, and not the wife.
(c) To which Ravina replied, that had she meant it seriously, we would have
assumed that her husband himself only gave her the Get subject to her
acceptance (presumably, this is due to the fact that he only gave it to her
in the first place to exempt her from Yibum).
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if Reuven lends Shimon money against his
field, and stipulates that, should he fail to pay within three years, the
field will become his, his condition is valid - which is precisely what
Bitus ben Zonin used to do, under the auspices of the Chachamim.
(b) Rav Huna draws a distinction between whether Reuven makes the
stipulation at the time that he lends him the money, when his condition
stands - or whether he made it afterwards, in which case he will only
acquire as much as the loan is worth.
(c) According to Rav Nachman - either way, the condition stands.
(a) When, in the house of the Resh Galusa, Rav Nachman followed his own
ruling and granted the creditor the field based on a stipulation that he
made after the loan - Rav Yehudah tore up the Sh'tar.
(b) When the Resh Galusa informed him what Rav Yehudah had done, according
1. ... the first Lashon Rav Nachman reacted - by commenting that Rav Yehudah
not a child, but a great man, who must have had a good reason for tearing up
2. ... the second Lashon, he commented that a child had torn up the h'tar,
because when it came to maney-matters, everyone was a child compared to him.
(a) Later, Rav Nachman retracted, and ruled that even if the purchaser had
made the stipulation at the time of the loan, he would not have acquired the
field - because the condition entailed receiving a field worth far more than
the loan, and we have a principle 'Asmachta Lo Kanya' (one does not take an
exaggeration of this nature seriously).
(b) When Rava queried him from our Mishnah, which seems to hold 'Asmachta
Kanya', he answered that he too, agreed with that, but that he had been
quoting Minyumi. Minyumi reconciles his own opinion with our Mishnah by
establishing it like Rebbi Yossi - who rules that if Reuven pays half his
debt to Shimon and they then place the Shtar with a third party on the
condition that because he holds 'Asmachta Kanya'.
(c) Alternatively, Minyumi might establish the Mishnah even like the
Rabbanan - by establishing the case when he said that he would acquire the
field retroactively, removing it from the realm of Asmachta.
(d) According to Rebbi Yehudah (who holds 'Tzad Echad be'Ribis, Mutar'), the
purchaser is permitted to eat the fruit; according to the Rabbanan - it is
placed with a third party until the sale or its invalidation is clarified.
(a) Rav Chisda's two sons were called - Mar Yenuka and Mar Keshisha.
(b) When they said 'Hai Asmachta bi'Zemanei Kani, be'Lo Z'mano, Lo Kani',
Rav Ashi - thinking that they meant that 'Asmachta is really Koneh, but only
after the final date of payment elapses and the debtor has not paid, queried
the Chidush, seeing as everything acquires in its time but not before.
(c) So he reinterpreted their distinction to pertain (not to when the
'Asmachta' takes place, but) - to when the debtor made his statement. If he
made his statement after the final date of payment, it is an 'Asmachta',
which is not Koneh, whereas if he made it beforehand, it is not an
(d) The reason for this is - because when he is Mochel the Mashkon after the
final date, he only does so in order to get the creditor off his back (but
does not really mean what he says); whereas if he does so beforehand, when
the creditor cannot claim anyway, he really must have meant what he said.
(e) Rav Ashi himself however, disagrees. According to him, it will be
considered Asmachta even if he is Mochel the Mashkon before the time of
payment (despite the fact that the creditor cannot claim from him yet) -
because he anticipates now the creditor's claims after the time has elapsed,
and is Mochel in order to forestall his claims (not because he really wants
to be Mochel).
(a) In a case where the creditor asks the debtor for his money on the final
day and the debtor tells the creditor to keep the Mashkon, Rav Papa makes a
distinction between whether he finds him drinking beer - an indication that
he is not serious about obtaining the money and is therefore genuinely
Mochel the Mashkon, or whether he is searching for the money to pay him - in
which case, his Mechilah is nothing more than an Asmachta, which is not
(b) Rav Acha mi'Difti disagrees with Rav Papa for one of two reasons. Either
because maybe he is drinking to drown his sorrows, as the Pasuk writes in
Borchi Nafshi "ve'Yayin Yesamach Levav Ensosh" ...
(c) .. or - because of the possibility that someone promised to lend him the
money to pay off his debt (so the fact that he is drinking wine does not
(d) Ravina maintains that if the debtor is particular to sell his property
at the correct price (and not cheaper), then he must be serious about the
creditor keeping the Mashkon. Rav Acha mi'Difti disagrees with Ravina, too
however, on the grounds that - he may be particular about the price of
property in order to prevent all his property from becoming devalued.
(a) Rav Papa concludes - that if the debtor is particular not to sell any of
his property even at market price, then he is clearly not serious about
obtaining the money to pay off his debt and really means to forego the
Mashkon (see also Hagahos ha'Gra).
(b) Rav Papa also stated that a Mashkon which the creditor does not acquire
due to 'Asmachta' - becomes an Apotiki (enabling the creditor to claim
exclusively from it.
(c) Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Nasan queries Rav Papa on the grounds that the
debtor did not say 'K'ni le'Guvaina' (so how can we establish such a ruling
against the wishes of the debtor). Mar Zutra B'rei de'Rav Mari objects even
to the implication of Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Nasan's Kashya - (that if the
debtor had said 'K'ni le'Guvaina', it would indeed become an Apotiki),
because, when all's said and done, it is an 'Asmachta', and ought not to be
Koneh at all?
(d) So we finally explain that when Rav Papa connects the Din of Apotiki
with our Mishnah - he means that if the debtor first declared the field an
Apotiki, and then added that, in the event that he does not pay within three
years, the entire field will belong to him, although the second statement is
invalid, the first remains valid.
(a) When Shimon, to whom Reuven had sold him a field with Acharayus, asked
for an assurance that should claimants take the field, Reuven would
compensate him from his Idei Idis, Reuven replied - that he needed the Idei
Idis for himself, but that he *would* give him Idis.
(b) Eventually, claimants did take the field. However, before Shimon had a
chance to claim Reuven's Idis - his Idei Idis got swamped, and his Idis
became his Idei Idis.
(c) When Rav Papa thought to grant Shimon the right to claim Reuven's
remaining Idis, Rav Acha mi'Difta objected to Ravina, on the grounds that -
Reuven having made it clear that he would not give Shimon Idei Idis, we must
now consider that field to be Idei Idis, in which case, Shimon will only
receive what is currently Idis (and what was previously Beinonis).
(a) When Rav bar Sh'va stipulated that in the event that he failed to pay
Rav Kahana his debt until a given date, he would be able to claim from his
stock of wine - Rav Papa thought that 'Asmachta Lo Kanya' is confined to
land, which people do not normally tend to sell, but wine, which they do, is
no different than money, which (as long as the debtor does not grossly
exaggerate his offer), is not subject to Asmachta (see Shitah quoting the
Ritva as to why our case is considered Asmachta).
(b) Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua however, objected, on the basis of a
statement of Rabah, who said - 'Kol de'I Lo Kanah' (whenever the stipulator
uses the word 'if', his qualifier is an 'Asmachta' and is not Koneh).
(c) Based on the ruling 'Asmachta Lo Kanya', Rav Nachman rules that ...
1. ... the field in our Mishnah (which the creditor claimed after three
years, even though the debtor had not stipulated that it would be his
retroactively) - must be returned.
(d) We extrapolate from here regarding the Din of 'Mechilah be'Ta'us' (a
Mechilah based on a Halachic misunderstanding) - is not considered Mechilah.
2. ... the fruit - must be returned too.
(a) Rav Huna rules that if Reuven sells Shimon the fruit of a date-palm he
can retract from the sale as long as the fruit has not yet begun to ripen.
Assuming that he holds 'Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam' (which explains
why he cannot retract once the fruit has ripened), this is - because even
those who hold 'Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam', agree that the Kinyan
is only finalized from the time that it is 'Ba le'Olam' (i.e. from the time
that it reaches the first stage of ripening).
(b) Rav Nachman rules - that he can retract even after the fruit has
ripened, because he holds 'Ein Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam'.
(c) Rav Nachman concedes however, that the seller cannot reclaim any fruit
that the purchaser actually picked and ate (because he holds 'Mechilah
be'Ta'us Havya Mechilah').
(a) We reconcile Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua, who holds 'Mechilah
be'Ta'us Lo Havya Mechilah' with Rav Nachman - by restricting the latter's
ruling to a case of a sale. It does not extend to loans, where not claiming
the fruit, resembles Ribis.
(b) The basis of this distinction is - that by Ribis Ketzutzah the Chachamim
rescinded the Mechilah, whereas by Avak Ribis they did not, and all Ribis
that is based on a loan is considered Ribis Ketzutzah.