Mesorat%20hashas for Bava Metzia 154:17

דאמר רבא האי מאן דזבין מידי לחבריה וקא עייל ונפיק אזוזי לא קני לא קא עייל ונפיק אזוזי קני

but if not, he [the purchaser] does not acquire it. But has it not been taught: If a man gives a deposit to his neighbour and stipulates. 'If I retract, this deposit be forfeited to you.' and the other stipulates. 'If I retract, I will double you your deposit.' the conditions are effective: this is R. Jose's view, R. Jose [ruling here] in accordance with his general opinion that an <i>asmakta</i> is valid. R. Judah said: It is sufficient that he [the purchaser] shall gain possession [of the object sold] in proportion to his deposit. Said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: This holds good only if he stipulates, 'Let my deposit effect possession'; but if he sells him a field for a thousand <i>zuz</i>, of which he pays him five hundred, he acquires [it all], and must repay him the balance even after many years?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 48b. This shews that the transaction is binding though the balance was not arranged as an ordinary debt. ');">¹⁵</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Bava Metzia 154:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.