Musar for Bava Metzia 132:13
סבר רב פפא למימר מעידית א"ל והא קיימא
Said R. Huna the son of Nathan to R. Papa: Did he then say to him, 'Let it be yours for the exaction of your debt'? Mar Zutra, the son of R. Mari, objected before Rabina: But even if he had said, 'Let it be yours for the exaction of your debt' — has he a legal title? After all, it is an <i>asmakta</i>, and an <i>asmakta</i> is not binding. But when did R. Papa rule that it creates a mortgage? — If he stipulated, 'You shall receive payment only out of this.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he assigned the field for repayment in all circumstances, it is no longer asmakta as far as the amount of the debt is concerned. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
Shenei Luchot HaBerit
Jacob prefaced his vow with the words: אם יהיה אלוקים עמדי, If the Lord will be with me, etc." He concluded it by saying that if his request would be granted: והיה ה' לי לאלוקים, "then the Lord will be my G–d." How could Jacob have dared to use the word אם, "if," which suggests that he made his loyalty to G–d dependent on G–d fulfilling his requests? We have a halachic ruling in Baba Metzia 66 that if someone purchases something by prefacing his remarks with the conditional word אם, such a purchase is invalid, seeing he had not truly committed himself. Even though the Maharam rules that in matters of vows and oaths conditional vows are legally binding, why did Jacob use an expression involving him in possibly legally binding vows? ...
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy