Reference for Bava Metzia 132:20

אמר רבא

Shall we say that R. Nahman holds that renunciation in error is invalid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The debtor, in permitting the creditor to possess its usufruct, has obviously renounced his own rights; but erroneously, not knowing that the creditor's title is invalid, and R. Nahman rules that the produce is returnable. ');">²⁰</span> Surely it has been stated: If one sells his neighbour the fruit of a palm tree — R. Huna said: As long as it is non-existent [the fruit not having grown yet], he can retract;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because one cannot give possession of that which is non-existent. ');">²¹</span> but when it is [already] come into existence, he cannot. R. Nahman said: Even when it has come into existence, he can retract. Yet R. Nahman said: I admit that if he [the purchaser] snatched and consumed it, he [the vendor] has no claim upon him!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the vendor permitted him only because he was unaware that he could retract, hence in error; thus proving that an erroneous renunciation is valid. ');">²²</span> — There it is a sale; here it is a loan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And in a loan it looks like interest. ');">²³</span> Raba said:

Explore reference for Bava Metzia 132:20. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.