Reference for Bava Metzia 134:13
אמר מר זוטרא מאי טעמא דמאן דאכיל בנכייתא מידי דהוה אשדה אחוזה שדה אחוזה לאו אע"ג דקא אכיל פירי טובא אמר רחמנא
But on the view that the purchaser's utensils effect ownership for him even in the domain of the vendor,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.B. 85a and b. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> even if they have not been gathered into baskets, they are his.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the mats spread by the creditor are his utensils, and the dates falling upon them, become his. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> Now, it is obvious, where the usage is that the creditor must quit, but he stipulated [when making the loan], 'I will not quit it [before a certain time]' — then surely he has so stipulated [and it is binding]. But what if he promised to quit [immediately on repayment] where the usage does not compel him to go: is it necessary to submit him to a binding act<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that he shall perform a symbolical act(kinyan q.v. Glos.) to bind him to his undertaking. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since usage is otherwise, his mere word may not be binding. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> — R. Papa said: It is unnecessary; R. Shesheth the son of R. Idi ruled: It is necessary. And the law is that he must perform a binding act. Now, if he [the debtor] states, 'I am about to bring you the money,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where usage forced the creditor to quit immediately. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> he [the creditor] may not take the usufruct [in the meanwhile].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the debtor has the money ready, it is accounted as though he had already repaid him. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> [Where he however states] 'I will go, make earnest effort [to obtain it], and bring the money' — Rabina ruled: He may take the usufruct; Mar Zutra, the son of R. Mari, said: He may not. And the law is that he may not take the usufruct. R. Kahana, R. Papa and R. Ashi did not take usufruct with deduction; Rabina did. Mar Zutra said: What is the reason of him who takes it with deduction? — Because it is analogous to '<i>a field of possession'</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], Lev. XXVII, 16-18: if one sanctified 'a field of his inheritance' from the year of jubilee, it was to be redeemed at a fixed price, as stated; and if he sanctified it some years after the jubilee, the redemption price was proportionate to the number of years left until the next jubilee. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> with respect to this, did not the Divine Law order, even though there may be greater usufruct therefrom,