Reference for Bava Metzia 131:12

ולמניומי קשיא מתני' איבעית אימא מתני' רבי יוסי היא דאמר אסמכתא קניא

if after, he acquires [of the field] only in proportion to the money owing. R. Nahman said: [Even if the stipulation was made] after lending the money, it becomes completely his. Now, R. Nahman gave a practical decision at the Resh Galutha's [court]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Resh Galutha, exilarch, was the official title of the head of Babylonian Jewry, whose son-in-law R. Nahman was. ');">¹²</span> in accordance with his ruling. Rab Judah [however] tore up the document [embodying his decision]. Said the Resh Galutha to him: Rab Judah has torn up your document. He replied: Did then a child tear it up? It was a great man who tore it up. He must have seen some reason therein [to invalidate it], and hence tore it up. Others say: He [R. Nahman] replied: A child has torn it up, for in civil law everyone is a child compared to me. Subsequently R. Nahman ruled: Even [if the stipulation was made] when the money was being handed over, he [the creditor] acquires no rights therein at all. Raba objected to R. Nahman: IF YOU DO NOT REPAY ME WITHIN THREE YEARS, IT [THE FIELD] IS MINE,' — IT BECOMES HIS! — He replied: I used to rule that an <i>asmakta</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹³</span> is binding, but Minyomi ruled that it is not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he persuaded me to his ruling. ');">¹⁴</span> But [then] according to Minyomi, is not our Mishnah difficult? — If you wish, I can answer that the Mishnah agrees with R. Jose, who ruled that an <i>asmakta</i> is legally valid;

Explore reference for Bava Metzia 131:12. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.