Responsa for Bava Metzia 130:2
<big><strong>מתני'</strong></big> מכר לו את השדה ונתן לו מקצת דמים ואמר לו אימתי שתרצה הבא מעות וטול את שלך אסור הלוהו על שדהו ואמר לו אם אי אתה נותן לי מכאן ועד שלש שנים הרי היא שלי הרי היא שלו וכך היה ביתוס בן זונין עושה ע"פ חכמים:
and the law is as R. Eleazar;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 61b, that direct interest is legally reclaimable. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. What laws govern those transactions which fall in the category of asmakta?
A. Such transactions are valid if accompanied by a kinyan and concluded before an authoritative court. However, some asmakta transactions are valid even when not accompanied by a kinyan and not concluded before an authoritative court. Thus the Talmud rules that if a person lends money to another against a field, and the debtor says that in case he does not repay the debt within three years title to the field shall have vested in the creditor from now on, the transaction is valid (B.M. 65b, 66b). An earnest deposited in connection with a marriage engagement becomes forfeited upon the breaking of the engagement, even though the original transaction was not made before an authoritative court and was not accompanied by a kinyan. A mere promise to pay a fine to charity, as when a person promises to give a certain amount to charity in case he plays cards, is also binding. Regarding this law I wrote at length in a Responsum, which you will find in the possession of our friend R. Isaac of Straubing, and is too long to be repeated here. A decision by a court of arbitration is not binding unless the acceptance of the judges by the litigants was accompanied by a kinyan. Search further in the sources and you will learn the details of these laws.
SOURCES: B. p. 291, no. 364.
A. Such transactions are valid if accompanied by a kinyan and concluded before an authoritative court. However, some asmakta transactions are valid even when not accompanied by a kinyan and not concluded before an authoritative court. Thus the Talmud rules that if a person lends money to another against a field, and the debtor says that in case he does not repay the debt within three years title to the field shall have vested in the creditor from now on, the transaction is valid (B.M. 65b, 66b). An earnest deposited in connection with a marriage engagement becomes forfeited upon the breaking of the engagement, even though the original transaction was not made before an authoritative court and was not accompanied by a kinyan. A mere promise to pay a fine to charity, as when a person promises to give a certain amount to charity in case he plays cards, is also binding. Regarding this law I wrote at length in a Responsum, which you will find in the possession of our friend R. Isaac of Straubing, and is too long to be repeated here. A decision by a court of arbitration is not binding unless the acceptance of the judges by the litigants was accompanied by a kinyan. Search further in the sources and you will learn the details of these laws.
SOURCES: B. p. 291, no. 364.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy