Bava Metzia 131

פטומי מילי בעלמא הוא אמר ליה רב אשי לאמימר טעמא מאי כיון דלוקח בעי לאתנויי והכא מוכר קא מתני אמרת פטומי מילי בעלמא הוא

They are merely words of good cheer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to tranquillise the buyer, but not seriously meant, and therefore of no legal consequence. ');">¹</span>

אלא מתניתא דקתני לכשיהיו לך מעות אחזיר לך מותר דמוכר הוא דבעי לאתנויי מוכר לא אתני ולוקח קא מתני

R. Ashi said to him: Why so? [Is it] because the <i>buyer</i> should have stipulated, whilst here the vendor did so, and therefore you maintain that they were merely words of good cheer? But [what of] the Baraitha wherein it is taught: [If the purchaser says,] 'When you have money, I will resell it to you,' that is permitted? Now, surely [there too] though the vendor should have made this stipulation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The attachment to one's soil is very strong, and when a man sells his estate through financial exigencies, it may be assumed that he would like the option of repurchasing. ');">²</span>

ואמרינן מאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא ואמר רבא סיפא דאמר ליה מדעתיה טעמא דא"ל מדעתיה הא לא א"ל מדעתיה לא אמרינן פטומי מילי בעלמא הוא

the vendor did not stipulate but the buyer; and yet when we asked,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra. ');">³</span>

א"ל נעשה כמאן דא"ל מדעתיה אתמר:

What is the difference between the first clause and the second, Raba answered: In the second clause he [the purchaser] stipulates that it [the resale] should be voluntary, thus implying that if he does not stipulate that it should be voluntary [the transaction would be forbidden], and we do not assume that [his offer] was merely words of good cheer!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But binding, though it is to the purchaser's disadvantage. ');">⁴</span>

ההוא שכיב מרע דכתב לה גיטא לדביתהו אנגיד ואתנח אמרה ליה אמאי קא מתנחת אי קיימת דידך אנא אמר רב זביד פטומי מילי בעלמא הוא

— He replied: What was said was that it is accounted as though he had stipulated that it [the re-sale] should be voluntary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is a stipulation which would come most naturally from the vendor, whereas it was actually made by the purchaser, its voluntary character is inherent. On this interpretation Raba's dictum supports Amemar. ');">⁵</span>

א"ל רב אחא מדפתי לרבינא ואי לאו פטומי מילי מאי בדידה קיימא למישדי תנאה בגיטא בדידיה קיימא למשדי תנאה מהו דתימא הוא גופיה אדעתא דידה קא גמיר ויהיב גיטא קא משמע לן:

A certain sick man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], a man expecting to die. ');">⁶</span>

הלוהו על שדהו: אמר רב הונא בשעת מתן מעות קנה הכל לאחר מתן מעות לא קנה אלא כנגד מעותיו ורב נחמן אמר אפילו לאחר מתן מעות קנה הכל

wrote a get<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Glos. ');">⁷</span>

עבד רב נחמן עובדא גבי ריש גלותא כשמעתיה קרעיה רב יהודה לשטריה אמר ליה ריש גלותא רב יהודה קרע לשטרך אמר ליה דרדקא קרעיה גברא רבה קרעיה חזא ביה טעמא וקרעיה

for his wife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He was childless, and the divorce was to free her from the tie of his brother (v. Deut. XXV 5ff), but he did not stipulate that it should be valid only if he died. ');">⁸</span>

איכא דאמרי אמר ליה דרדקא קרעיה דכולי עלמא לגבי דידי בדינא דרדקי נינהו

He then groaned and sighed, whereupon she [his wife] said to him, 'Why do you sigh? should you recover, I am yours.' Said R. Zebid: These were mere words of consolation. R. Aha of Difti asked Rabina: And what if they were not mere words of consolation? Does it lie within her power to insert a condition in the get? Surely it rests only with him to give the get on a condition! — I might think, he himself meant to give the get in accordance with her desires.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the stipulation should be regarded as his, and so valid. ');">⁹</span>

הדר אמר רב נחמן אפילו בשעת מתן מעות לא קנה ולא כלום איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן אם אי אתה נותן לי מכאן ועד שלש שנים הרי היא שלי הרי היא שלו

Hence he teaches otherwise.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That her words were not meant to be binding at all. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר ליה אני אומר אסמכתא קניא ומניומי אמר אסמכתא לא קניא

IF HE LENT MONEY ON A FIELD. R. Huna said: [If he stipulated thus] when lending the money, it becomes completely his;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the loan is not repaid. ');">¹¹</span>

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;