Bava Metzia 132

איבעית אימא דאמר ליה קני מעכשיו

alternatively, it means that he said to him: 'Let it be yours from now.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case it is not an asmakta at all. For the money is given as the purchase price, not as a loan, save that the vendor has the option of repurchase. ');">¹</span>

א"ל מר ינוקא ומר קשישא בני דרב חסדא לרב אשי הכי אמרי נהרדעאי משמיה דרב נחמן האי אסמכתא בזמניה קניא בלא זמניה לא קניא

Mar Yanuka and Mar Kashisha, the sons of R. Hisda,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yanuka is derived from a root meaning youth, Kashisha, age. Accordingly, Rashi in Keth. 89b says that Mar Yanuka was the younger, and Mar Kashisha the older. Tosaf. in B.B. 7b, s.v. [H], reverses it: Mar Yanuka means a son born in R. Hisda's youth, Mar Kashisha, in his old age. ');">²</span>

א"ל כל מידי בזמניה קני בלא זמניה לא קני

said to R. Ashi: Thus did the Nehardeans say in R. Nahman's name: An <i>asmakta</i>, in its time, is binding; out of its time, it is not binding.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Ashi assumed this to mean: when the obligation matures, it is binding, and the creditor can foreclose; but not before. ');">³</span>

דלמא הכי קאמריתו אשכחיה בגו זמניה וא"ל קני קני בתר זמניה ואמר ליה קני לא קני מאי טעמא מחמת כיסופא הוא דקאמר ליה

Said he to them: Every agreement [not merely an <i>asmakta</i>] is binding only when it matures, but not otherwise! perhaps you mean thus: If he [the debtor] meets him [the creditor] within the period [of repayment] and says to him, 'Take possession,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., I have no intention of redeeming it when the time comes. ');">⁴</span>

ולא היא דאפילו בגו זמניה נמי לא קני והאי דקאמר ליה קני קא סבר כי מטי זמניה לא ליתי ליטרדן

he acquires it; if after the time [fixed for repayment] and he says to him, 'Take possession,' he does not acquire it. Why? He spoke thus [merely] through shame.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At not having repaid the loan, yet was not in earnest; therefore it is an asmakta and non-binding. ');">⁵</span>

אמר רב פפא האי אסמכתא זימנין קניא וזימנין לא קניא אשכחיה דקא שתי שכרא קני דקא מהפך אזוזי לא קני

Yet that is incorrect:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Granted that this is your meaning, the ruling is incorrect. ');">⁶</span>

א"ל רב אחא מדפתי לרבינא דלמא לפכוחי פחדיה קא שתי אי נמי איניש אחרינא אסמכיה אזוזי אלא אמר רבינא אי קפיד בדמי ודאי קני

even if within the period, he obtains no legal right, and as for his saying, 'Take possession,' he intends [thereby] that when the time comes he shall not trouble him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By demanding repayment. ');">⁷</span>

אמר ליה רב אחא מדפתי לרבינא דלמא סבר כי היכי דלא תיתזיל ארעיה אלא אמר רב פפא אי קפיד בארעא ודאי קני

R. papa said: An <i>asmakta</i> is sometimes legally binding and sometimes not. If he [the creditor] found him [the debtor] drinking beer [at the expiration of the period], it is binding; if he was endeavouring to procure money, it is not binding.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If repayment was due, and the debtor told him to take the field, at the same time engaging in frivolous pursuits, it is evident that he does not care about it and is in earnest. But if he was attempting to find the money, he was obviously anxious to retain his estate, and therefore his offer was not really meant and is not binding. ');">⁸</span>

ואמר רב פפא אף על גב דאמור רבנן אסמכתא לא קניא אפותיקי הויא למיגבא מינה

R. Aha of Difti said to Rabina: perhaps he was drinking to drown his anxiety, or else someone had assured him of the money? But, said Rabina, if he insists on its full value, it [his offer to the creditor to take the field] is certainly valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: if when selling some of his articles he insists on obtaining their full value, he is not anxious for the field, as otherwise he would sell for less and repay. Tosaf.: If, when he borrowed, he was mindful of borrowing to the full value of the field, he must have borne in mind the possibility of nonredemption, and therefore means the creditor to have it now. ');">⁹</span>

א"ל רב הונא בריה דרב נתן לרב פפא מי קאמר ליה קני לגוביינא אמר ליה מר זוטרא בריה דרב מרי לרבינא ואי אמר קני למיגבא מיניה קני סוף סוף אסמכתא היא ואסמכתא לא קניא

Said R. Aha of Difti to Rabina: perhaps that is due to fear lest his land lose its worth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he were seen selling articles (on Rashi's interpretation) or mortgaging a field (Tosaf.) at less than their value, his financial straits would be known, with the result that his property would drop in price. Yet he really may wish to retain the field ');">¹⁰</span>

אלא אפותיקי דקאמר רב פפא מאי היא דאמר ליה לא יהא לך פרעון אלא מזו

But, said R. Papa, if he is particular about his land, it [his offer to the creditor] is certainly binding.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: if he is particular not to sell any land, even for its full value, he is obviously not anxious to retain the mortgaged estate, as otherwise he would have sold off some other field. (Presumably this assumption is made because he could not have obtained on a mortgage the same money as by a sale in the open market) Tosaf.: If, when borrowing, he was insistent that the mortgage should be on that particular field, he evidently anticipated the possibility of non-redemption, and was reconciled to it. ');">¹¹</span>

ההוא גברא דזבין ליה ארעא לחבריה באחריות א"ל אי טרפו ליה מנאי מגבית לי מעידי עידית דאית לך אמר ליה מעידי עידית לא מגבינא לך דבעינן למיקם קמאי אלא מגבינא לך מעידית אחרים דאית לי לסוף טרפוה מיניה אתא בדקא שקיל לעידי עידית

R. Papa also said: Although the Rabbis ruled that an <i>asmakta</i> gives no legal title, yet it creates a mortgage from which payment may be exacted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., though the creditor cannot seize the whole field, which is probably worth more than the debt, he can claim payment from that particular field, and refuse to be fobbed off with another. ');">¹²</span>

סבר רב פפא למימר מעידית א"ל והא קיימא

Said R. Huna the son of Nathan to R. Papa: Did he then say to him, 'Let it be yours for the exaction of your debt'? Mar Zutra, the son of R. Mari, objected before Rabina: But even if he had said, 'Let it be yours for the exaction of your debt' — has he a legal title? After all, it is an <i>asmakta</i>, and an <i>asmakta</i> is not binding. But when did R. Papa rule that it creates a mortgage? — If he stipulated, 'You shall receive payment only out of this.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he assigned the field for repayment in all circumstances, it is no longer asmakta as far as the amount of the debt is concerned. ');">¹³</span>

א"ל רב אחא מדפתי לרבינא ולימא ליה כי אמרי לך אנא מגבינא לך דהוה עידי עידית קיימא השתא קיימא ליה עידית במקום עידי עידית

A man once sold land to his neighbour with security. Said he [the purchaser] to him, 'Should this be seized from me, will you repay me out of your "very best"?' — He replied, 'I will not repay you out of the "very best", as I want them for myself, but out of other "best" which I possess.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Very best', [H], and 'best', [H], denote two grades of soil. ');">¹⁴</span>

רב בר שבא הוה מסיק ביה רב כהנא זוזי א"ל אי לא פרענא לך ליום פלוני גבי מהאי חמרא סבר רב פפא למימר כי אמרינן אסמכתא לא קניא הני מילי בארעא דלאו לזבוני קיימא אבל חמרא כיון דלזבוני קאי כזוזי דמי

Subsequently it was seized from him. Then there came an inundation and swamped the very best [land]. R. Papa thought to rule: He promised him of 'the best', which is intact. Said R. Aha of Difti to him: But he [the vendor] can plead, 'When I promised to repay you from the "best", the "very best" was existent; but now the "best" has replaced the "very best".'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that he must be indemnified out of medium quality soil. ');">¹⁵</span>

א"ל רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לרב פפא הכי אמרי' משמיה דרבה כל דאי לא קני

Rab b. Shaba owed money to R. Kahana. 'If I do not repay you by a certain date', said he to him, 'you may exact your debt out of this wine.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And a valuation was made, but it subsequently appreciated. ');">¹⁶</span>

אמר רב נחמן השתא דאמור רבנן אסמכתא לא קניא הדר ארעא והדרי פירי למימרא דסבר רב נחמן מחילה בטעות לא הויא מחילה

Now, R. papa thought to argue, Where do we rule that an <i>asmakta</i> is not binding, only in respect of land, which is not for sale;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 386, n. 6; therefore the offer to give land is not genuine. ');">¹⁷</span>

והאיתמר המוכר פירות דקל לחבירו אמר רב הונא עד שלא באו לעולם יכול לחזור בו משבאו לעולם אין יכול לחזור בו ורב נחמן אמר אף משבאו לעולם יכול לחזור בו

but as for wine, since its purpose is to be sold, it is just the same as money. But R. Huna, the son of R. Joshua, said to R. Papa: Thus is it stated in Rabbah's name: No 'if' is binding.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A stipulation, '" if"="" i="" do="" not="" repay,="" take="" so="" and="" so,'="" is="" binding.="" ');"="">¹⁸</span>

ואמר רב נחמן מודינא דאי שמיט ואכיל לא מפקינן מיניה התם זביני הכא הלואה

R. Nahman said: Now that the Rabbis have ruled, An <i>asmakta</i> gives no claim, both the land and its produce are returnable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to the case stated in the Mishnah on 65b. If the creditor after three years returns the field and enjoys the usufruct, he must return both. [Maim. Yad., Laweh. VI, 4, and Alfasi, include in the return also the usufruct enjoyed by the creditor during the three years.] ');">¹⁹</span>

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: