Bava Metzia 133

הוה יתיבנא קמיה דרב נחמן ובעי לאותביה אונאה ואודיק חזיתן איילונית והרי אונאה דמחילה בטעות היא ולא הויא מחילה ואודיק חזיתן איילונית הרי איילונית דמחילה בטעות היא והויא מחילה

I was sitting before R. Nahman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When be said, 'I admit that if he removed, etc.' ');">¹</span>

דתנן הממאנת והשנייה והאיילונית אין להן לא כתובה ולא פירות ולא מזונות ולא בלאות

and wished to refute him from the law of 'overreaching';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 51a: though given voluntarily, and hence an erroneous abandonment, it is nevertheless returnable. ');">²</span>

ולא היא לא אונאה הויא תיובתיה ולא איילונית מסייע ליה

but observing [my intentions] he drew my attention to the case of a barren woman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], a woman constitutionally incapable of child-birth. ');">³</span>

לא אונאה תיובתיה דלא ידע דאיתיה אונאה דמחיל גביה ולא איילונית מסייע ליה דניחא לה דתיפוק עלה שמא דאישות

[Raba proceeds to explain.] Now 'overreaching', being as it is [the result] of renunciation in error,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the money fraudently taken is given under the mistaken impression that it is due. ');">⁴</span>

ההיא איתתא דאמרה ליה לההוא גברא זיל זבין לי ארעא מקריביי אזל זבן לה א"ל אי הוו לי זוזי מהדרת לה ניהלי א"ל את ונוולא אחי

[we find that it] is not a [legal] renunciation! 'But observing [my intention], he drew my attention to a barren woman,' for a barren woman [makes] renunciation in error, and yet it is valid. For we learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 100b. ');">⁵</span>

אמר רבה בר רב הונא כל את ונוולא אחי אמר סמכא דעתיה ולא גמר ומקני

An objecting woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], lit., 'a woman who refuses'. If a girl, a minor, was married by her mother or elder brothers, who by Rabbinical law were empowered to marry her, on attaining her majority she could annul the marriage merely by objecting to it. ');">⁶</span>

ארעא הדרה פירי מאי רבית קצוצה הוו ויוצאין בדיינין או דילמא כי אבק רבית הוו ואין יוצאין

a consanguineous relation in the second degree,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a second'. E.g., the Bible interdicts marriage with one's mother; the Rabbis add, one's grandmother; this is called forbidden relationship in the second degree. ');">⁷</span>

אמר רבה בר רב הונא מסתברא כי אבק רבית הוו ואין יוצאין בדיינין וכן אמר רבא כי אבק רבית הוו ואין יוצאין בדיינין

and a constitutionally barren woman can claim no <i>kethubah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁸</span>

אמר ליה אביי לרבה משכנתא מאי התם טעמא מאי משום דלא קץ ליה הכא נמי לא קץ ליה או דילמא התם זביני הכא הלואה

usufruct,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis enacted that the usufruct of the wife's melog property (v. Glos.) belongs to the husband, in return for which he must ransom her, should she ever be taken captive. These are not entitled to this consideration, and yet if divorced cannot demand repayment of the usufruct seized by the husband. ');">⁹</span>

א"ל התם טעמא מאי משום דלא קץ ליה הכא נמי לא קץ ליה

alimony,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The conditions depriving maintenance rights, in respect of an objector, are stated in Keth. 107b thus: If she borrows money in the husband's absence for her maintenance, and then, on his return, she objects, her creditor cannot obtain repayment from him. Tosaf. here states that similar conditions apply to the constitutionally barren woman, her borrowings having been made before she was certified as such. With respect to a 'secondary relation', Tosaf. maintains that the reference is to her widowhood; after her husband's death, she cannot demand maintenance from his estate. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רב פפי עבד רבינא עובדא וחשיב ואפיק פירי דלא כרבה בר רב הונא

or worn out raiment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If raiment formed part of the dowry she brought her husband, and it became worn out, so that it is no longer in existence, she cannot claim payment for it (Tosaf.). Rashi: She cannot demand even her worn out raiment which is still fit for some use. Now, with respect to a barren woman, though her renunciation of ownership rights in her dowry in favour of her husband was in error, for when marrying him, she did not foresee that she would prove incapable of childbirth, that renunciation is valid, and she cannot demand their return. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר מר בריה דרב יוסף משמיה דרבא הא משכנתא באתרא דמסלקי אכל שיעור זוזי מסלקינן ליה

But it is not so: neither [the law of] 'overreaching' refutes him, nor [that of] a 'barren woman' supports him. [Thus: the law of] overreaching does not refute him, for he [the victim did not know that he was defrauded at all, that he should forego it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that there is no renunciation at all, even in error, and therefore it must be returned. ');">¹²</span>

אכל טפי לא מפקינן מיניה ולא מחשבינן משטרא לשטרא

Nor does [the law of] a 'barren woman' support him, because she is satisfied to be designated a married woman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And in return for that she knowingly, not in error, brings in a dowry to her husband, even if she should have to forfeit it eventually. ');">¹³</span>

ובדיתמי אכל שיעור זוזי מסלקינן ליה אכל טפי מפקינן מיניה ומחשבינן משטרא לשטרא

A woman once instructed a man, 'Go and buy me land from my relatives,' and he went and did so. Said he [the vendor] to him [her agent], 'If I have money, will she return it to me?' 'You and Nawla,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [A proper noun; others: 'and so-and-so,' 'and she'.] ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר רב אשי השתא דאמרת אכל טפי לא מפקינן מיניה אכל שיעור זוזי נמי לא מסלקינן ליה בלא זוזי מאי טעמא סלוקי בלא זוזי אפוקי מיניה הוא הוי אבק רבית ואבק רבית אינה יוצאה בדיינין

he replied, 'are relatives.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She will certainly permit you to repurchase the land when you are able. ');">¹⁵</span>

עבד רב אשי עובדא ביתומים קטנים

Rabbah son of R. Huna said: Whenever one says, 'You and Nawla are relatives,' he [the vendor] relies upon it, and does not completely transfer it [the object of sale].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the sale is conditional, and the field can always be redeemed. ');">¹⁶</span> Now, the land is [certainly] returnable; but what of the crops?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Raised after the sale. ');">¹⁷</span> Is it as direct usury, which can be legally reclaimed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since such a sale is really a loan (v. Mishnah on 65b), the crops which the purchaser enjoys are in the nature of direct interest. ');">¹⁸</span> or perhaps it is only indirect<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra, 61b. ');">¹⁹</span> usury, and cannot be reclaimed? — Rabbah b. Rab said: It stands to reason that it is considered indirect usury and cannot be reclaimed in court. And thus did Raba say, It is considered indirect usury and cannot be reclaimed in court. Abaye inquired of Rabbah: What of a mortgage?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a field was mortgaged and no stipulation made about its crops, and the creditor took them. ');">²⁰</span> Is the reason there [in the previous case] that he made no stipulation? Then here too there was no stipulation!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is not returnable. ');">²¹</span> Or, perhaps, there it is a sale, but here a loan? — He replied: The reason there is that no stipulation was made; so here too there was no stipulation. R. papi said: Rabina gave a practical decision, calculated [the value of] the crops, and ordered it to be returned, thus disagreeing with Rabbah son of R. Huna. Mar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec.: Raba. ');">²²</span> the son of R. Joseph, said in Raba's name: With reference to a mortgage: Where it is customary to make [the creditor] quit [whenever the loan is repaid],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And until then, he is in possession and enjoys its usufruct. ');">²³</span> if he took the usufruct to the amount of the loan, he must quit it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the debtor makes the claim, the usufruct is counted as repayment, and the creditor has no further title. ');">²⁴</span> but if in excess thereof, [the surplus] is not returnable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is not direct interest. ');">²⁵</span> nor is one loan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'bond.' ');">²⁶</span> balanced against another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the debtor owes him more money on another bond, the excess cannot be deducted from it. ');">²⁷</span> But when it [the mortgaged estate] belongs to orphans, if he [the creditor] enjoyed its usufruct to the amount of the loan, he must quit it; if it [the usufruct] exceeded it, [the surplus] is returnable, and one loan is balanced against another. R. Ashi said: Now that you rule, If the usufruct exceeded the loan, [the balance] is not returnable; then even if it [merely] equalled it, he must not be dismissed without payment. Why? Because to dismiss him without payment is tantamount to making him return [what he has already had]; whereas it is only indirect interest, which is not reclaimable at law. R. Ashi gave a practical decision in reference to orphans [minors],