Bava Metzia 134

כגדולים

just as though they were adults.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And did not allow the dismissal of the creditors without payment in spite of the discrimination above in their favour. ');">¹</span>

אמר רבא בריה דרב יוסף משמיה דרבא האי משכנתא באתרא דמסלקי לא ניכול אלא בנכייתא וצורבא מדרבנן אפילו בנכייתא לא ניכול אלא במאי ניכול בקיצותא

Raba, the son of R. Joseph, said in Raba's name: With reference to a mortgage, where it is the usage to make [the creditor] quit [whenever] the loan is repaid],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 2. ');">²</span>

הניחא למאן דאמר קיצותא שריא אלא למאן דאמר קיצותא אסירא מאי איכא למימר דאתמר קיצותא פליגא בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אמר קיצותא שריא וחד אמר קיצותא אסירא היכי דמי קיצותא דאמר ליה עד חמש שנין אכילנא לה בלא נכייתא מכאן ואילך שיימנא לך כולהו פירי

one must not enjoy the usufruct without making a [fixed annual] deduction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For every year of possession the creditor must allow a fixed deduction from the debt, even if the usufruct in a particular year amounts to less. This removes it from the category of loans and turns it into a temporary sale, so that even when the usufruct exceeds the allowance it is not interest. ');">³</span>

איכא דאמרי כל בלא נכייתא אסור אבל היכי דמי קיצותא דאמר ליה עד חמש שנין אכילנא בנכייתא מכאן ואילך שיימנא לך כולהו פירי

But a scholar must not enjoy the usufruct even at a [fixed] allowance. How else shall he take them? — By a stipulated time limit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained below. ');">⁴</span>

מאן דאסר בקמייתא שרי בבתרייתא מאן דאסר בבתרייתא היכי שרי למיכל שרי כי משכנתא דסורא דכתבי בה הכי במשלם שניא אילין תיפוק ארעא דא בלא כסף

Now, this is well on the view that a stipulated time limit is permitted; but on the view that it is forbidden, what can you say? For it has been stated: As for a stipulated time limit, R. Aha and Rabina differ therein: one maintained that it is permitted — the other that it is forbidden. What is meant by a 'stipulated time limit'? — If he [the creditor said], 'For the first five years, the usufruct is mine without deduction; thereafter, I will make you a full allowance for the crops.' Others maintain: Any arrangement involving no deduction is forbidden. What then is meant by a 'stipulated time limit'? — If he [the creditor] said to him, 'For the first five years the usufruct is mine at a [fixed] deduction;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Less than the average value of the crops. ');">⁵</span>

רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמרי תרוייהו האי משכנתא באתרא דמסלקי אין בעל חוב גובה הימנה ואין הבכור נוטל בה פי שנים ושביעית משמטתה

thereafter, I will make you a full allowance for the crops.' Now, he who forbids the first arrangement will permit the second; but he who forbids [even] the second, on what condition may he [a scholar] have the usufruct? — When it is as the mortgage bonds arranged in Sura, in which it was written, 'On the expiry of a certain number of years this estate reverts [to the debtor] without any payment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Converting it into a sale. ');">⁶</span>

ובאתרא דלא מסלקי בעל חוב גובה הימנו ובכור נוטל בו פי שנים ואין שביעית משמטתה

R. Papa and R. Huna, the sons of R. Joshua, said: As for a mortgage, where it is the practice to make [the creditor] quit [whenever the loan is repaid], the [creditor's] creditor cannot exact his debt from it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the creditor dies, and the usufruct of the estate passes on to his children, his creditor cannot demand repayment out of the usufruct of the field. For since it must be returned whenever the loan is repaid, the heirs have no possible title to the land itself, but to its usufruct, which, regarded as movable property, cannot be distrained upon from the heirs for debt. ');">⁷</span>

ואמר מר זוטרא משמיה דרב פפא האי משכנתא באתרא דמסלקי מסלקי ליה ואפילו מתמרי דאבודיא ואי אגבהנהו בסיסני קננהו ולמאן דאמר כליו של לוקח ברשות מוכר קנה לוקח אפילו דלא אגבהנהו בסיסני קננהו:

the first-born receives no double portion therein,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the view that a first-born receives no double portion of debts (v. B.B. 124b), and since the creditor may have to quit the land at any moment, this is merely a debt. ');">⁸</span>

פשיטא באתרא דמסלקי ואמר לא מסתלקנא הא קאמר דלא מסתלקנא אלא באתרא דלא מסלקי ואמר מסתלקנא מאי צריך למקנא מיניה או לא

and the seventh year cancels it [the privilege of usufruct].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like any other loan on a written bond. Though a loan against a pledge consisting of movable property is not cancelled by the seventh year, this is not regarded as such. ');">⁹</span>

רב פפא אמר לא צריך למקנא מיניה רב ששת בריה דרב אידי אמר צריך למקנא מיניה והלכתא צריך למקנא מיניה

But where the creditor is not obliged to give up possession [whenever the loan is repaid], his creditor can exact his debt from it, the first-born receives a double portion, and the seventh year does not cancel it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in these circumstances he is regarded as having bought the land for the period arranged. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר איזיל ואייתי זוזי לא אכיל איזיל ואטרח ואייתי זוזי רבינא אמר אכיל ומר זוטרא בריה דרב מרי אמר לא אכיל והלכתא לא אכיל

Mar Zutra also said in R. Papa's name: With reference to mortgaged property, where it is the usage to make [the creditor] quit, he must give up possession [absolutely], even of the dates on the mattings;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Spread on the ground to receive the dates falling 'at gleaning'. He must quit immediately on receiving his money, and may take nothing whatsoever. ');">¹¹</span>

רב כהנא ורב פפא ורב אשי לא אכלי בנכייתא רבינא אכיל בנכייתא

but if he has already picked them up [and placed them] in baskets, they are his.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the 'lifting up' from the mats effects possession. ');">¹²</span>

אמר מר זוטרא מאי טעמא דמאן דאכיל בנכייתא מידי דהוה אשדה אחוזה שדה אחוזה לאו אע"ג דקא אכיל פירי טובא אמר רחמנא

But on the view that the purchaser's utensils effect ownership for him even in the domain of the vendor,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.B. 85a and b. ');">¹³</span> even if they have not been gathered into baskets, they are his.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the mats spread by the creditor are his utensils, and the dates falling upon them, become his. ');">¹⁴</span> Now, it is obvious, where the usage is that the creditor must quit, but he stipulated [when making the loan], 'I will not quit it [before a certain time]' — then surely he has so stipulated [and it is binding]. But what if he promised to quit [immediately on repayment] where the usage does not compel him to go: is it necessary to submit him to a binding act<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that he shall perform a symbolical act(kinyan q.v. Glos.) to bind him to his undertaking. ');">¹⁵</span> or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since usage is otherwise, his mere word may not be binding. ');">¹⁶</span> — R. Papa said: It is unnecessary; R. Shesheth the son of R. Idi ruled: It is necessary. And the law is that he must perform a binding act. Now, if he [the debtor] states, 'I am about to bring you the money,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where usage forced the creditor to quit immediately. ');">¹⁷</span> he [the creditor] may not take the usufruct [in the meanwhile].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the debtor has the money ready, it is accounted as though he had already repaid him. ');">¹⁸</span> [Where he however states] 'I will go, make earnest effort [to obtain it], and bring the money' — Rabina ruled: He may take the usufruct; Mar Zutra, the son of R. Mari, said: He may not. And the law is that he may not take the usufruct. R. Kahana, R. Papa and R. Ashi did not take usufruct with deduction; Rabina did. Mar Zutra said: What is the reason of him who takes it with deduction? — Because it is analogous to '<i>a field of possession'</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], Lev. XXVII, 16-18: if one sanctified 'a field of his inheritance' from the year of jubilee, it was to be redeemed at a fixed price, as stated; and if he sanctified it some years after the jubilee, the redemption price was proportionate to the number of years left until the next jubilee. ');">¹⁹</span> with respect to this, did not the Divine Law order, even though there may be greater usufruct therefrom,