## Bava Metzia Daf 66a

###### Bava Metzia 66a:1
[Bava Metzia 66a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/66a:1)

פַּטּוֹמֵי מִילֵּי בְּעָלְמָא הוּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: טַעְמָא מַאי – כֵּיוָן דְּלוֹקֵחַ בָּעֵי לְאַתְנוֹיֵי, וְהָכָא מוֹכֵר קָא מַתְנֵי, אָמְרַתְּ פַּטּוֹמֵי מִילֵּי בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**These are merely words of enticement [*pittumei millei*]** designed to encourage the buyer, but they are not part of a legal contract and therefore do not obligate the seller. **Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What is the reason** for this? **Since the buyer** is the one who **needs to stipulate** this condition but he neglected to do so, **and here** it was **the seller who stipulated** the condition, is that why **you said** that **these are merely words of enticement?**


###### Bava Metzia 66a:2
[Bava Metzia 66a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/66a:2)

אֶלָּא מַתְנִיתָא דְּקָתָנֵי: ״לִכְשֶׁיִּהְיוּ לְךָ מָעוֹת אַחְזִיר לָךְ – מוּתָּר״, דְּמוֹכֵר הוּא דְּבָעֵי לְאַתְנוֹיֵי, מוֹכֵר לָא אַתְנִי וְלוֹקֵחַ קָא מַתְנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** according to this reasoning, consider **the *baraita*, as it teaches** that if the buyer says: **When you have money I will give** the property **back to you,** this is **permitted.** Now in this case **it is the seller who needs to stipulate** this condition, but the **seller did not stipulate** it **and** it was **the buyer** who **stipulated** it. Accordingly, they should likewise be regarded as words of enticement.


###### Bava Metzia 66a:3
[Bava Metzia 66a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/66a:3)

וְאָמְרִינַן: מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא? וְאָמַר רָבָא: סֵיפָא, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ מִדַּעְתֵּיהּ. טַעְמָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ מִדַּעְתֵּיהּ, הָא לָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ מִדַּעְתֵּיהּ – לָא אָמְרִינַן פַּטּוֹמֵי מִילֵּי בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we said** concerning the *baraita*: **What is different** in **the first clause and what is different** in **the latter clause? And Rava says** that **the latter clause** is referring to a situation **where** the buyer **said** he would return the field **of his own accord.** Rav Ashi infers: The **reason** the condition is invalid is that the buyer **said to him** that he would return the field **of his own accord. But if he did not say to him** that he would return the field **of his own accord, we** would **not say** that **these are merely words of enticement,** even though the statement was made by the buyer about himself, and not as a condition by the seller.


###### Bava Metzia 66a:4
[Bava Metzia 66a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/66a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נַעֲשֶׂה כְּמַאן דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ מִדַּעְתֵּיהּ אִתְּמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ameimar **said to him:** In fact, any condition stated by the wrong person is invalid, but it **was stated** in the *baraita* that whenever the buyer states such a condition, he is **considered like one who said** that he would return the field **of his own accord.**


###### Bava Metzia 66a:5
[Bava Metzia 66a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/66a:5)

הָהוּא שְׁכִיב מְרַע, דִּכְתַב לַהּ גִּיטָּא לִדְבֵיתְהוּ, אִנְּגִיד וְאִתְּנַח. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: אַמַּאי קָא מִתְּנַחַתְּ? אִי קָיְימַתְּ – דִּידָךְ אֲנָא. אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: פַּטּוֹמֵי מִילֵּי בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates: There was **a certain person on his deathbed who wrote a bill of divorce for his wife** in order to exempt her from the obligation of *ḥalitza* in the event of his death, and **he moaned and sighed** at the time, in distress over having to divorce her. **She said to him: Why do you sigh? If you recover** from this illness, **I am yours,** as I will marry you again. The Gemara discusses the legal validity of this promise. **Rav Zevid said: These are merely words of enticement** designed to encourage him to grant the divorce, but they do not actually obligate the wife to remarry him if he lives.


###### Bava Metzia 66a:6
[Bava Metzia 66a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/66a:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: וְאִי לָאו פַּטּוֹמֵי מִילֵּי מַאי? בְּדִידַהּ קָיְימָא לְמִישְׁדֵּי תְּנָאָה בְּגִיטָּא? בְּדִידֵיהּ קָיְימָא לְמִשְׁדֵּי תְּנָאָה! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הוּא גּוּפֵיהּ אַדַּעְתָּא דִידַהּ קָא גָמֵיר וְיָהֵיב גִּיטָּא – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: And** even **if they were not** merely **words of enticement,** but she had made an actual condition upheld by an oath or an act of acquisition, **what** of it? Is it **her** prerogative **to stipulate a condition** concerning her **bill of divorce?** It is not in her power to do so, as it is **his** right **to establish** such **a condition,** and since he failed to do so explicitly, any condition she accepts upon herself is of no consequence. The Gemara answers: This statement of Rav Zevid is necessary, **lest you say** that **he himself relied upon her** condition when he **decided** to **give her the bill of divorce,** and therefore it is as though he stipulated the condition. Rav Zevid therefore **teaches us** that this is not the case.


###### Bava Metzia 66a:7
[Bava Metzia 66a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/66a:7)

הִלְוָהוּ עַל שָׂדֵהוּ, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בִּשְׁעַת מַתַּן מָעוֹת – קָנָה הַכֹּל. לְאַחַר מַתַּן מָעוֹת – לֹא קָנָה אֶלָּא כְּנֶגֶד מְעוֹתָיו. וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ לְאַחַר מַתַּן מָעוֹת – קָנָה הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If one **lent** money **to** another **on** the basis of **his field** serving as a guarantee, and he said to borrower: If you do not give me the money from now until three years have passed, your field is mine, then if his money is not returned within three years, the field is his. **Rav Huna says:** If the lender stated the condition **at the time of the giving of the money, he has acquired it all,** meaning that if the borrower fails to pay the debt, the entire field is transferred to the lender. But if the lender stated his condition at some point **after the giving of the money, he has acquired only** a portion of the field **corresponding to the money** that **he** lent. **And Rav Naḥman says: Even** if the lender stated his condition **after the giving of the money, he has acquired it all.**


###### Bava Metzia 66a:8
[Bava Metzia 66a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/66a:8)

עֲבַד רַב נַחְמָן עוֹבָדָא גַּבֵּי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא כִּשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ, קַרְעֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה לִשְׁטָרֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא: רַב יְהוּדָה קְרַע לִשְׁטָרָךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דַּרְדְּקָא קַרְעֵיהּ? גַּבְרָא רַבָּה קַרְעֵיהּ, חֲזָא בֵּיהּ טַעְמָא וְקַרְעֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Rav Naḥman performed an action in the court of the Exilarch in accordance with his statement** that even if the lender states his condition after the loan is granted, the lender acquires the entire field if the loan isn’t repaid within the specified time period. The case then came before **Rav Yehuda,** who **tore up** the lender’s **deed** of ownership of the field, claiming it was invalid. **The Exilarch said** to Rav Naḥman: **Rav Yehuda tore up your document,** i.e., he overruled your decision. Rav Naḥman **said to him:** Did **a child tear it up? A great man tore it up;** he must have **seen in it** some **reason** to invalidate it, **and** that is why he **tore it up.**


###### Bava Metzia 66a:9
[Bava Metzia 66a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/66a:9)

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דַּרְדְּקָא קַרְעֵיהּ, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְגַבֵּי דִּידִי בְּדִינָא דַּרְדְּקֵי נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** a different version of this exchange, according to which Rav Naḥman **said to him: A child tore it up,** i.e., there is no need to take his opinion into consideration, **as everyone is** like **a child relative to me with regard to** monetary **laws.** Rav Naḥman was the greatest expert of his generation with regard to monetary matters, and therefore he could discount the opinions of others.


###### Bava Metzia 66a:10
[Bava Metzia 66a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/66a:10)

הֲדַר אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׁעַת מַתַּן מָעוֹת – לֹא קָנָה וְלֹא כְּלוּם. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: אִם אִי אַתָּה נוֹתֵן לִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים, הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁלִּי – הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁלּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
After examining the matter again, **Rav Naḥman** retracted his words and **then said** the opposite of his initial ruling: **Even** if the lender stated his condition **at the time of the giving of the money, he has not acquired anything. Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman** from the mishna, which teaches: If one lent money to another on the basis of the borrower’s field serving as a guarantee, and said to him: **If you do not give me** the money now and instead delay your payment **from now until three years** have passed, the field **is mine,** then after three years, the field **is his.** Evidently, a condition of this kind is valid.


###### Bava Metzia 66a:11
[Bava Metzia 66a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/66a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנִי אוֹמֵר אַסְמַכְתָּא קָנְיָא. וּמִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר: אַסְמַכְתָּא לָא קָנְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **said to him: I** used to **say** that **a transaction with inconclusive consent [*asmakhta*] effects acquisition,** meaning that any obligation one accepts to serve as a penalty over and above the value of what he actually owes is nevertheless binding. **But Minyumi said** that **an *asmakhta* does not effect acquisition,** and the transaction under discussion is an *asmakhta*. Now that he convinced me that his opinion is correct, I have retracted my previous opinion.


###### Bava Metzia 66a:12
[Bava Metzia 66a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/66a:12)

וּלְמִנְיוֹמֵי קַשְׁיָא מַתְנִיתִין! אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, דְּאָמַר אַסְמַכְתָּא קָנְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if so, **the mishna** is **difficult according to Minyumi.** The Gemara answers: **If you wish, say** that **the mishna is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, who said** that **an *asmakhta* effects acquisition,** but his is a minority opinion.