## Bava Metzia Daf 67a

###### Bava Metzia 67a:1
[Bava Metzia 67a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/67a:1)

הֲוָה יָתֵיבְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, וּבְעַי לְאוֹתֹבֵיהּ אוֹנָאָה, וְאוֹדֵיק, חֲזִיתַן אַיְילוֹנִית. וַהֲרֵי אוֹנָאָה דִּמְחִילָה בְּטָעוּת הִיא, וְלָא הָוְיָא מְחִילָה! וְאוֹדֵיק, חֲזִיתַן אַיְילוֹנִית: הֲרֵי אַיְילוֹנִית דִּמְחִילָה בְּטָעוּת הִיא, וְהָוְיָא מְחִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**I was sitting before Rav Naḥman** when he said that mistaken forgiveness is valid, **and I wanted to raise an objection to him** from the *halakha* of **exploitation, and he observed** me, anticipated my objection, **and showed me** that he was correct based on the *halakha* of **a sexually underdeveloped woman** who is incapable of bearing children **[*ailonit*].** The Gemara explains: Rava wanted to ask: **But** there is the case of **exploitation,** where the price paid in a sale was in excess of the market value (see 50b), **which is** a case of **mistaken forgiveness** at the time of the sale, **and** yet **it is not** considered **forgiveness.** The seller must return the excess money paid. **And he observed** me and **showed me** the *halakha* of **an *ailonit*. Doesn’t** the case of **an *ailonit*** involve **mistaken forgiveness, and** yet **it is** valid **forgiveness?**


###### Bava Metzia 67a:2
[Bava Metzia 67a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/67a:2)

דִּתְנַן: הַמְמָאֶנֶת וְהַשְּׁנִיָּיה וְהָאַיְילוֹנִית, אֵין לָהֶן לֹא כְּתוּבָּה וְלֹא פֵּירוֹת וְלֹא מְזוֹנוֹת וְלֹא בְּלָאוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava explains: **As we learned** in a mishna (*Ketubot* 100b): In the case of a minor girl married off by her mother or brother **who refuses** to continue living with her husband, and in the case of a woman who is **a secondary** forbidden **relative, and** in the case of **an *ailonit*,** each of these women **is not entitled to** payment of **a marriage contract, and** they are **not** entitled to remuneration for the **produce** that the husband consumed from her property while they were together, **and** they are **not** entitled to **sustenance, and** they are **not** entitled to their **worn clothes** that were brought into the marriage as part of their dowry and became worn out during the marriage. The *ailonit* granted the rights to the profits the husband earned from her property while under the mistaken premise that she was married. Yet after the marriage was determined to have been contracted in error, the husband does not have to return these profits.


###### Bava Metzia 67a:3
[Bava Metzia 67a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/67a:3)

וְלָא הִיא: לָא אוֹנָאָה הָוְיָא תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ, וְלָא אַיְילוֹנִית מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **But** that is **not so;** the *halakha* of **exploitation is not a refutation of** Rav Naḥman’s opinion, **nor** does the case of **a sexually underdeveloped woman support his** opinion, as there are differences between the cases.


###### Bava Metzia 67a:4
[Bava Metzia 67a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/67a:4)

לָא אוֹנָאָה תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ: דְּלָא יָדַע דְּאִיתֵיהּ אוֹנָאָה דְּמָחֵיל גַּבֵּיהּ. וְלָא אַיְילוֹנִית מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ, דְּנִיחָא לַהּ (דְּתִיפּוֹק) [דְּנִיפּוֹק] עֲלַהּ שְׁמָא דְאִישׁוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **Exploitation is not a refutation of his** opinion, **as** the buyer **does not know that there is exploitation** at the time of the sale **that** would enable him to **forgive him** the amount he was overcharged, and therefore there is no forgiveness in this case at all. **Nor** does the case of **a sexually underdeveloped woman support his** opinion, **as it is amenable to her** for her husband to receive the profits in order **that she receive the name of a married** woman. She wants to be known as a woman who was once married, and therefore she willingly relinquishes her rights to the profits from her property during her marriage even if it will be found to have been contracted in error. There is no mistaken forgiveness in that case.


###### Bava Metzia 67a:5
[Bava Metzia 67a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/67a:5)

הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא דַּאֲמַרָה לֵיהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא: זִיל זְבֵין לִי אַרְעָא מִקָּרִיבַיי. אֲזַל זְבַן לַהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי הָווּ לִי זוּזֵי מַהְדְּרַתְּ לַהּ נִיהֲלִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַתְּ וְנַוְולָא אַחֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates: There was **a certain woman who said to a certain man: Go purchase** land **for me from my relatives. He went** and **purchased** land **for her.** The relative who sold her the property **said to** the man acting as her agent: **If I will have money** in the future, **will you give** the field **back to me?** The agent **said to him: You and she [*venavla*] are relatives,** and I assume that you will be able to come to an arrangement between the two of you.


###### Bava Metzia 67a:6
[Bava Metzia 67a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/67a:6)

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: כֹּל ״אַתְּ וְנַוְולָא אַחֵי״ (אָמַר) סָמְכָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ, וְלָא גָּמַר וּמַקְנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses the halakhic significance of this response. **Rabba bar Rav Huna said:** In the case of **any** expression such as: **You and she are relatives,** that the agent **says,** the seller **relies** on the assumption that he will be able to come to an agreement with his relative, **and** therefore **he does not conclusively** resolve to **enable** the other to **acquire** the field.


###### Bava Metzia 67a:7
[Bava Metzia 67a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/67a:7)

אַרְעָא הָדְרָה, פֵּירֵי מַאי? רִבִּית קְצוּצָה הָווּ וְיוֹצְאִין בְּדַיָּינִין, אוֹ דִילְמָא כִּי אֲבַק רִבִּית הָווּ וְאֵין יוֹצְאִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: In that case, **the land** itself **must be returned** to its owner, but **what** is the *halakha* with regard to the **produce** consumed by the buyer in the interim? Is **it** deemed **fixed interest,** prohibited by Torah law, **and can** it **be removed** from the buyer **by** means of legal proceedings adjudicated by **judges? Or perhaps** it is considered **like a hint of interest,** prohibited by rabbinic law, **and** therefore it **cannot be removed** from the buyer by means of legal proceedings adjudicated by judges?


###### Bava Metzia 67a:8
[Bava Metzia 67a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/67a:8)

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא כִּי אֲבַק רִבִּית הָווּ, וְאֵין יוֹצְאִין בְּדַיָּינִין. וְכֵן אָמַר רָבָא: כִּי אֲבַק רִבִּית הָווּ, וְאֵין יוֹצְאִין בְּדַיָּינִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba bar Rav Huna said: It stands to reason** that **it is like a hint of interest, and** it **cannot be removed** from the buyer **by** means of legal proceedings adjudicated by **judges. And Rava similarly said: It is like a hint of interest, and** it **cannot be removed** from the buyer **by** means of legal proceedings adjudicated by **judges.**


###### Bava Metzia 67a:9
[Bava Metzia 67a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/67a:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַבָּה: מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא, מַאי? הָתָם טַעְמָא מַאי – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא קַץ לֵיהּ, הָכָא נָמֵי לָא קַץ לֵיהּ. אוֹ דִילְמָא הָתָם זְבִינֵי, הָכָא הַלְוָאָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to Rava:** With regard to **a mortgage,** if the borrower pledged a field to the lender, who worked the field and consumed its produce during the term of the loan without any agreement allowing him to do so, **what** is the *halakha*? **There,** in the previous case, **what is the reason** it is merely a hint of interest? Is it **because** the seller **did not fix** a particular sum **for** the buyer as interest? **Here too,** the lender **did not fix** a particular sum **for** the borrower, and accordingly, this would also be merely a hint of interest. **Or perhaps** the key issue is that **there,** it is **a sale,** whereas **here,** it is **a loan,** with regard to which there is a greater concern about interest.


###### Bava Metzia 67a:10
[Bava Metzia 67a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/67a:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם טַעְמָא מַאי – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא קַץ לֵיהּ, הָכָא נָמֵי לָא קַץ לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to him: There, what is the reason** it is merely a hint of interest? It is considered a hint of interest **because** the seller **did not fix** a particular sum **for** the buyer as interest. **Here too,** the lender **did not fix** a particular sum **for** the borrower, and therefore this is not fixed interest.


###### Bava Metzia 67a:11
[Bava Metzia 67a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/67a:11)

אָמַר רַב פַּפִּי: עֲבַד רָבִינָא עוֹבָדָא, וְחַשֵּׁיב וְאַפֵּיק פֵּירֵי, דְּלָא כְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappi said: Ravina performed an action** with regard to a case like this, **and he calculated and removed** from the lender the value of the **produce** he had consumed in the interim. This decision **was not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabba bar Rav Huna.**


###### Bava Metzia 67a:12
[Bava Metzia 67a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/67a:12)

אָמַר מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הָא מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא בְּאַתְרָא דִּמְסַלְּקִי, אֲכַל שִׁיעוּר זוּזֵי – מְסַלְּקִינַן לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar, son of Rav Yosef, said in the name of Rava:** With regard to **this** following type of **mortgage,** in which the lender holds part of the borrower’s land and may consume its produce, the *halakha* depends on the local custom. **In a place where** the custom is that the borrower can repay the loan at any time and the court **removes** the lender from the land once the loan is repaid, then once the lender **consumed a measure** of produce equivalent to the amount of **money** that he lent, **we remove him** from the land at that point, as the produce consumed is considered repayment of the loan.


###### Bava Metzia 67a:13
[Bava Metzia 67a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/67a:13)

אֲכַל טְפֵי – לָא מַפְּקִינַן מִינֵּיהּ, וְלָא מְחַשְּׁבִינַן מִשְּׁטָרָא לִשְׁטָרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the lender **consumed** a measure of produce worth **more** than the value of the loan, **we do not remove** the value of the excess produce **from him,** as that which he consumed is already gone. **And** similarly, **we do not calculate** any extra produce as payment **from one document to another.** If the same borrower owed the lender an additional sum from another debt recorded in a different document, we do not consider the additional produce he consumed as part of the payment for the second document; rather, each loan is treated on its own terms.


###### Bava Metzia 67a:14
[Bava Metzia 67a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/67a:14)

וּבִדְיַתְמֵי אֲכַל שִׁיעוּר זוּזֵי, מְסַלְּקִינַן לֵיהּ. אֲכַל טְפֵי – מַפְּקִינַן מִינֵּיהּ, וּמְחַשְּׁבִינַן מִשְּׁטָרָא לִשְׁטָרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** if the field belonged **to orphans,** once the lender **consumed a measure** of produce equivalent to the amount of **money** he was owed, **we remove him** from the field. And if **he consumed** a measure of produce worth **more** than the value of the loan, **we take** the additional amount **from him; and we** do **calculate** extra produce as payment **from one document to another.** The reason is that the owner of the field generally forgives payment for the extra produce the lender consumed, but minor orphans are too young to forgive a debt, and the case is therefore judged according to the letter of the law.


###### Bava Metzia 67a:15
[Bava Metzia 67a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/67a:15)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ אֲכַל טְפֵי – לָא מַפְּקִינַן מִינֵּיהּ. אֲכַל שִׁיעוּר זוּזֵי נָמֵי – לָא מְסַלְּקִינַן לֵיהּ בְּלָא זוּזֵי, מַאי טַעְמָא: סַלּוֹקֵי בְּלָא זוּזֵי – אַפּוֹקֵי מִינֵּיהּ הוּא. הָוֵי אֲבַק רִבִּית, וַאֲבַק רִבִּית אֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה בְּדַיָּינִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: Now that you have said** that if **he consumed more** than the value of the loan **we do not take** it **from him,** as it is considered merely a hint of interest, it follows that if **he consumed a measure** of produce equivalent to the amount of the **money** owed him, **we also do not remove him** from the land **without** the borrower’s paying him **money. What is the reason** for this? **To remove him** from the land **without** the borrower’s paying him **money is like taking** money **from him,** and **this** consumption of the produce **is** only **a hint of interest,** and the *halakha* is that **a hint of interest cannot be removed by** legal proceedings adjudicated by **judges.**


###### Bava Metzia 67a:16
[Bava Metzia 67a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/67a:16)

עֲבַד רַב אָשֵׁי עוֹבָדָא בִּיתוֹמִים קְטַנִּים

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Rav Ashi performed an action** in a case of this kind even **involving minor orphans,**