## Bava Metzia Daf 67b

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

כִּגְדוֹלִים,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**as** though they were **adults.** Even if the lender consumed produce equivalent to the amount of the debt, Rav Ashi would not collect the value of the produce from him, as this is merely a hint of interest and therefore it cannot be claimed in court.


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

אָמַר רָבָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הַאי מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא, בְּאַתְרָא דִּמְסַלְּקִי – לָא נֵיכוֹל אֶלָּא בְּנַכְיְיתָא. וְצוּרְבָּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן – אֲפִילּוּ בְּנַכְיְיתָא לָא נֵיכוֹל. אֶלָּא בְּמַאי נֵיכוֹל? בְּקִיצּוּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava, son of Rav Yosef, says 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, the lender **may consume** the produce of the land **only with a deduction** in the amount of the loan granted to the borrower, equivalent in value to that of the produce consumed by the lender. **And a Torah scholar [*tzurva miderabbanan*],** who must be especially careful with regard to his conduct, **may not consume** the produce **even with a deduction** in the amount of the loan. The Gemara poses a question: **But** if so, **in what** manner **may he consume the** produce? The Gemara answers: **By a fixed** payment, the details of which the Gemara will soon explain.


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

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר קִיצּוּתָא שַׁרְיָא, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר קִיצּוּתָא אֲסִירָא, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? דְּאִתְּמַר: קִיצּוּתָא, פְּלִיגָא בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא. חַד אָמַר: קִיצּוּתָא שַׁרְיָא, וְחַד אָמַר: קִיצּוּתָא אֲסִירָא. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי קִיצּוּתָא? דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: עַד חֲמֵשׁ שְׁנִין אָכֵילְנָא לַהּ בְּלָא נַכְיְיתָא, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ שָׁיֵימְנָא לָךְ כּוּלְּהוּ פֵּירֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to the one who says** that **a fixed** payment **is permitted, but according to the one who says** that **a fixed** payment **is forbidden, what is there to say? As it was stated: With regard to a fixed** payment, **Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagreed: One said** that **a fixed** payment **is permitted, and one said a fixed** payment **is forbidden.** The Gemara clarifies: **What are the circumstances** of this **fixed** payment? The Gemara explains: One case of a fixed payment is **where** the lender **says to** the borrower: For a period of **up to five years, I will consume** the produce of the field **without a deduction** in the amount of the loan; **from that** point **forward I will appraise for you** the value of **all** the **produce** I consume and subtract this sum from the debt.


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

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: כֹּל בְּלָא נַכְיְיתָא – אָסוּר, אֲבָל הֵיכִי דָּמֵי קִיצּוּתָא – דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: עַד חֲמֵשׁ שְׁנִין אָכֵילְנָא בְּנַכְיְיתָא, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ שָׁיֵימְנָא לָךְ כּוּלְּהוּ פֵּירֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** a different version of this discussion: **Any** consumption of produce by the lender **without a deduction** in the amount of the loan is **prohibited** as interest. **And what are the circumstances** of a permitted **fixed** payment? **When** the lender **says to** the borrower: For a period of **up to five years I will consume** the produce **with** a fixed **deduction** in the amount of the loan; **from this** point **forward I will appraise for you** the value of **all** the **produce** I consume and deduct the sum from the loan.


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

מַאן דְּאָסַר בְּקַמַּיְיתָא שָׁרֵי בְּבָתְרַיְיתָא, מַאן דְּאָסַר בְּבָתְרַיְיתָא, הֵיכִי שְׁרֵי לְמֵיכַל? שְׁרֵי כִּי מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא דְסוּרָא, דְּכָתְבִי בַּהּ הָכִי: בְּמִשְׁלָם שְׁנַיָּא אִילֵּין תִּיפּוֹק אַרְעָא דָּא בְּלָא כְּסַף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **The one who prohibits** the practice according **to the first** version **permits** the practice described **in the second.** The Gemara asks: But according to **the one who** also **prohibits** the practice described in **the second** version, **how is it permitted to consume** the produce of a mortgaged field? The Gemara replies: **It is permitted** in a case **like** that of **a mortgage** according to the custom in **Sura,** a city in Babylonia, **in which this is written** in the loan document: **Upon the completion of these years,** during which the lender may consume the produce of the field, **this land shall leave** his possession **without money** and return to the owner, as the entire amount of the loan will have been repaid by means of the consumption of the produce.


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

רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: הַאי מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא, בְּאַתְרָא דִּמְסַלְּקִי – אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה הֵימֶנָּה, וְאֵין הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל בָּהּ פִּי שְׁנַיִם, וּשְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמַּטְתָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, both say:** With regard to **this** type of **mortgage,** 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, the land is not considered his property at all, and therefore another **creditor cannot collect** a debt owed by the lender **by** repossessing **it; and** if the lender dies, his **firstborn** son **does not receive a double portion of it** as part of his inheritance, as it did not belong to his father; **and the Sabbatical** Year **cancels** a debt of this kind, because it is not viewed as having already been collected.


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

וּבְאַתְרָא דְּלָא מְסַלְּקִי – בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה הֵימֶנָּה וּבְכוֹר נוֹטֵל בָּהּ פִּי שְׁנַיִם, וְאֵין שְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמַּטְתָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But in a place where they do not remove** him from the land before the appointed time even if the debt is paid, then the land has been temporarily transferred to him, and therefore **a creditor can collect** a debt owed by the lender **by** repossessing **it, and** his **firstborn receives a double portion of it, and the Sabbatical** Year **does not cancel** the debt.


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

וְאָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: הַאי מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא, בְּאַתְרָא דִּמְסַלְּקִי – מְסַלְּקִי לֵיהּ וַאֲפִילּוּ מִתַּמְרֵי דְּאַבּוּדְיָא. וְאִי אַגְבְּהִנְהוּ בְּסִיסָנֵי, קְנָנְהוּ. וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר כִּלְיוֹ שֶׁל לוֹקֵחַ בִּרְשׁוּת מוֹכֵר קָנָה לוֹקֵחַ – אֲפִילּוּ דְּלָא אַגְבְּהִנְהוּ בְּסִיסָנֵי, קְנָנְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa:** With regard to **this** type of **mortgage,** 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, **they remove him even from dates** he has already harvested and spread out on **the mats. But if he has lifted them** and placed them **in the baskets [*besisanei*], he has** thereby **acquired them,** and they are his. **And according to the one who says** that when an act of acquisition is performed by means of placing items in the **buyer’s vessels** that are located **in the seller’s domain the buyer has acquired** the items, **even if he did not lift them** while they were **in the baskets, he acquired them** when they were placed on the mats.


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

פְּשִׁיטָא: בְּאַתְרָא דִּמְסַלְּקִי וְאָמַר ״לָא מִסְתַּלַּקְנָא״ – הָא קָאָמַר דְּלָא מִסְתַּלַּקְנָא. אֶלָּא בְּאַתְרָא דְּלָא מְסַלְּקִי, וְאָמַר ״מִסְתַּלַּקְנָא״ – מַאי: צָרִיךְ לְמִיקְנֵא מִינֵּיהּ, אוֹ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses other *halakhot* of mortgages. It is **obvious** that if the loan was given **in a place where they** generally **remove** the lender from the field upon the repayment of the debt, **but** upon lending the money, the lender **said: I will not be removed,** his stipulation is respected, **as he said that** he **will not be removed,** and he gave him the money only subject to this condition. **But** if the loan took place **in a place where they** generally **do not remove** him, **and he said: I will be removed** when the money is returned, **what** is the *halakha*? Is it **necessary to perform** a formal act of **acquisition with him** to formalize this commitment, **or** is it **not** necessary, as his statement alone is binding?


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

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: לָא צְרִיךְ לְמִקְנֵא מִינֵּיהּ. רַב שֵׁשֶׁת בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי אָמַר: צְרִיךְ לְמִקְנֵא מִינֵּיהּ. וְהִלְכְתָא: צְרִיךְ לְמִקְנֵא מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: It is not necessary to perform** an act of **acquisition with him. Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: It is necessary to perform** an act of **acquisition with him.** The Gemara concludes: **And the *halakha*** is that **it is necessary to perform** an act of **acquisition with him.**


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

אָמַר: ״אֵיזִיל וְאַיְיתֵי זוּזֵי״ – לָא אָכֵיל. ״אֵיזִיל וְאֶטְרַח וְאַיְיתֵי זוּזֵי״, רָבִינָא אָמַר: אָכֵיל, וּמָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מָרִי אָמַר: לָא אָכֵיל. וְהִלְכְתָא: לָא אָכֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara addresses another case. If the borrower **said** to the lender: **I will go to get** the **money** to repay you, the lender **may not consume** any more of the produce, as this statement is sufficient to remove him from the property. But if he said: **I am going to make an effort to get** the **money,** *amora’im* engaged in a dispute concerning the *halakha*. **Ravina said:** The lender **may** continue to **consume** the produce until the borrower actually brings the payment, as he cannot be certain the borrower will manage to get the money. **And Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said:** He **may not consume** the produce. The Gemara concludes: **And the *halakha*** is that he **may not consume** the produce.


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

רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב פָּפָּא וְרַב אָשֵׁי לָא אָכְלִי בְּנַכְיְיתָא. רָבִינָא אָכֵיל בְּנַכְיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Rav Kahana, and Rav Pappa, and Rav Ashi would not consume** the produce of mortgaged fields even **with a deduction** in the amount of the loan, as they were concerned about the possible violation of the prohibition of interest. **Ravina would consume** this produce **with a deduction** in the amount of the loan.


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

אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָכֵיל בְּנַכְיְיתָא – מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַשְּׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה. שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה, לָאו אַף עַל גַּב דְּקָא אָכֵיל פֵּירֵי טוּבָא, אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Zutra said: The explanation** for the practice **of the one who does consume** the produce **with a deduction** in the amount of the loan is **just as it is in** the case **of an ancestral field,** i.e., a field that one inherits from his ancestors within his family holdings in Eretz Yisrael. The Torah states that one who consecrates his ancestral field can redeem it from the Temple treasury in return for one *sela*, which is four dinars, for each year remaining until the Jubilee (see Leviticus 27:16–19). The comparison is as follows: With regard to **an ancestral field,** is it **not** the case that **even though he consumes abundant produce** over the course of the years, nevertheless, **the Merciful One states** in the Torah