שלא אמר לי אדם דבר מעולם—No one ever said anything to me

OVERVIEW The משנה teaches that a חזקה שאין עמה טענה (which is not considered a חזקה) is where the מוחזק claims his rights to the property by the virtue that no one (during these three years) ever complained to me that I am on their property. תוספות mentions another case of חזקה שאין עמה טענה and explains why the משנה chose this specific case.

והוא הדין דאפילו אם אמר זבינתיה מפלוני דזבנה מינך דלא הויא חזקה¹ – And the law would also be the same even if the מחזיק claimed, ‘I bought it from him, who bought it from you’; that this is not considered to be a חזקה – עד שיאמר אתה מכרת לי כדקתני סיפא – Unless the מחזיק claims, ‘you sold it to me’, as the משנה states in the סיפא. תוספות explains why the משנה chose the case of לא אמר לי אדם instead of מפלניא זבינתיה דזבנה מינך:² אלא הא עדיפא ליה למינקט שלא אמר לי אדם דבר מעולם – The משנה rather preferred to mention the case of שלא אמר לי דבר מעולם – לאשמועינן דלא הוי פתח פיך לאלם³ כדאמר בגמרא: To inform us that (even) in this case the concept of ‘open your mouth on behalf of the mute’, does not apply, as stated in the גמרא.

SUMMARY The advantage of stating לא אמר לי אדם is not a חזקה, instead of מפלניא זבינתיה, is because there is the חידוש that we do not say פתח פיך לאלם.

THINKING IT OVER Why is there no חידוש by מפלניא זבינתיה that בי"ד does not say (פתח פיך and) that perhaps it was קמי דידי (or דר ביה חד יומא),⁴ and you forgot to mention it?

footnotes: ¹ It is not a חזקה, since the מחזיק does not claim that he knows that the seller bought it from the מערער (or that the seller was דר בו חד יומא). See previously ל,א ושם בתוד"ה לאו. ² Seemingly there is a greater חידוש in מפלניא זבינתיה where he at least makes some claim of purchase (albeit an unacceptable claim), as opposed to לא אמר לי וכו' where he has no claim at all. ³ פתח פיך לאלם (משלי לא,ח) (in limited circumstances) allows בי"ד, in a case where one of the litigants is confused or unsure and cannot make a proper claim, to speak on his behalf or encourage him that perhaps he meant something else. In the case of לא אמר לי אדם, we are concerned that perhaps the מחזיק did buy it, however since he lost his שטר, he assumes that if he will say אתה מכרת לי and he cannot provide a שטר, we will assume him to be a גזלן; however if he claims לא אמר לי אדם, we may accept his claim (see the גמרא and תוס' ד"ה אמרי). However when he claims מפלניא זבינתיה וכו', there can be no acceptable reason why he is claiming מפלניא זבינתיה instead of מינך זבינתיה (or קמי דידי זבינא), for in all situations he has no שטר (from the מ"ק) and will be considered (in his mind) a גזלן. [Alternately, we may say פתח פיך לאלם where indeed he is an אלם as in the case of לא אמר לי אדם which is no claim at all (and he is afraid to claim אתה מכרת לי), however in the case of מפלניא זבינתיה, he is not an אלם; he is making (what he thinks) is a valid claim. בי"ד will not encourage someone to change his claim (and say מינך זבינתיה). See ‘Thinking it over’.] ⁴ See footnote # 3. In that case בי"ד is merely reminding him that he may have forgotten a detail, but are not changing his claim.

שלא¹ אמר לי אדם דבר מעולם פשיטא—For nobody ever told me anything; it is obvious!

OVERVIEW The גמרא cites the משנה that if the מחזיק claims the land is his because no one ever complained, it is not a חזקה, and asks but this is obvious that it is not a חזקה, why is it necessary for the משנה to teach this ruling. תוספות discusses this question and explains what פשיטא is referring to.

תוספות asks: קשה למורנו הרב משה(?) דמאי פריך פשיטא – The מהר"ם has a difficulty; why does the גמרא ask, פשיטא that this is obvious – הא לעיל (דף כח,ב) פריך גמרא אלא מעתה חזקה שאין עמה טענה כולי – But previously the גמרא asked, ‘but now that we derive חזקה from שור מועד, the law should be that a חזקה שאין עמה טענה, etc. should be a valid חזקה’. This concludes the citation of the relevant גמרא – ופירש שם בתוספות² פירוש א'³ דאפילו אמר [שלא אמר] לי אדם דבר מעולם פריך – And תוספות there in the [first] explanation states that the meaning of חזקה שאין עמה טענה there, is even if the מחזיק said, ‘שלא אמר לי אדם דבר מעולם’, even in such a case the גמרא asked that it should be a חזקה. It is evident that the גמרא entertained this thought that there is a possibility that שלא אמר לי אדם דבר מעולם should be a valid חזקה, why therefore does the גמרא assume here that it is פשיטא that it is not a חזקה?! תוספות answers: ונראה לומר⁴ דמכח סיפא – And it seems to [the מהר"ם] that it is from the inference of the סיפא – דמשמע דאפילו⁵ מפלוני דזבנה מינך זבינתה לא הויא חזקה⁶ פריך פשיטא⁷ – Which implies that even if [he claimed], ‘I bought it from him who brought it from you’, it is not a חזקה; it is on account of this implication that the גמרא asks, פשיטא! תוספות is not satisfied with this interpretation of פשיטא: ונראה כי זה דוחק⁸ דמנא ליה למיפרך ארישא טפי מאסיפא – And it appears to תוספות that this explanation is awkward, for from where does the גמרא derive to ask on the רישא more than on the סיפא – דהא מרישא איכא למידק איפכא⁹ וליפרוך טפי¹⁰ מסיפא לרישא¹¹ – For from the רישא we can infer the opposite, so the גמרא should rather ask from the [רישא on the סיפא]?! תוספות offers his explanation: ונראה לי דמקשה לא מסיק¹² אדעתיה דנטעון ליה אנן¹³ – And it seems to תוספות that the one who asked פשיטא, it never entered his mind that we would claim on his behalf that the מערער either sold of forfeited the field to him – ולהכי פריך פשיטא¹⁴ דטענה גרידא אינה מועלת דאינה טענה – So therefore the מקשה asked פשיטא that it is not a חזקה**, since a חזקה alone cannot be effective without a claim – ומשני דסלקא דעתין דנטעון ליה אנן¹⁵ דכיון דלא מיחה שלש שנים ודאי מכר לו או מחל¹⁶ –** And the גמרא answered that we may have thought (if not for the משנה) that we (the בי"ד) should argue on his behalf [and similarly previously (on כח,ב) when the גמרא asked that a חזקה שאין עמה טענה should be a valid חזקה, the גמרא meant that בי"ד should claim on his behalf¹⁷] that since he did not protest for three years he certainly sold it to him or forfeited the property to the מחזיק. תוספות offers an alternate explanation: ועוד יש לומר דלרבנן דרבי ישמעאל דלא ילפי משור¹⁸ פריך פשיטא¹⁹ – And in addition one can say; that the question פשיטא is according to the רבנן who argue with ר"י and do not derive חזקה from שור [המועד]. תוספות has a difficulty with this explanation: אבל קשה דבמתניתין לא הוזכרו רבנן ומתניתין כרבי ישמעאל²⁰ – However there is a difficulty for the רבנן are not mentioned in our משנה, and our משנה is (perhaps) according to ר"י – תוספות gives a final answer:

And it seems to תוספות that the גמרא asks פשיטא, regarding a חזקה of (only) one day, which our משנה is also discussing as the רשב"ם explained,²² since the משנה states כל חזקה (indicating that we also discussing a חזקה דיום אחד).****

SUMMARY The question פשיטא can be referencing the דיוקא דסיפא; or the מקשה never assumed that אנן נטעון ליה; alternately it may be only according to the רבנן דר"י or it is referring to a חזקה דחד יומא.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות here writes that we may have thought that we would claim on behalf of the מחזיק that the מערער was מכר לו או מחל.²³ Previously (on כח,ב) תוספות writes only שמחל לו; why did not תוספות write there as well שמכר לו או מחל לו?²⁴
2. According to תוספות final answer that we are discussing a חזקה דחד יומא;²⁵ what is the meaning of אחוי שטרך, since by חזקת תשמישין we do not write a שטר for otherwise there would be a requirement of חזקת ג"ש since there is the ריעותא of אחוי שטרך?!²⁶

footnotes: ¹ This תוספות should (seemingly) precede the תוס' ד"ה אמרי. ² בד"ה אלא מעתה חזקה. ³ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read פירוש ראשון. ⁴ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read לי (instead of לומר); referring seemingly to the מהר"ם. ⁵ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read דאפילו אם אמר מפלוני. ⁶ The סיפא states that a valid חזקה is (only) when the מחזיק claims אתה מכרת לי, indicating that מפלוני דזבנה מינך זבינתה is not a valid חזקה. ⁷ Once we can infer from the סיפא that [even] מפלוני דזבנה מינך זבינתה is not a חזקה (see previous footnote # 6), then it is פשיטא that לא אמר לי אדם וכו' (which is a lesser claim) is definitely not a חזקה, so why mention this in the משנה. ⁸ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read ונראה דזה דוחק ⁹ The רישא teaches that the ineffective חזקה שאין עמה טענה is when he claims לא אמר לי אדם וכו'; indicating if he would offer the better claim of מפלוני דזבן מינך וכו', then it would be a valid חזקה. ¹⁰ The question should be since the implication of the רישא is that the claim if מפלוני דזבן מינך וכו' is a valid חזקה (see footnote # 9), why does the סיפא state that a valid חזקה is (only) if he claims אתה מכרת לי, when in fact it is a valid claim even if he states מפלוני דזבן מינך וכו'. The advantage of this question is that we first infer from the רישא (which we study first) and then ask why the סיפא does not coincide with the רישא, but we do not first infer from the סיפא (which is studied last) to ask on the רישא. [Alternately the גמרא should have asked that here is a contradiction between the דיוקא דרישא (that מפלניא דזבין is a valid חזקה) and דיוקא דסיפא (that it is not).] ¹¹ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read מרישא לסיפא (instead of מסיפא לרישא). ¹² The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read אסיק (instead of מסיק). ¹³ The גמרא shortly answers that we may have thought that it is a case of פתח פיך לאלם and we would claim on his behalf; however the מקשה did not entertain such an idea that בי"ד would claim on his behalf. ¹⁴ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read פשיטא דחזקה גרידא אינה מועלת בלא טענה. ¹⁵ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read אנן ולעיל פריך חזקה שאין עמה טענה תהוי חזקה היינו דנטעון ליה אנן דכיון שלא מיחה. ¹⁶ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ¹⁷ If he claims שלא אמר לי דבר מעולם (so even though we cannot say שמא מכר לו, nevertheless) בי"ד should claim on his behalf perhaps מחל לו which is in accordance with his claim of שלא אמר לי דבר מעולם. See סוכ"ד אות י. ¹⁸ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read משור המועד פריך. ¹⁹ According to ר"י who derives חזקת ג' שנים from שור המועד there is room to consider that even a חזקה שאין עמה טענה should be a חזקה similar to שור המועד (see תוספות ד"ה אלא מעתה חזקה on כח,ב); however according to the חכמים who maintain the reason of חזקת ג' שנים is because no one holds a שטר for more than three years and the חזקה is in place of the שטר, so obviously he must claim אתה מכרת and I lost the שטר so therefore it is פשיטא that a חזקה שאין עמה טענה is no חזקה. ²⁰ Therefore we cannot say that the question on the משנה is (only) according to the רבנן דר"י, for our משנה may be according to ר"י, according to whom there is reason to assume that חזקה שאין עמה טענה הויא חזקה! ²¹ See the גמרא ו,א and תוס' ו,ב ד"ה ואי that there are certain חזקות (like חזקת תשמישין) that can be accomplished in one day if the owner was not מערער. Regarding these חזקות it is פשיטא that without a טענה there can be no חזקה as opposed to a חזקת ג' שנים where one may think that since the מ"ק was not מוחה for so long (three years) he was surely מוחל; this does not apply by חזקת יום אחד. The גמרא answered that because of פתח פיך לאלם we may argue that (even though there is no מחילה, but) perhaps he sold him the חזקת תשמישין. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. [Alternately, the גמרא answers that even though it is פשיטא by חזקת תשמישין but it is not פשיטא regarding חזקת ג"ש.] ²² במתני' ד"ה כל. ²³ See footnote # 16. ²⁴ See מהרש"א and נח"מ. ²⁵ See footnote # 21. ²⁶ See נח"מ.

אמרי לי אחוי (לי) שטרך—They will say to me, ‘show your שטר’

OVERVIEW The גמרא explains that we may have thought that in the case of לא אמר לי אדם, we would perhaps say פתח פיך לאלם, since he is afraid to claim אתה מכרת לי for then he will be not be able to present the שטר. Our תוספות explains why that concern is not there (in his mind) when he claims לא אמר לי אדם דבר מעולם.¹

וכשלא אוכל להראות שטרי שהפסדתיו יאמרו שגזלתיה² – The מחזיק thinks if I will claim (as the truth [supposedly] is) that אתה מכרת לי, so then when I will not be able to present the שטר, which I lost, the בי"ד will assume that I stole³ the field – אבל כשאומר לא אמר לי אדם [דבר] מעולם לא יאמרו שגזלתיה – However when I claim, ‘no one ever said anything to me’, בי"ד will not assume that I stole the field –

But rather they will assume that I saw that no one is protesting against me, so I made a חזקה in the field, and it turns out (in the sמחזיק' mind) that the original owner forfeited the field to me and it legally belongs to me.****

SUMMARY The מחזיק (mistakenly) assumes that לא אמר לי אדם דבר מעולם is considered a מחילה and allows him to own the land.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Does תוספות add anything to our understanding of his reluctance to claim אתה מכרת לי,⁴ more than is indicated in the גמרא?⁵
2. Why when he claims אתה מכרת לי can he also not argue that (in addition to buying, which he cannot prove, nevertheless) שמחל לי?!

footnotes: ¹ If he is concerned that he will be not believed when he claims אתה מכרת לי, why would he be granted the field if he claims לא אמר לי אדם דבר מעולם, which seemingly gives him no rights at all in this field! ² See previous תוספות ד"ה שלא (TIE footnote # 3). ³ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ If תוספות is not adding anything in our understanding, why is it necessary for תוספות to explain why he does not want to claim אתה מכרת לי because יאמרו שגזלתיה! The תוספות could have begun with the words אבל כשאומר וכו'. ⁵ See סוכ"ד אות ח בד"ה ועיין תוס' (in regards to # 2 as well).

והא אחזקי לי—But I made a חזקה for myself

OVERVIEW The case at hand: רב ענן replaced the dividing fence on his neighbor’s property (thus extending his own property). ר"נ ordered him to return it where it was originally. ר"ע initially claimed והא אחזיקי לי, to which ר"נ responded it is not a חזקה. ר"ע then claimed that the neighbor was מוחל since he assisted me in putting up the fence; ר"נ responded that it is a מחילה בטעות. The רשב"ם and תוספות differ in their explanation of this episode.

פירש הקונטרס¹ בניתי כותל על פיו והוא סייע לי – The רשב"ם explained the claim of ר"ע was, ‘I built the wall with his consent and he (even) helped me to erect it – וכיון שבמצותו² עשה הוי חזקה שיש עמה טענה³ – And since [I] did it at his insistence, it is a חזקה with a valid claim. תוספות disagrees with פי' הרשב"ם: וקשה דמדקאמר בתר הכי והא אחיל משמע דעד השתא לא הוה מחזיק בה מטעם מחילה⁴ – And this explanation is difficult; for since ר"ע stated later, ‘but he was אחיל’, this indicates that up to that point (where ר"ע claimed והא אחיל), ר"ע was not claiming the field because of מחילה, but rather he had a different claim on the field – תוספות has another difficulty with פי' הרשב"ם: ועוד דלאלתר הוה ליה לרב נחמן למימר מחילה בטעות הואי – And in addition, if the basis of sר"ע' claim was מחילה, then ר"נ should have told him immediately (when ר"ע said 'והא אחזיקי לי') that it was a mistaken מחילה (and not wait until ר"ע claimed והא אחיל) –**** תוספות offers his interpretation of the גמרא: ונראה לפרש דרב ענן הוה טעין שלקח ממנו⁵ ולא היה לו עדים שלקחה – And it is the view of תוספות to explain the גמרא as follows, that ר"ע was claiming that he bought this area from his neighbor**, but** ר"ע did not have עדים that he bought it from his neighbor – והיה רוצה להיות נאמן מתורת חזקה – And ר"ע wanted that he should be believed by the rules of חזקה (since the person saw me build a wall in his presence and he did not protest that proves that he sold me this land) – וכי אמר ליה רב נחמן דלאו חזקה היא השיב לו רב ענן והא אחיל – And when ר"נ told ר"ע that**** such a short period of time is not a חזקה, so ר"ע responded 'והא אחיל'; meaning – דאף על פי שאינו נאמן לומר לקחתיה – That even though that ר"ע is not believed on the basis of this short חזקה to claim, ‘I bought it’, nevertheless – תהא שלי מטעם מחילה⁶ דסייע בגודא בהדאי והיה לו עדים או היה מודה בסיועו – It should be mine because of מחילה, for he helped to build the wall together with me, and ר"ע had witnesses or the neighbor admitted that he was helping. תוספות concludes, however:** ואין הסוגיא מוכחת כן:** But the flow of the גמרא does not indicate so that he claimed initially that he bought it. There is no mention at all that ר"ע claimed he bought the land.⁷

SUMMARY The רשב"ם maintains that both claims of ר"ע were based on מחילה (that the neighbor gifted him the field), while תוספות maintains that the first claim of ר"ע was that he purchased it, and only the second claim was on account of מחילה.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות asks on פי' הרשב"ם, how can he say that initially when he claimed והא אחזיקי לי, he meant on account of מחילה, when the claim of מחילה was later when he said 'והא אחיל'.⁸ However according to the רשב"ם⁹, even though both claims were on account of מחילה, however the first claim was that we should believe him that there was מחילה because of the חזקה, however the second claim was we know that there was מחילה since he assisted me. They are two different claims! ¹⁰
2. תוספות explains that sר"ע' second claim (of והא אחיל) was that even if you do not believe me that I bought it, but it should me mine because of מחילה.¹¹ Why did ר"ע have to change his claim from buying to מחילה, when he could have maintained his claim of buying and proven it¹² by the fact that the neighbor helped him erect the wall?!¹³

footnotes: ¹ See רשב"ם ד"ה והא. ² The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read שבמצותו עשיתי הוי. ³ According to (תוספות understanding of) the רשב"ם, the claim made by ר"ע was that his neighbor gifted him this land. [We will need to say that the expression והא אחיל does not mean he forfeited, for (generally) there is no such קנין as מחילה (regarding transferring of assets), but rather he gifted it to me, by telling me where to place the fence.] The רשב"ם understands that the neighbor indeed told ר"ע where to place the fence, since later ר"ע stated that he helped me put up the fence. However ר"ע had no proof that the neighbor told him where to place the fence, so he argued that his חזקה in the presence of the neighbor for a few days (without a מחאה) is sufficient to support his claim that the neighbor gifted him the area. [ר"ע was קונה the קרקע through קנין חזקה by building the fence.] ר"נ responded that a few days is no חזקה, so there is no proof that he gifted the area to you. ר"ע argued that since he helped me build the fence (for which there were witnesses) that act is an act of gifting me the area, and it should me mine. ר"נ responded that it was a mistaken מחילה (gift); the neighbor never realized you were on his property. ⁴ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁵ ר"ע claimed that he actually bought the additional property from his neighbor, and not (merely) that his neighbor gifted him the property, by telling him where to erect the wall (as the רשב"ם maintains). ⁶ See ‘Thinking it over # 2. ⁷ In addition the expression הדר גודא בארעיה does not indicate that he bought it. Also ר"נ answered him that you also did not know, but according to this פי' he knew that he was on his neighbor’s land, but he claims he bought it. See נח"מ for a possible solution to some of these difficulties. ⁸ See footnote # 4. ⁹ See footnote # 3. ¹⁰ See בל"י אות שפ. ¹¹ See footnote # 6. ¹² See previously לה,ב that ואי דלי לי צנא דפירי לאלתר הוי חזקה. ¹³ See בל"י אות שפא.

כמאן כרבי יהודה—Like whom; like ר"י

OVERVIEW The גמרא relates that רב נחמן replied to רב ענן that if you intend to acquire the annexed property with an immediate חזקה according to the view of ר"י, etc., you should be aware that the הלכה is not like them. This seemingly indicates that ר"ע supposedly follows the view of ר"י, however תוספות points out that this seemingly contradicts another statement made by ר"ע.

תוספות asks: קשה לרבינו שמשון בן אברהם דהאמר רב ענן לעיל (דף לח,ב) – The רשב"א has a difficulty, from ר"ע stated previously – לדידי מפרשא לי מיניה דמר שמואל מחאה בפני עדים שאין יכולין לומר לו כולי – ‘I heard explicitly from the master שמואל that a protest made in the presence of witnesses that cannot convey the מחאה to the מחזיק, etc. is not a valid מחאה’ – משמע דלא בעי¹ בפניו מחאה² והיינו דלא כרבי יהודה³ – indicating that ר"ע maintains that there is no requirement for a מחאה בפניו, which is not like the view of ר"י.⁴ תוספות answers:

And perhaps ר"ע agrees with ר"י in one ruling that בפניו לאלתר הוי חזקה, but he argues with him in the other הלכה and maintains מחאה שלא בפניו הוי מחאה.

SUMMARY ר"ע agrees with ר"י that החזיק בפניו לאלתר הוי חזקה, but disagrees with him and maintains that מחאה שלא בפניו הוי מחאה.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות writes that ר"י maintains מחאה שלא בפניו לא הוי מחאה.⁵ However previously (on לט,א) the same ר"נ (who said to ר"ע that כמאן כר"י) maintains that ר"י is also of the opinion that מחאה שלא בפניו הויא מחאה and it is merely עצה טובה קמ"ל!⁶

footnotes: ¹ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read בעי מחאה בפניו והיינו. ² שמואל there distinguishes between making the מחאה בפני עדים who can tell the מחזיק and עדים who cannot tell the מחזיק; in any event it is apparent that the מערער need not make the מחאה בפני המחזיק. ³ ר"י maintains that a מחאה must be made בפני המחזיק; see תוס' לח,ב ד"ה אין. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ The difficulty is that on one hand ר"ע maintains that מחאה שלא בפניו הויא מחאה and argues with ר"י; however in our גמרא it seems that ר"ע wanted to make a חזקה based on the ruling of ר"י that בפניו לאלתר הוי חזקה. [The רשב"א is of the opinion that these two laws of מחאה שלא בפניו and חזקה בפניו are intertwined; if one maintains בפניו לאלתר הוי חזקה, he will also maintain מחאה שלא בפניו לא הוי מחאה. (This is because both laws of ר"י are derived from the same ruling in our משנה where ר"י states לא אמרו ג' שנים אלא וכו' באספמיא (which means that if he is closer the חזקה can even be immediately) ויבא לשנה אחרת (from which we derive that a מחאה must be בפניו).] ⁵ See footnote # 3. ⁶ See מהודרא בתרא (למהרש"א).

אמר ליה מחילה בטעות הואי—He said to him, it was a mistaken forfeiture

OVERVIEW רב נחמן told רב ענן that he cannot keep the added property which the other party forfeited to him (by assisting him in making the wall [on his property]), since it is a mistaken מחילה (the neighbor did not realize that the fence was being erected on his property). תוספות reconciles our גמרא (in which ר"נ maintains מחילה בטעות לא הויא מחילה) with another גמרא which seems to imply otherwise.

תוספות asks: וקשה דבפרק איזהו נשך (בבא מציעא דף סו,ב ושם דיבור המתחיל התם) אמר רב נחמן¹ – And there is a difficulty; for ר"נ states in פרק איזהו נשך – השתא דאמור רבנן אסמכתא² לא קני הדרא ארעא והדרי פירי³ – Now that the רבנן ruled that an אסמכתא is not legally binding, therefore the land and the fruits revert back to the לוה. The גמרא there continues – למימרא דסבר רב נחמן מחילה בטעות לא הויא מחילה⁴ – Does this mean to say that ר"נ maintains a mistaken forfeiture is not a מחילה?! והא איתמר המוכר פירות דקל לחבירו כולי⁵ – But it was taught, one who sell the fruits of a date palm to his friend, etc. – ואמר רב נחמן ומודינא דאי שמיט ואכיל לא מפקינן מיניה⁶ – And ר"נ said, ‘and I admit to ר"ה that if the buyer pulled down the dates and ate them, we do not extract from him the price of the dates, which the buyer consumed’. This indicates that ר"נ maintains מחילה בטעות הויא מחילה, which contradict the previous statement of ר"נ that הדרא ארעא והדרא פירי. ומשני התם זביני והכא הלואה – And the גמרא answers; there (by the fruit) it is a sale, but here (by the אסמכתא) it is a loan. We cannot compare the two cases. ופירש הקונטרס⁷ הכא הלואה ומיחזי כרבית שמתחלה בהלואה באו לידו וכרבית קצוצה דמו – And רש"י explained; here (in the case of הדרא ארעא והדרא פירי) it is a loan⁸ (and it appears like interest), ⁹for initially he received this money as a loan and it is similar to fixed רבית;¹⁰ רש"י continues – ואין אבק רבית¹¹ אלא במכר כגון לקח ממנו פירות דריש מתניתין¹² – And אבק רבית is only by a sale where for instance he bought fruit from him as mentioned in the beginning of our משנה.¹³ This concludes the citation of the גמרא ופרש"י in ב"מ. תוספות continues with his question**** on פירש"י – דהתם משמע דבכל מקום לרב נחמן מחילה בטעות הויא מחילה¹⁴ – So from the גמרא in ב"מ it seems that according to ר"נ in all instances מחילה בטעות is a מחילה (according to פירש"י) – בר מהתם בהלואה דמיחזי כרבית – Except for that case of הלואה where it appears to be like רבית, therefore only there is מחילה בטעות not a מחילה – והכא סבר רב נחמן דלא הויא מחילה¹⁵ – However here ר"נ maintains that מחילה בטעות is not a מחילה. תוספות mentions an additional difficulty with that פירש"י: ומיהו בלאו הכי קשה על פירושו דהא אמר רבינא התם בריש פירקא (דף סב,א) – However, without the aforementioned difficulty with פרש"י, there is another difficulty with his interpretation, for רבינא stated there in the beginning of the פרק – דמשכנתא בלא נכייתא¹⁶ בדינינו אין מחזירין ממלוה ללוה דלא חשיב רבית קצוצה¹⁷ – That our courts do not return a משכתנא בלא נכייתא from the מלוה to the לוה for it is not considered רבית קצוצה – ומסתמא דלא פליג עליה רב נחמן¹⁸ – And presumably ר"נ will not argue with רבינא and will agree that he does not return the פירות; so why does he maintain that הדרא ארעא והדרא פירי since it is not רבית קצוצה. In summation: It appears from רש"י that ר"נ generally maintains מחילה בטעות הויא מחילה except in the case of the loan where (even though there is a מחילה [בטעות], nevertheless) the מלוה cannot retain the פירות since it is similar to רבית קצוצה. תוספות asks, firstly our גמרא (which is not discussing a loan) states that ר"נ maintains מחילה בטעות לא הויא מחילה, and secondly in this type of רבית (eating the fruits of collateralized property), the ruling is that it remains by the מלוה since it is not רבית קצוצה. תוספות offers his explanation of the גמרא in ב"מ: ונראה לרבינו תם דהכי פירושו דבכל מקום סבר רב נחמן דלא הויא מחילה כדאמר הכא – And it is the view of the ר"ת that this is the explanation; that ר"נ always maintains that מחילה בטעות is not a מחילה, as ר"נ stated here – ובריש המפקיד (בבא מציעא דף לה,א) קאמר נמי רב נחמן התם שומא בטעות הוא¹⁹ – And ר"נ also stated in the beginning of פרק המפקיד that there it was an erroneous assessment and therefore it is voided – ובסוף פרק קמא דגיטין (דף יד,א) נמי אמר דקנין בטעות חוזר²⁰ – And ר"נ also stated at the end of the first פרק of מסכת גיטין that a mistaken קנין can be retracted; all of the above prove that a mistaken transaction is null. תוספות addresses now the גמרא in ב"מ, in which ר"נ differentiates between the פירות דקל which he may keep**** and the פירות האסמכתא which must be returned – אלא היינו טעמא דרב נחמן דהתם זביני ולא הויא מחילה בטעות – Rather this is the reasoning of ר"נ that there (by the פירות דקל) it was a sale, and not a מחילה בטעות (and therefore if שמיט ואכיל the buyer does not need to return the פירות); it is not a מחילה בטעות – שאפילו היה המוכר יודע שיוכל לחזור לא היה חוזר – For even had the seller known that he can retract the sale of the פירות, we may assume that he would not have retracted – דניחא ליה דליקו בהימנותיה וגמר ומקני²¹ – For it is beneficial for him to retain his trustworthiness and he decides to transfer the פירות to the buyer in any event – אבל הכא הויא הלואה והלוה אינו מקני ליה אלא בתורת מכר – However here by the אסמכתא it was a loan, and the לוה does not transfer the rights to the land voluntarily, only by the rules a sale (in lieu of the money he received from the מלוה [as a loan]) – והמכר אינו כלום דאסמכתא היא ולא גמר ומקני²² וכיון דהדרא ארעא הדרי נמי פירי – However the sale is meaningless for it is an אסמכתא and the לוה never decided to transfer the land, ²³ so since the land returns to the לוה because the sale is invalid (since it is an אסמכתא) the פירות also return to the לוה (since the field never belonged to the מלוה) ²⁴ – אבל אם היה נותן בתורת רבית²⁵ היה קונה דאבק רבית אין יוצא בדיינים – However if he would give the fruits as רבית (as in the case of משכנתא בלא נכייתא)**** the מלוה would acquire the fruits since אבק רבית is not יוצא בדיינים. תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: ורבא²⁶ דהוה בעי לאותובי אונאה²⁷ לא היה יודע זה הפירוש – And רבא who wanted to refute ר"נ from the laws of אונאה did not know this interpretation (of sר"נ' answer, which תוספות gave) – שאם היה יודע לא היה מקשה כלום מאונאה – For if רבא would have known תוספות interpretation, he could not have asked anything from אונאה; he could not have asked why by אונאה he gets back his money but by פירות דקל he does not get back the פירות – דהכא לא הויא מחילה בטעות כדפרישית²⁸ גמר ומקני – For here by פירות דקל it is not a מחילה בטעות (as by אונאה) as I explained that the reason he does not return the פירות דקל is [because] the owner convincingly decides to transfer the פירות to the buyer to protect his good name.²⁹ תוספות clarifies one more difficulty from the גמרא there: ורב נחמן היה משיב³⁰ מאיילונית³¹ לפי סברת רבא – And ר"נ who was answering from the case of איילונית (that the case of איילונית supports ר"נ), it was only according to the logic of רבא – כלומר אדמותבת לי מאונאה תסייען מאיילונית – Meaning according to your (sרבא') mistaken view that I (ר"נ) maintain מחילה בטעות הויא מחילה; so instead of challenging me from אונאה (which seems to prove that לא הויא מחילה) support my view from איילונית (which proves that הויא מחילה); what ר"נ meant to tell רבא is that –

You (רבא) perforce must rather differentiate (between פירות דקל and משכנתא) the way תוספות explained ר"נ, but not the way רבא understood ר"נ.

SUMMARY רש"י maintains that according to ר"נ we rule מחילה בטעות הויא מחילה (except by a מלוה where it is מיחזי כרבית). תוספות maintains that according to ר"נ any מחילה בטעות לא הויא מחילה except where there is the סברא of דליקו בהימנותיה.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות question is how come by פירות דקל we find that ר"נ maintains מחילה בטעות הויא מחילה and here by ר"ע, it is not a מחילה.³³ Seemingly there are two differences between the cases. Firstly מחילה בטעות הויא מחילה means that if someone forgives a debt under mistaken assumption it is a valid מחילה since he is not taking anything away from anyone; he is allowing the money to remain where it is (as in the case of פירות דקל); however in the case of ר"ע he is being מוציא קרקע from the רשות of his neighbor in such a case perhaps the מחילה בטעות is not effective. Secondly, in the case of פירות דקל the owner sees the buyer harvesting the fruits of his tree (which were sold to the buyer by the seller) and he is acquiescent. That is a מחילה albeit בטעות. However here the neighbor was not being מוחל anything to ר"ע, he assumed the wall was being built on the original boundary line; how was he מוחל anything?!³⁵

footnotes: ¹ The case there is where a מלוה and לוה agreed that if the loan will not be paid up by three years, a particular field (of the לוה) will belong to the מלוה. This type of agreement (if this, then that) is called an אסמכתא. See footnote # 2. ² אסמכתא means support or dependence. The לוה (in this case), when he agreed to transfer his field to the מלוה if he does not pay the loan after three years, did not really think it would happen, for he was certain that he will surely pay the loan and was depending on this payment that this transfer would never come to pass. He merely said it to assuage the concern of the מלוה, letting him know that his loan is secure. Therefore since there was no serious intent (on part of the לוה) to make this transfer, therefore this transfer (or קנין) is not effective. ³ Even if the מלוה entered the field after three years (and the loan was not paid) and consumed the פירות, the מלוה must return the land and the פירות that he consumed to the לוה, for since אסמכתא לא קני it was never the sמלוה' field. ⁴ The גמרא considers this case of אסמכתא as a מחילה בטעות. The לוה allowed the מלוה into his field as payment for the debt and agreed that he can keep the field and eat the פירות, for he mistakenly thought that it belongs to the מלוה. ר"נ ruled however that since this is a mistake, the transfer is invalid, indicating that a מחילה בטעות is not a מחילה. ⁵ The case there is where he is selling the dates that will grow (in the future) on this דקל. The view of רב הונא is that once the dates are grown no one can rescind, however ר"נ maintains that the sale can be rescinded even after the dates grew, since at the time of the deal the dates did not exist and the rule is אין אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם. ⁶ The reason is because at that point in time (when the seller did not yet realize that he can invalidate the sale) the seller is (mistakenly) forfeiting his rights to these פירות, because he mistakenly assumes that they belong to the buyer. This proves that מחילה בטעות הויא מחילה. ⁷ רש"י there ד"ה הכא. ⁸ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read הלואה שמתחלה (deleting the words ומיחזי כרבית). [However in our רש"י texts in ב"מ the words ומיחזי כרבית do appear.] ⁹ The מלוה ate the פירות of the mortgaged property (after the three years); if he will not be required to return the value of the פירות which he consumed (together with the land), those פירות will be interest payments on his loan. The מלוה will eventually receive his loan back in addition to the פירות which he consumed. Therefore even though מחילה בטעות may be a מחילה, but we cannot allow the מלוה to keep the פירות since he would be transgressing the איסור of רבית. It is however, merely מחזי כרבית for it is considered as if the לוה sold him the field (to become effective after three years, if he does not repay him until then). This is not רבית. However since the sale is not valid for it is an אסמכתא, therefore if the מלוה would not return the פירות it would be מחזי כרבית. ¹⁰ The reason רש"י states וכרבית קצוצה דמו is because the rule is that only רבית קצוצה has to be returned to the לוה (since רבית קצוצה is אסור מן התורה), however any other type of רבית (like אבק רבית) even though it is prohibited, nevertheless once it is taken, there is no obligation to return it (since it is only an איסור דרבנן). In our case the מלוה already took the רבית; he ate the פירות, therefore the reason he must return it is because כרבית קצוצה דמו; people will mistakenly assume that רבית קצוצה need not be returned. ¹¹ Literally אבק רבית means the ‘dust’ of רבית. Actual רבית or רבית קצוצה (which is אסור מדאורייתא) is when at the time of the loan the interest payments were set. However when it was not initially set up that there be interest payments (as in a purchase; see footnote # 12) it is called אבק רבית and is אסור only מדרבנן. ¹² ב"מ ס,ב. The case there is where someone pays twenty-five דינרים for a כור of wheat (which was the market price) but did not take delivery. Later when the price of wheat rose to thirty דינרים for a כור, the buyer asked for his wheat and the seller said he has no wheat in stock, but will sell him a barrel of wine (which he also did not have in stock) for the credit of thirty דינרים. The buyer has gained five דינרים (or perhaps more) in this transaction. This is considered אבק רבית and is אסור מדרבנן. ¹³ Even though there was no רבית קצוצה by הדרא ארעא והדרא פרי, nevertheless since it was a loan and not a sale therefore it is כרבית קצוצה דמי and must be returned. ¹⁴ See footnote # 9. ¹⁵ There was no loan here and nevertheless ר"נ told ר"ע that it is a מחילה בטעות and not an effective מחילה. See ‘Thinking it over’. ¹⁶ משכנתא בלא נכייתא literally means collateral without reduction. The לוה puts up his field as collateral for the מלוה; that until the loan is paid, the field is under the control of the מלוה and the מלוה can reap the harvest without reducing the amount of the loan. The לוה will have to repay the full amount of the loan regardless of how much פירות the מלוה consumes. Those פירות are actually רבית, nevertheless רבינא maintains that we do not return that (רבית) money from the מלוה to the לוה. ¹⁷ The חכמים will make the מלוה return to the לוה any fixed רבית which the מלוה collected. However here there is no fixed רבית (since it is possible that nothing will grow on the fields). אבק רבית is not יוצא בדיינים. The same should apply to the אסמכתא field that it is also not רבית קצוצה for the same reason. ¹⁸ רש"י explained that really מחילה בטעות הויא מחילה the only reason why the פירות must be returned is because it is like רבית קצוצה. However this type of רבית is not יוצא בדיינים as רבינא ruled (for it is not רבית קצוצה); it remains by the מלוה, so why does ר"נ rule that הדרא ארעא והדרא פירי?! ¹⁹ The case there is where a watchman lost the nose rings (כיפי) which were deposited by him. The watchman did not have with what to pay so they assessed and took away his house for the כיפי. Eventually the כיפי were found (in his possession; he misplaced them) and ר"נ ruled that house be returned, for the שומא was done mistakenly since the watchman was always in the possession of the כיפי. ²⁰ The case there is where gardeners thought that one of them received extra money, so they told him to return it to the owner and he made a קנין with the owner that he will return it; later they realized that there was a mistake in the accounting and no money was owed; ר"נ ruled that it was a קנין בטעות and he is not obligated to pay. ²¹ The מוכר sold the פירות דקל to the לוקח; however it is legally non-binding so the מוכר could nullify the sale. However the מוכר feels that he will gain more by agreeing to the sale so his credibility remains intact, than voiding the sale and losing his credibility. In actuality the מוכר did not realize, at the time the לוקח was harvesting the פירות that the sale was not binding. This happened later, and at that time the מוכר indeed wanted to nullify the sale. However since at the time the buyer harvested the פירות, the מוכר did not object, we assume (that at least at that moment) he would not have objected even had he known that he could object. ²² We do not say דליקו בהימנותא regarding the לוה since he never had any intention of granting the field to the מלוה as payment for the loan; however the מוכר פירות דקל had every intention of selling the פירות דקל. ²³ To review; ר"נ maintains מחילה בטעות לא הויא מחילה; however by פירות דקל there was no מחילה בטעות for the seller wants to keep his good name and even though he may be legally entitled to retrieve the פירות, we assume that at the time the buyer gathered the פירות, the seller did not mind (even though he may have known that legally there was no sale). It is therefore considered a bona fide מחילה. By the case of the loan (where the לוה committed his field to the מלוה if he does not pay), the only right the מלוה has to this field, is because it is considered like a sale (the field in exchange for the money he lent the לוה). However it is an invalid sale for the לוה never intended to give up his field since he was certain that he would have paid up the loan in time. Once the sale is invalidated the פירות which the מלוה ate must also revert back to the לוה since it grew on the sלוה' field. This has no connection to רבית. ²⁴ There is a basic difference between the אסמכתא case of ר"נ (where הדרא פירי) and the משכנתא בלא נכייתא of רבינא (where אינו יוצא בדיינים). By משכנתא בל"נ the לוה willingly gave his field to the מלוה to eat the פירות as (אבק) רבית. It may not be permitted, but once paid it is not יוצא בדיינים. In the case of אסמכתא, the לוה did not give anything [willingly] since he assumed the field would never go to the מלוה, it was a sale based on an אסמכתא which is invalid. Therefore הדרא פירי; not because of רבית, but rather because there never was a sale. ²⁵ Perhaps תוספות means to say as follows. The לוה transfers the field to the מלוה (since he did not pay the loan). However, the לוה still retains the right to redeem the field from the מלוה should he have the funds to pay off the loan. The לוה assures the מלוה that even if he will eventually redeem the field he grants the מלוה all the פירות the מלוה will consume in the interim as a רבית payment for the loan. This רבית need not be returned, since it is אבק רבית. ²⁶ See there ב"מ סו,ב, that רבא (assuming that ר"נ maintains מחילה בטעות הויא מחילה [as רש"י explained the גמרא]) wanted to ask ר"נ how can one maintain מחילה בטעות הויא מחילה (and therefore he may keep the פירות דקל) when the rule by אונאה is (see footnote # 27) that one must return the אונאה (to the buyer) even though (the buyer) gave the extra money willingly and was מוחל בטעות. ²⁷ One rule regarding אונאה (swindling) is that if the price paid was one sixth more (or less) than the true value then (even though the sale is valid) the extra money must be returned. ²⁸ Others amend this to read, כדפירישית [משום] דגמר ומקני ²⁹ Rather רבא thought the explanation of sר"נ' distinction between פירות דקל and אסמכתא is as רש"י explained it, whereupon ר"נ maintains מחילה בטעות הויא מחילה, and the question from אונאה is a valid question. ³⁰ Seemingly since רבא did not understand what ר"נ answered, ר"נ should have merely told him that he was mistaken in the understanding of his answer. תוספות explains why ר"נ responded to רבא as if it were a valid question. ³¹ The rule regarding an איילונית (a woman who cannot bear children) is that if at the time of marriage we did not realize that she was an איילונית, when he divorces her (upon realizing that she is an איילונית) she does not receive a כתובה since the marriage was a מקח טעות. The obligation of a regular כתובה includes that the husband must give her back (if he divorces her) all the assets she brought into the marriage for which he accepted responsibility. By an איילונית however she does not even receive these assets either, since she has no rights of a כתובה. When the איילונית bought her assets into the marriage and gave them in the custody of her husband she did not know that she was an איילונית (for presumably had she known that she would lose these assets she would never agree to give them to her husband), and nevertheless her מחילה בטעות (mistakenly giving over her assets to her husband) is a מחילה; proving that מחילה בטעות הויא מחילה. This is what ר"נ answered רבא. However תוספות maintains that ר"נ is of the opinion that מחילה בטעות לא הויא מחילה, how can he argue that איילונית supports his view?! ³² [ר"נ concluded there that there is no proof from אונאה since דלא ידע דאיתיה אונאה דמחיל גביה and there is no proof from איילונית since דניחא לה דתיפוק עלה שמא דאישות. If we assume the way תוספות explains the difference between the אסמכתא and פירות דקל (but generally מחילה בטעות לא הויא מחילה) then this answer of ר"נ is understood; we cannot compare פירות דקל to אונאה, since by אונאה the one who was cheated never realized that he was cheated (דלא ידע דאיתיה אונאה דמחיל גביה) it is a מחילה בטעות, however by פירות דקל he wanted to sell the פירות and did not mind the buyer keeping them since דליקו בהימנותיה. Similarly there is no question from איילונית (where מחילה בטעות הויא מחילה), since there she is willing to do anything to be considered married, including giving up her assets. However according to פרש"י that ר"נ maintains מחילה בטעות הויא מחילה, while we can understand why איילונית is no proof that מחילה בטעות הויא מחילה (since she wants to be considered married), it is difficult to understand why by אונאה it is not a מחילה (since he is not aware) and generally מחילה בטעות is a מחילה (for in all cases of מחילה בטעות seemingly the person does not know of his טעות, just like by אונאה). The question applies to פירות דקל as well (for רש"י does not mention anything regarding דליקו בהימנותא, only that it is מחילה בטעות) how is that different from אונאה? This is perhaps what תוספות means with the אלא ע"כ צריך אתה לחלק כדפי'. וצע"ג.(Alternately the אלא ע"כ is referring to the two questions תוספות had on פירש"י and therefore ע"כ צריך אתה לחלק כדפרישית)] ³³ See footnote # 15. ³⁵ See בל"י אות שפו.