Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) MISTAKEN PARDON

(a) Question (Rava): Ona'ah is mistaken pardon, and it is not pardoned!

1. Counter-question (Rav Nachman): From a Mishnah of Ailonis, we see that mistaken pardon helps!
2. (Mishnah): A girl that does Mi'un, a Sheniyah (a woman forbidden to her husband mid'Rabanan) or an Ailonis - do not receive a Kesuvah, produce (that her husband ate from her land), food, the depreciation of (Tosfos; Rashi - remnants of) her Tzon Barzel property. (The Ailonis let her husband eat the fruit, unaware that she was an Ailonis and they are not really married, and he need not return it.)

(b) Rejection: Neither of these is a support or refutation.

1. Regarding Ona'ah, the victim did not intend to pardon anything - he did not know he overpaid!
2. A woman is very happy to be called married - an Ailonis would let her husband eat, even if she knew that they are not really married!

(c) Leah told Reuven 'Go buy land for me from my relative'; the seller said, 'If I get money, she should let me by it back.'

1. Reuven: You are relatives (you will settle between yourselves).
2. Version #1 (Rabah bar Rav Huna): The seller relied on this stipulation.
3. Version #2 - Rambam - (Rabah bar Rav Huna): (Since Reuven did not agree to the stipulation,) the seller did not decide absolutely to sell.

(d) Question: He gets back the land - what is the law of the produce?

1. It is fixed Ribis, and she must return it;
2. Or - it is Avak Ribis, she need not return it?

(e) Answer (Rabah bar Rav Huna): It is Avak Ribis, she need not return it.

(a) Question (Abaye): Reuven lent Shimon and took his field to be collateral, i.e. Mashkanta. If Reuven ate the produce without any prior stipulation, what is the law?

1. As in the previous case, since there was no stipulation, it is Avak Ribis, he need not return it;
2. Or - perhaps there it was only Avak Ribis because it was a sale, but here it was a loan, it is proper Ribis?

(b) Answer (Rabah): Since there was no stipulation, it is Avak Ribis.
(c) (Rav Papi): Ravina ruled in a case that the fruit returns to the seller, unlike Rabah bar Rav Huna.
(d) (Mar brei d'Rav Yosef): In a place where the borrower can redeem Mashkanta, if the lender ate as much produce as the loan, the land reverts to the borrower;

1. If he ate more than the loan, he need not return it; if the borrower owes him another debt, we do not deduct the excess that he ate from the other debt.
2. Regarding orphans, if he ate more than the loan, he must return it; if their father owed him another debt, we deduct the excess he ate from it.

(e) (Rav Ashi): Since we say that if he ate more, he need not return it, if he ate the amount of the debt, we do not remove him from the land.
(f) Question: Why is this?
(g) Answer: To remove him without paying him money is considered taking from him - we do not do this by Avak Ribis.
(h) Rav Ashi ruled in a case of young orphans as if they were not orphans (he did not remove the lender from the land).

(i) (Rava brei d'Rav Yosef): In a place where the borrower can redeem his Mashkanta, the lender can only eat the produce if he deducts (a fixed amount per year from the loan);

1. A Chacham may not eat the produce even if he deducts.

(j) Question: How can a Chacham eat?
(k) Answer: Through Kitzusa (this will be explained).
(l) Question: We understand according to the opinion that Kitzusa is permitted - but according to the opinion that Kitzusa is forbidden, how can we answer?

1. (Rav Acha or Ravina): Kitzusa is permitted.
2. (The other of Rav Acha and Ravina): It is forbidden.
3. Version #1 - Question: What is Kitzusa?
4. Answer: The lender eats the produce for a specified time without deducting anything; after this, he evaluates all the produce he eats (and deducts it from the loan).
5. Version #2: No one permits eating without deducting;
6. Version #1 - Question: What is Kitzusa (that they argue about)?
7. Answer: The lender eats the produce for a specified time, deducting a fixed amount per year; after this, he deducts the value of all the produce he eats from the loan..

(m) Answer #1: According to Version #1, all agree that the Kitzusa of Version #2 is permitted (even for a Chacham).

1. Question: According to Version #2, according to the opinion that forbids Kitzusa, how may a Chacham eat?

(n) Answer #2: He writes Mashkanta of Sura - 'After such and such years, the land reverts to the owner for free'.

(a) (Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): In a place where the borrower can redeem Mashkanta, (if the lender dies, his) creditor does not collect from it (since it is not considered land), his firstborn does not get a double portion of it (it is a mere loan, not land);

1. Such a loan is cancelled in Shemitah (we do not considered it a loan with a security);
2. In a place where the borrower cannot redeem it (we consider it to be sold to the lender, therefore his) creditor collects from it, his firstborn gets a double portion of it, such a loan is not cancelled in Shemitah.

(b) (Mar Zutra): In a place where the borrower can redeem Mashkanta, the lender cannot even keep dates that fell on mats under the trees;

1. If the lender picked them up to put them in baskets (before he was repaid), he acquired them.
2. According to the opinion that a buyer's vessels acquire for him in the seller's domain, he acquires them without lifting them.

(c) Obviously, in a place where the borrower can redeem Mashkanta, if he says (at the time of the loan) that he will not, he cannot;
(d) Question: In a place where the borrower cannot redeem Mashkanta, if he says (at the time of the loan) that he will - must he make an acquisition for this?
(e) Answer #1 (Rav Papa): He does not need an acquisition.
(f) Answer #2 (Rav Sheshes brei d'Rav Idi): He needs an acquisition.
(g) (In a place where the borrower can redeem) if he says 'Don't eat, I am going to fetch the money for you', the lender may not eat (since the money is ready);
(h) (Ravina): If he says 'Don't eat, I am going to toil to obtain the money', the lender may still eat;
(i) (Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Mari): He may not eat.

1. The Halachah follows Mar Zutra.

(j) Rav Kahana, Rav Papa and Rav Ashi would not eat through deducting (a fixed amount per year); Ravina ate through deducting.
(k) (Mar Zutra): Ravina would eat, as we find by one who made his inherited field Hekdesh: one who redeems it can eat much produce for a fixed amount per year, (just over) four Zuz a year;

1. Those that would not eat say that a loan is different, for it looks like Ribis.