Bava Metzia 66a — the Talmud in English

Ameimar said: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

it is mere empty words,

and there is no condition here, and if creditors seized it from the buyer, the seller does not have to give him anything.

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What is the reason

that this is empty words? Why do we not say that his intention is for a complete condition?

For

since it is the buyer who needs to stipulate,

for the condition is to his benefit,

and here the seller is standing and stipulating,

and the buyer did not repeat the condition to reinforce it; therefore

you say that it is mere empty words.

And we raise an objection against Ameimar:

But the beraita

that the Gemara brought above,

which teaches

at the end:

“When you have money, I will return it to you; it is permitted.”

And in this case

it is the seller who needs to stipulate,

for the condition is to his benefit, and it is speaking of a case in which

the seller did not stipulate, but the buyer stipulated.

And we said

above:

“What is different in the first clause, and what is different in the latter clause?” And Rava said: In the latter clause, he said to him

the buyer to the seller explicitly

“of my own accord” [

of my own will ].

It is clear:

the reason is that he said to him, “of my own accord.” Had he not said to him

explicitly

“of my own accord,”

it would be forbidden to do so, for there is a complete condition here that if the seller returns the money, the sale is nullified, and

we do not say that it is mere empty words,

and that there is no condition here!?

And we answer:

He said to him

Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: Rava did not mean that it is speaking of a case in which he explicitly said to him, “of my own accord.” Rather,

it was stated as though he had said to him, “of his own accord.”

That is to say: Since the seller needs to stipulate, and here the buyer stipulated, this is empty words. And the buyer does not need to return the house to the seller, as he would if he had explicitly said to him, “I will return it to you of my own accord.”

There was a certain dangerously ill man who wrote a bill of divorce for his wife [

his wife ], so that, if he died, she would not require levirate marriage.

He was dying and sighed, [

he sighed ]

she said to him

his wife, before he divorced her:

“Why are you sighing?

You need not fear that perhaps you will recover and I will marry another man, for

if you live [

recover ],

“I am yours.”

And afterward he gave her the bill of divorce.

Rav Zevid said: It is mere empty words,

for this is to the husband’s benefit, and he did not stipulate. Therefore, even if he recovered from the illness, she is permitted to marry another man.

And we raise an objection:

Rav Aha of Difti said to Ravina:

Why do you say that there is no condition in the divorce because this is empty words?

And if it were not empty words, what then?

Is it that

it is within her power to cast a condition into the bill of divorce?

For only

within his power is it to cast a condition,

for the woman’s consent is not needed for the divorce, and she is divorced even against her will?

And we answer:

What might you have said? He himself resolved and gave the bill of divorce with regard to her intention,

and since he divorced her in accordance with the condition that she stated, he made a condition in the divorce.

It teaches us

that there is no condition in the divorce. For even though he gives the bill of divorce in accordance with her intention, here she too did not state a complete condition, since what she said was mere empty words.

Introduction to the discussion of asmachta

One who stipulates with his fellow that if he does not do such and such, he imposes upon himself a penalty through a known obligation—that is asmachta. For example: one who paid part of his debt, and entrusted his document to a third party, and said to the third party: “If I do not repay the remainder of the debt to the creditor by a certain day, give him his document, and he will collect the entire debt from me.” That is to say: at the time of the condition, he relies in his heart on being able to pay the remainder when the time arrives, and he penalizes himself that if he does not pay by that time, the third party will give the document to the creditor, and he will collect everything written in the document.

The tannaim dispute in the Mishna in tractate Bava Batra, page 168a, whether the obligation takes effect or not.

Rabbi Yosei says that if the time arrived and he did not pay the remainder, the third party gives the document to the creditor, for asmachta acquires. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that asmachta does not acquire, for he did not resolve in his mind to transfer ownership.

Concerning the explanation of the concept “asmachta,” there is a dispute among the early authorities. The Rashbam in Bava Batra [page 168a, s.v. “asmachta,” and page 173b, s.v. “Rabbi Yehuda holds”] explains that he relies in his mind on the condition upon whose nonfulfillment he made the obligation dependent being fulfilled, and consequently the obligation will not come to fulfillment. In the case mentioned above, at the time of the condition he relies in his heart on being able to repay the remainder when the time arrives.

And Rashi [here, page 66a, s.v. “I say asmachta acquires,” and above, page 48b, s.v. “asmachta acquires”] explains that he causes his fellow to rely upon him—that is, he promises him that if his condition is not fulfilled, he will give him such and such, so that the fellow will rely upon him. In the case mentioned above, he causes his fellow to rely upon him that he will repay the remainder of the debt by a certain day.

In our Mishna it is written: “He lent him money against his field, and said to him, ‘If you do not repay me by three years, it is mine’; it is his.” And it is explained in the discussion that this condition is asmachta. The early authorities dispute in what manner this is asmachta. Rashi [s.v. “I say asmachta acquires”] holds that it is only when the field is worth more than the loan, and if he does not repay by three

years, he reduces for him the value of the field; this is asmachta. And the Ramban and the Rashba hold that even at its actual value this is asmachta, because a person does not wish to sell his properties. And this is also the position of Tosafot on 66b, s.v. “And if.”

It is written in the latter clause of the Mishna:

“He lent him money against his field”

and so on.

Rav Huna said: At the time of giving the money,

that is, if the lender said to the borrower at the time he gave him the loan, “If you do not repay me by three years, it is mine,”

he acquires everything,

the entire mortgaged field, even if it is worth more than the money that he lent him.

And if he said this to him

after the giving of the money

of the loan,

the lender did not acquire

through the mortgaged field

except corresponding to his money,

for the borrower did not resolve in his mind to transfer more than what corresponds to the loan.

And Rav Nahman said: Even after the giving of the money, he acquires everything.

Rav Nahman carried out an act in the case of the Exilarch,

for they had a document in which it was written that they had said to the borrower, after the giving of the money: “If you do not repay by a certain time, the mortgaged field will be acquired by us,” and the borrower did not repay,

in accordance with his teaching,

that they acquired everything.

Rav Yehuda tore up his document

of the Exilarch, for he held that the document was invalid.

The Exilarch said to

Rav Nahman:

“Rav Yehuda tore up your document,”

for you had validated the document.

Rav Nahman said to him:

Is it that

a rakeida [

a person of little wisdom ]

tore it up!?

But

a great man tore it up,

certainly

he saw a reason in it

that the document was invalid, and therefore

he tore it up.

Some say:

He said to him: “A schoolboy tore it up! In matters of law, everyone compared with me is a schoolboy.”

Afterward Rav Nahman said,

not as he had initially held, but rather

even at the time of giving the money, he acquired nothing at all.

And we raise an objection:

Rava raised an objection to Rav Nahman

from our Mishna:

“If you do not give me [the money] from now until three years, it is mine; it is his.”

It is clear that the lender acquires the entire field, and this is a difficulty for Rav Nahman.

But this is not difficult for Rav Huna, for he will establish the Mishna as referring to one who said it at the time of giving the money.

He said to him:

“I say [

I used to say ]

that asmachta acquires,

and therefore at first I said that even after the giving of the money he acquires everything. And the amora whose name is

Minyomi said that asmachta does not acquire,

and he turned me back from my words; ask him what he will answer concerning our Mishna.”

“And according to Minyomi, is the Mishna a difficulty!?”

And we answer:

If you wish, say: The Mishna is Rabbi Yosei’s, who says that asmachta acquires.

And I hold like the tanna who disputes Rabbi Yosei.