1)MISTAKEN PARDON (cont.)
(a)Question (Rava): Ona'ah is mistaken pardon, and it is not pardoned!
1.Counter-question (Rav Nachman): The Mishnah of Ailonis (a girl who does not develop like a normal female) show that mistaken pardon helps!
2.(Mishnah): The following do not receive a Kesuvah, Peros (that her husband ate from her land), food, or the depreciation of (Tosfos; Rashi - remnants of) her Tzon Barzel property: a girl who does Mi'un (annuls her marriage mid'Rabanan), a Sheniyah (a woman forbidden to her husband mid'Rabanan) or an Ailonis. (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 buy it back.'
1.Reuven: You are relatives (you will settle between yourselves).
2.Version #1 (Rabah bar Rav Huna): The seller relied on this Tenai.
3.Version #2 - Rambam - (Rabah bar Rav Huna): (Since Reuven did not agree to the Tenai,) the seller did not decide absolutely to sell.
(d)Question: He gets back the land. What is the law of the Peros?
1.Is it is fixed Ribis, and she must return it?
2.Or, is it Avak Ribis, and she need not return it?
(e)Answer (Rabah bar Rav Huna): It is Avak Ribis. She need not return it.
2)DEDUCTING FROM MASHKANTA
(a)Question (Abaye): If Reuven lent Shimon and took his field to be collateral, i.e. Mashkanta, and Reuven ate the Peros without any prior Tenai, what is the law?
1.Like in the previous case, since there was no Tenai, it is Avak Ribis, so he need not return it;
2.Or, perhaps there it was only Avak Ribis because it was a sale. Here it was a loan, so it is proper Ribis!
(b)Answer (Rabah): Since there was no Tenai, it is Avak Ribis.
(c)(Rav Papi): A case occurred, and Ravina ruled 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 Peros 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.If a lender ate more than the loan from land of orphans, 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: What is the reason?
(g)Answer: To remove him without paying him money is considered taking from him. We do not do this regarding Avak Ribis.
(h)Rav Ashi ruled in a case of minor orphans as if they were adults. (He did not remove the lender from the land, for it is only Avak Ribis.)
(i)(Rava brei d'Rav Yosef): In a place where the borrower can redeem his Mashkanta, the lender may eat the Peros only if he deducts (a fixed amount per year from the loan);
1.A Chacham may not eat the Peros even if he deducts.
(j)Question: How may a Chacham eat?
(k)Answer: He may eat through Kitzusa (this will be explained).
(l)Question: This is like the opinion that Kitzusa is permitted. 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 Peros for a specified time without deducting anything. After this, he evaluates all the Peros 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 Peros for a specified time, and deducts a fixed amount per year. After this, he deducts the value of all the Peros he eats from the loan.
(m)Answer #1: According to Version #1, all permit the Kitzusa of Version #2 (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.'
3)MASHKANTA THAT CAN BE REDEEMED
(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), and his firstborn does not inherit a double portion of it (it is a mere loan Ra'uy (destined to come). The creditor did not possess it);
1.Such a loan is cancelled in Shemitah (it is not considered 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, and such a loan is not cancelled in Shemitah.
(b)(Mar Zutra): In a place where the borrower can redeem Mashkanta, the lender cannot keep even 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 Kelim 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, like we find regarding one who was Makdish his inherited field: one who redeems it can eat much Peros for a fixed amount per year, (just over) four Zuz a year;
1.Those that would not eat hold that a loan is different, for it looks like Ribis.