Bava Metzia 67a

בבא מציעא ס״ז ע״א

Learn Bava Metzia 67a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Metzia 67a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

מחילה בטעות (אונאה and איילונית), then whether produce eaten from a field that was not fully sold or was mortgaged (משכנתא) counts as אבק רבית, and when a lender is removed from a mortgaged field.

Overview

The amud opens with רבא's story about רב נחמן, who holds that מחילה בטעות still counts. רבא wanted to challenge him from אונאה, and רב נחמן answered with איילונית, based on a משנה in כתובות. The גמרא rejects both comparisons. The overcharged buyer never forgave at all, because he did not know. The איילונית truly gives up her rights, because she is glad to be known as a married woman. Next comes a story: an agent buys land from a woman's relatives and tells the seller, 'You and she are relatives.' רבה בר רב הונא rules that the sale never fully took hold, so the land goes back, and the produce the buyer ate is only אבק רבית, which judges do not take back. אביי asks about a lender eating the produce of a משכנתא, and the answer is the same, because no fixed profit was set, though רבינא once ruled otherwise. Then, in the name of רבא, come rules on when a lender is removed from a mortgaged field and what happens to extra produce, with a stricter rule for orphans. רב אשי argues that the lender cannot be removed without being paid, and a story begins about a case he judged involving young orphans, which continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (19)

1. Statementרבא sits before רב נחמן and wants to object
2. ChallengeThe challenge from overcharging
3. Proofרב נחמן's support from the ailonit
4. ProofThe משנה source about the ailonit
5. RejectionNeither case really proves anything
6. RejectionWhy both comparisons fail
7. StatementThe story of the woman, her agent, and the relative who sold the land
8. StatementThe seller relied on that answer, so the sale never fully took hold
9. QuestionThe land goes back, but what about the produce she ate?
10. Responseרבה בר רב הונא: it is only אבק רבית
11. Conclusionרבא rules the same way
12. QuestionDoes the same rule apply to a mortgaged field?
13. ResponseThe same reason applies, so it is the same rule
14. Statementרבינא ruled against רבה בר רב הונא
15. StatementWhen the lender must leave the mortgaged field
16. StatementIf the lender ate more than the loan, the extra is not taken back
17. StatementWith orphans' fields, the lender is removed and the extra is taken back
18. Statementרב אשי: the lender cannot be removed without being paid
19. Statementרב אשי judged a real case involving young orphans