כגדולים as though they were adults. Even if the lender consumed produce equivalent to the amount of the debt, Rav Ashi would not collect the value of the produce from him, as this is merely a hint of interest and therefore it cannot be claimed in court.
אמר רבא בריה דרב יוסף משמיה דרבא האי משכנתא באתרא דמסלקי לא ניכול אלא בנכייתא וצורבא מדרבנן אפילו בנכייתא לא ניכול אלא במאי ניכול בקיצותא § Rava, son of Rav Yosef, says in the name of Rava: With regard to this following type of mortgage, in which the lender holds part of the borrower’s land and may consume its produce, the halakha depends on the local custom. In a place where the custom is that the borrower can repay the loan at any time and the court removes the lender from the land, the lender may consume the produce of the land only with a deduction in the amount of the loan granted to the borrower, equivalent in value to that of the produce consumed by the lender. And a Torah scholar [tzurva miderabbanan], who must be especially careful with regard to his conduct, may not consume the produce even with a deduction in the amount of the loan. The Gemara poses a question: But if so, in what manner may he consume the produce? The Gemara answers: By a fixed payment, the details of which the Gemara will soon explain.
הניחא למאן דאמר קיצותא שריא אלא למאן דאמר קיצותא אסירא מאי איכא למימר דאתמר קיצותא פליגא בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אמר קיצותא שריא וחד אמר קיצותא אסירא היכי דמי קיצותא דאמר ליה עד חמש שנין אכילנא לה בלא נכייתא מכאן ואילך שיימנא לך כולהו פירי The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that a fixed payment is permitted, but according to the one who says that a fixed payment is forbidden, what is there to say? As it was stated: With regard to a fixed payment, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagreed: One said that a fixed payment is permitted, and one said a fixed payment is forbidden. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this fixed payment? The Gemara explains: One case of a fixed payment is where the lender says to the borrower: For a period of up to five years, I will consume the produce of the field without a deduction in the amount of the loan; from that point forward I will appraise for you the value of all the produce I consume and subtract this sum from the debt.
איכא דאמרי כל בלא נכייתא אסור אבל היכי דמי קיצותא דאמר ליה עד חמש שנין אכילנא בנכייתא מכאן ואילך שיימנא לך כולהו פירי There are those who say a different version of this discussion: Any consumption of produce by the lender without a deduction in the amount of the loan is prohibited as interest. And what are the circumstances of a permitted fixed payment? When the lender says to the borrower: For a period of up to five years I will consume the produce with a fixed deduction in the amount of the loan; from this point forward I will appraise for you the value of all the produce I consume and deduct the sum from the loan.
מאן דאסר בקמייתא שרי בבתרייתא מאן דאסר בבתרייתא היכי שרי למיכל שרי כי משכנתא דסורא דכתבי בה הכי במשלם שניא אילין תיפוק ארעא דא בלא כסף The Gemara comments: The one who prohibits the practice according to the first version permits the practice described in the second. The Gemara asks: But according to the one who also prohibits the practice described in the second version, how is it permitted to consume the produce of a mortgaged field? The Gemara replies: It is permitted in a case like that of a mortgage according to the custom in Sura, a city in Babylonia, in which this is written in the loan document: Upon the completion of these years, during which the lender may consume the produce of the field, this land shall leave his possession without money and return to the owner, as the entire amount of the loan will have been repaid by means of the consumption of the produce.
רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמרי תרוייהו האי משכנתא באתרא דמסלקי אין בעל חוב גובה הימנה ואין הבכור נוטל בה פי שנים ושביעית משמטתה Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, both say: With regard to this type of mortgage, the halakha depends on the local custom. In a place where the custom is that the borrower can repay the loan at any time and the court removes the lender from the land, the land is not considered his property at all, and therefore another creditor cannot collect a debt owed by the lender by repossessing it; and if the lender dies, his firstborn son does not receive a double portion of it as part of his inheritance, as it did not belong to his father; and the Sabbatical Year cancels a debt of this kind, because it is not viewed as having already been collected.
ובאתרא דלא מסלקי בעל חוב גובה הימנו ובכור נוטל בו פי שנים ואין שביעית משמטתה But in a place where they do not remove him from the land before the appointed time even if the debt is paid, then the land has been temporarily transferred to him, and therefore a creditor can collect a debt owed by the lender by repossessing it, and his firstborn receives a double portion of it, and the Sabbatical Year does not cancel the debt.
ואמר מר זוטרא משמיה דרב פפא האי משכנתא באתרא דמסלקי מסלקי ליה ואפילו מתמרי דאבודיא ואי אגבהנהו בסיסני קננהו ולמאן דאמר כליו של לוקח ברשות מוכר קנה לוקח אפילו דלא אגבהנהו בסיסני קננהו: And Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa: With regard to this type of mortgage, the halakha depends on the local custom. In a place where the custom is that the borrower can repay the loan at any time and the court removes the lender from the land, they remove him even from dates he has already harvested and spread out on the mats. But if he has lifted them and placed them in the baskets [besisanei], he has thereby acquired them, and they are his. And according to the one who says that when an act of acquisition is performed by means of placing items in the buyer’s vessels that are located in the seller’s domain the buyer has acquired the items, even if he did not lift them while they were in the baskets, he acquired them when they were placed on the mats.
פשיטא באתרא דמסלקי ואמר לא מסתלקנא הא קאמר דלא מסתלקנא אלא באתרא דלא מסלקי ואמר מסתלקנא מאי צריך למקנא מיניה או לא § The Gemara discusses other halakhot of mortgages. It is obvious that if the loan was given in a place where they generally remove the lender from the field upon the repayment of the debt, but upon lending the money, the lender said: I will not be removed, his stipulation is respected, as he said that he will not be removed, and he gave him the money only subject to this condition. But if the loan took place in a place where they generally do not remove him, and he said: I will be removed when the money is returned, what is the halakha? Is it necessary to perform a formal act of acquisition with him to formalize this commitment, or is it not necessary, as his statement alone is binding?
רב פפא אמר לא צריך למקנא מיניה רב ששת בריה דרב אידי אמר צריך למקנא מיניה והלכתא צריך למקנא מיניה Rav Pappa said: It is not necessary to perform an act of acquisition with him. Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: It is necessary to perform an act of acquisition with him. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that it is necessary to perform an act of acquisition with him.
אמר איזיל ואייתי זוזי לא אכיל איזיל ואטרח ואייתי זוזי רבינא אמר אכיל ומר זוטרא בריה דרב מרי אמר לא אכיל והלכתא לא אכיל The Gemara addresses another case. If the borrower said to the lender: I will go to get the money to repay you, the lender may not consume any more of the produce, as this statement is sufficient to remove him from the property. But if he said: I am going to make an effort to get the money, amora’im engaged in a dispute concerning the halakha. Ravina said: The lender may continue to consume the produce until the borrower actually brings the payment, as he cannot be certain the borrower will manage to get the money. And Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said: He may not consume the produce. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that he may not consume the produce.
רב כהנא ורב פפא ורב אשי לא אכלי בנכייתא רבינא אכיל בנכייתא The Gemara relates: Rav Kahana, and Rav Pappa, and Rav Ashi would not consume the produce of mortgaged fields even with a deduction in the amount of the loan, as they were concerned about the possible violation of the prohibition of interest. Ravina would consume this produce with a deduction in the amount of the loan.
אמר מר זוטרא מאי טעמא דמאן דאכיל בנכייתא מידי דהוה אשדה אחוזה שדה אחוזה לאו אע"ג דקא אכיל פירי טובא אמר רחמנא Mar Zutra said: The explanation for the practice of the one who does consume the produce with a deduction in the amount of the loan is just as it is in the case of an ancestral field, i.e., a field that one inherits from his ancestors within his family holdings in Eretz Yisrael. The Torah states that one who consecrates his ancestral field can redeem it from the Temple treasury in return for one sela, which is four dinars, for each year remaining until the Jubilee (see Leviticus 27:16–19). The comparison is as follows: With regard to an ancestral field, is it not the case that even though he consumes abundant produce over the course of the years, nevertheless, the Merciful One states in the Torah