Study Bava Metzia folio 66A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
פטומי מילי בעלמא הוא. אמר ליה רב אשי לאמימר: טעמא מאי – כיון דלוקח בעי לאתנויי, והכא מוכר קא מתני, אמרת פטומי מילי בעלמא הוא.
These are merely words of enticement [pittumei millei] designed to encourage the buyer, but they are not part of a legal contract and therefore do not obligate the seller. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What is the reason for this? Since the buyer is the one who needs to stipulate this condition but he neglected to do so, and here it was the seller who stipulated the condition, is that why you said that these are merely words of enticement?
אלא מתניתא דקתני: ״לכשיהיו לך מעות אחזיר לך – מותר״, דמוכר הוא דבעי לאתנויי, מוכר לא אתני ולוקח קא מתני.
But according to this reasoning, consider the baraita, as it teaches that if the buyer says: When you have money I will give the property back to you, this is permitted. Now in this case it is the seller who needs to stipulate this condition, but the seller did not stipulate it and it was the buyer who stipulated it. Accordingly, they should likewise be regarded as words of enticement.
ואמרינן: מאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא? ואמר רבא: סיפא, דאמר ליה מדעתיה. טעמא דאמר ליה מדעתיה, הא לא אמר ליה מדעתיה – לא אמרינן פטומי מילי בעלמא הוא.
And we said concerning the baraita: What is different in the first clause and what is different in the latter clause? And Rava says that the latter clause is referring to a situation where the buyer said he would return the field of his own accord. Rav Ashi infers: The reason the condition is invalid is that the buyer said to him that he would return the field of his own accord. But if he did not say to him that he would return the field of his own accord, we would not say that these are merely words of enticement, even though the statement was made by the buyer about himself, and not as a condition by the seller.