Bava Metzia

I was sitting before R. Nahman,  and wished to refute him from the law of 'overreaching';  but observing [my intentions] he drew my attention to the case of a barren woman.  [Raba proceeds to explain.] Now 'overreaching', being as it is [the result] of renunciation in error,  [we find that it] is not a [legal] renunciation! 'But observing [my intention], he drew my attention to a barren woman,' for a barren woman [makes] renunciation in error, and yet it is valid. For we learnt:  An objecting woman,  a consanguineous relation in the second degree,  and a constitutionally barren woman can claim no kethubah,  usufruct,  alimony,  or worn out raiment.  But it is not so: neither [the law of] 'overreaching' refutes him, nor [that of] a 'barren woman' supports him. [Thus: the law of] overreaching does not refute him, for he [the victim did not know that he was defrauded at all, that he should forego it.  Nor does [the law of] a 'barren woman' support him, because she is satisfied to be designated a married woman. A woman once instructed a man, 'Go and buy me land from my relatives,' and he went and did so. Said he [the vendor] to him [her agent], 'If I have money, will she return it to me?' 'You and Nawla,'  he replied, 'are relatives.'  Rabbah son of R. Huna said: Whenever one says, 'You and Nawla are relatives,' he [the vendor] relies upon it, and does not completely transfer it [the object of sale].  Now, the land is [certainly] returnable; but what of the crops?  Is it as direct usury, which can be legally reclaimed;  or perhaps it is only indirect  usury, and cannot be reclaimed? — Rabbah b. Rab said: It stands to reason that it is considered indirect usury and cannot be reclaimed in court. And thus did Raba say, It is considered indirect usury and cannot be reclaimed in court. Abaye inquired of Rabbah: What of a mortgage?  Is the reason there [in the previous case] that he made no stipulation? Then here too there was no stipulation!  Or, perhaps, there it is a sale, but here a loan? — He replied: The reason there is that no stipulation was made; so here too there was no stipulation. R. papi said: Rabina gave a practical decision, calculated [the value of] the crops, and ordered it to be returned, thus disagreeing with Rabbah son of R. Huna. Mar,  the son of R. Joseph, said in Raba's name: With reference to a mortgage: Where it is customary to make [the creditor] quit [whenever the loan is repaid],  if he took the usufruct to the amount of the loan, he must quit it;  but if in excess thereof, [the surplus] is not returnable;  nor is one loan  balanced against another.  But when it [the mortgaged estate] belongs to orphans, if he [the creditor] enjoyed its usufruct to the amount of the loan, he must quit it; if it [the usufruct] exceeded it, [the surplus] is returnable, and one loan is balanced against another. R. Ashi said: Now that you rule, If the usufruct exceeded the loan, [the balance] is not returnable; then even if it [merely] equalled it, he must not be dismissed without payment. Why? Because to dismiss him without payment is tantamount to making him return [what he has already had]; whereas it is only indirect interest, which is not reclaimable at law. R. Ashi gave a practical decision in reference to orphans [minors],