Limitation: Only here, where they already resolved to buy without Achrayus, and the buyer was pained because the seller did not agree to sell with Achrayus, and [the buyer] did not want to refrain from buying due to this, therefore these are empty words;

However, if from the beginning the seller said "buy my field. If they take it from you...", these are not empty words. Rather, it is an absolute Tenai;

Surely, he intended to buy only with Achrayus, like the seller initially said.

Consequence: This makes a difference according to the opinion that Acharayos Lav Ta'os Sofer, or for other Tanayim. (According to the opinion that Acharayos Ta'os Sofer, even if a document does not mention Acharayos, it is as if it is written.)

Also below, we discuss when he agreed and resolved in his mind and verbally to divorce without a Tenai, and she comes to console him with her words.

Explanation: Also when he is Makneh to her based on her intent, he can retract, for also she said empty words.

Inference: Here it connotes that one who divorces a woman Stam, if he recovers, he cannot retract the Get.

Support: It connotes like this also in Gitin (75b) that Shmuel needed to enact [to write] in a Get of a Shechiv Mera "if I die, it will be a Get, and if not, it will not be a Get."

Question (R. Tam): Rashi and R. Chananel explained that Rav Huna said in Gitin (72b) that his Get is like his gift. Just like his gift, if he recovers, he can retract, also his Get, if he recovers, he can retract.

This refers to a Stam Shechiv Mera. When he gave a Get Stam, if he recovers, he can retract, just like his gift!

Answer: We can say that the Sugya here and Shmuel argue with Rav Huna, for also Rabah and Rava argue with him there.

Explanation: R. Tam asked other questions against his Perush, and explained that Rav Huna refers to our Mishnah there "Im Mesi mi'Choli Zeh";

However, when he gives Stam, Rav Huna agrees that he cannot retract. There it is explained.

Question: We should ask like we ask below "did he say 'acquire for collection'? He said 'acquire everything at the end of three [years]'", and he does not acquire everything. Therefore, even corresponding to his coins he should not acquire!

Implied question: Above (48b), we say regarding Eravon that he acquires corresponding to his Eravon, even though he stipulated with him twice as much!

Answer: There, because he gave an Eravon to acquire corresponding to it until he brings the rest of the money and acquires everything, but he stipulates that if the seller retracts, he will acquire double.

Answer: Here, it means as follows. After money was given, he does not acquire unless he stipulated with him "acquire corresponding to your coins."

Question: When he stipulates with him for collection, he should not acquire, for it is Asmachta, like we explain below!

Answer: Here Rav Huna taught this. He said that at the time money is given, he acquired everything, even though other Asmachta does not acquire;

It explains the reason below. Also here, not at the time of giving money, he acquired at least corresponding to his coins.

Explanation: He made me retract from my words, like Rashi explained.

Question: Also without Minyomi, Rav Nachman received (Bava Basra 168a) from Rabah bar Avuha in the name of Rav that the Halachah does not follow R. Yosi.

Answer #1: The text in some Seforim is "the Halachah follows R. Yosi."

Rejection #1: The text cannot say so, like is proven in Nedarim (27a) regarding the man who held [the documents of] his Zechus in Beis Din, and said "if I will not come within 30 days, my Zechusim are Batel", and he did not come;

Rav Huna said that his Zechusim are Batel. The Gemara asks that this is Asmachta, and answers that here is different, for he held [his Zechus];

The Gemara asks "whenever he is Tofes (holding), it is not Asmachta?! A Mishnah says that one who paid part of his debt, and gave the document to a third party... Rav Nachman cited Rabah bar Avuha in the name of Rav that the Halachah does not follow R. Yosi!"

Rejection #2: What was the question there against Rav Huna from Rav Nachman? Rav Huna argues with Rav Nachman here, and says that at the time money is given, he acquires everything. He holds that Asmachta acquires!

Answer #1: According to Rav Huna, we can say that at the time money is given, it is not considered Asmachta;

There in Nedarim it is surely Asmachta, for he does not want the fine and the exaggeration to take effect. Rather, he stipulates like this so that his friend will rely on his words.

However, here he lent to him his coins with this intent, that the field will remain in his hand if he does not give to him within three years.

Question: However, according to Rav Nachman, who said that even after giving coins, he acquires everything, we cannot give this reason.

Answer #2 (Ri): One reason explains both of them. Here he acquires more than elsewhere, for at the beginning of the Mashkanta, it is a little like commerce. He is Makneh to him all the land to have a lien on it like a security;

Also, he did to him a favor through the loan. Therefore, when [the borrower] consented to him that it will be his if he does not pay within three years, he intends to fulfill;

He did not say so just to make him rely on his words. Rather, he resolves to be Makneh to him, according to Rav Huna like he holds (a stipulation made when the money was given acquires the entire field. A stipulation made afterwards acquires land worth the amount of the loan), and according to Rav Nachman, before he retracted, like he held (even if the stipulation was made afterwards, it is binding).

Support: Because this Asmachta is better than other Asmachta, it is fine for Minyomi and Rav Nachman after Minyomi persuaded him to retract, that here "from now" helps, without an esteemed Beis Din.

In Nedarim (27b), we say that the Halachah is, Asmachta acquires, only if they acquired from him in an esteemed Beis Din;

Stam "they acquired from him" is Kinyan Sudar, and Kinyan Sudar is only from now;

[The Kinyan] does not help to acquire through it afterwards, since at the [later] time, the Sudar was already returned to its owner, like it says in Nedarim (48b).

Inference: Regarding other Asmachtos, even "from now" acquires only in an esteemed Beis Din.

Distinction: A fine made at the time of Shiduchin helps even if it was not in an esteemed Beis Din, since everyone is used to doing so. This is like Situmta (marking barrels that one wants to buy) below (74a), which acquires (in a place where this is used to acquire);

Also, it is proper that anyone who retracts is liable, since he embarrasses his friend (the other side).

Similarly, if when a teacher was hired he accepted on himself a fine if he will retract and they will not find another teacher ready, this is not Asmachta, for it is not considered exaggeration, for he causes a loss to [the Talmid's father];

This is like "if I will leave the field fallow and not work it, I will pay what it would have produced.' This is not Asmachta.

Question: In Nedarim (27b), we ask from Rav Nachman against Rav Huna. We should rather ask a contradiction in Rav Huna!

Here, Rav Huna holds that Asmachta does not acquire, even though the lender is Tofes. This is like Tefisah there, that he says that after the money was given it does not acquire!

Answer #1: The Tefisah here, in land, is not like Tefisah there, which is in Metaltelim.

Answer #2 (R. Tam): Here Rav Huna said that at the time the money was given, he acquires. This does not oppose what he taught in Nedarim. Here he acquired because he seized from the borrower himself.

Note: Seemingly, R. Tam answers the last question, why we didn't ask a contradiction in Rav Huna. The Maharsha says that it [also] answers Tosfos' first question, that also without Minyomi, Rav Nachman received that the Halachah does not follow R. Yosi. Perhaps it answers only that question.

Implied question: Above (48b), the seller does not acquire the Eravon [if the buyer retracts] even though he is Tofes!

Answer: That is because the buyer does not acquire double, because he is not Tofes. (Therefore, he does not consent that the seller acquire the Eravon.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): If he is adamant about selling his belongings, not to [sell] for less than the value, [this shows that he is not so concerned to pay the loan and get back his land, so] he (the lender) acquired.

Question #1: If so, it should have said "lest his Metaltelim get cheaper." Why did it say "lest his land get cheaper"?

Question #2: Perhaps he was adamant not to sell for less than the value because he knows that Asmachta does not acquire!

Implied question: He should strive to get money, unless others assured him [that they will give money to him].

Answer: This is to establish his trustworthiness, but he need not sell for less than the value due to this.

Explanation #1 (Rashi - cont.): If he is adamant about land, not to sell it even for its value, surely [the lender] acquired.

Question: What is the reason? Perhaps he is adamant because Asmachta does not acquire!

Explanation #2: If he is adamant about money, i.e. he specified at the time of the loan to take [for the land, a loan] equal to its value with this Tenai, this shows that he intended that the lender keep it;

[The Gemara] asks "perhaps [he did so] lest his land cheapen!" He does not want to make any Tenai with cheapening (connotation that his land is worth less than its true value).

However, if he is adamant about land, that he does not want to make this Tenai with any land except for this, if so he does not intend to redeem it.

Question: It connotes below (73b) that it is Asmachta only when it is not b'Yado (in his ability), and [then it is Asmachta] even if he did not exaggerate, like the case of one who gave coins to his friend to buy for him wine, and he was negligent and did not buy for him...

Or, [it is Asmachta] when he exaggerated, even if it is b'Yado, like the case of "if I will leave [the field] fallow and not work it, I will pay 1000 Zuz."

However, if he said "if I will leave it fallow and not work it, I will pay what it would have produced", which is not exaggerated, and it is b'Yado, it is not considered Asmachta.

Summation of question: Here, what Asmachta is it if he gives to him land for his debt?

Answer: It is considered like an exaggeration, for normally one does not sell his land at all.

Implied question: Below, regarding wine, [Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua] said [in the name of Rava] that any [promise starting with] 'if' does not acquire, even though wine is destined to be sold!

Answer: Also there, it is considered like an exaggeration, for it was not yet the time to sell wine, and now he gives it for a cheap price.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Here it is a loan, and it looks like Ribis, for initially it came to his hand through a loan;

It is like Ribis Ketzutzah. Avak Ribis does not apply to a loan. It applies only to a sale, e.g. increasing Peros in our Mishnah.

Question #1: If so, Rav Nachman argues with Ravina, who said above (62a) that Mashkanta without deducting, in our laws we do not return [to the borrower].

Question #2: It says below in our Sugya that Mashkanta, in a place where [borrowers can pay up, and] evict [the lender from the land], if [the lender] ate more [than the value of the loan], we do not take from him;

It connotes that no one disagrees!

Question #3: According to Rashi, it connotes that in the conclusion, according to Rav Nachman mistaken pardon is pardon, except for a loan, for it looks like Ribis;

Everywhere, it connotes that according to Rav Nachman mistaken pardon is not pardon, e.g. in Bava Basra (41a) regarding Rav Anan's land that was flooded. (The boundaries were washed away. He rebuilt the wall on his neighbor's property, and his neighbor helped him to build. Rav Nachman) said that it is mistaken pardon (it is not pardon).

Also above (35a), a case occurred in which Reuven deposited nose rings [with Shimon. Shimon forgot where he put them. He did not pay; Rav Nachman gave Shimon's yard to Reuven for payment. The rings were found after they rose in value. Rav Nachman ruled that Reuven gets his rings back, and Shimon gets his yard back. The yard] was collected by mistake [for the rings were never lost].

Also in Nazir (31a), Beis Hillel say that mistaken Hekdesh is not Hekdesh.

In Gitin (14a), we say that every mistaken Kinyan returns.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Here it is a loan. The borrower was Makneh [his land] only for a sale, and the sale is invalid, for Asmachta does not acquire;

It turns out that it was mistaken pardon, which is not pardon, therefore the Peros return.