However, if he gave it for the sake of Ribis, it would not return, for it is Avak Ribis.

Distinction: However, there, regarding Peros of a date tree [that will grow], it is not mistaken pardon. Granted, he can retract. However, he should not retract, in order to stand in his faithfulness;

Therefore, we should say that even if he knew that he can retract, he would not retract.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Rava, who wanted to challenge [Rav Nachman] from Ona'ah, thought that Rav Nachman's reason that we do not take back if one ate, is because mistaken pardon is valid;

According to Rava's understanding, [Rav Nachman] answered him and brought a proof from Ailonis.

Citation (Kesuvos 107b) Question: In what case did they say that a Mema'enes is not fed?

Citation (cont.): You cannot say that it is while she is married, for her husband is obligated to feed her!

Citation (cont.) Answer: Rather, her husband went overseas, and she borrowed, ate and did Mi'un.

Explanation: Also Ailonis we can explain like this;

There is no need to teach about food after Mi'un or after she was found to be an Ailonis. Obviously she is not fed!

Implied question: (What is the case of a Sheniyah?) We cannot explain that she is still married, for this is obvious. Even a widow to a Kohen Gadol, who has a Kesuvah, is not fed while she is married;

Citation (Yevamos 85a): He must divorce her. Is she fed?!

It need not teach about when her husband went overseas, and she borrowed and ate, for a widow to a Kohen Gadol also is not fed in such a case, like we conclude in Yevamos!

Answer: Rather, it discusses after [her husband] died. One might have thought that she is fed like a widow, like we say there.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): She entered [into the marriage] garments as part of her dowry. Even if some of them are intact, he does not return them.

Rebuttal: You cannot say so. Whenever we discuss intact Bela'os, it explicitly says "intact", like it says in Kesuvos (63b] "if she rebelled, she lost her intact Bela'os."

Also in Kesuvos (101b), it says that if she was Mezanah, she did not lost her intact Bela'os.

We explicitly say there in the Gemara that this Mishnah discusses only Nichsei Melug, but she has Nichsei Tzon Barzel;

Citation (101b): Which case does this discuss? If it is an Ailonis or Mema'enes, if [the Nichsei Melug and Nichsei Tzon Barzel] are intact, she gets both of them. If they are not intact, she does not get them either of them!

Citation (cont.): Rather, it discusses a Sheniyah. If [the Nichsei Melug and Nichsei Tzon Barzel] are intact, she gets both of them. If they are not intact, it should say oppositely (she gets Nichsei Melug, but not Nichsei Tzon Barzel)!

We conclude that really, it refers to a Sheniyah, and they are not intact. Rabanan fined him to lose what is his, and fined her to lose what is hers.

Explanation #2: Rather, the Bela'os taught here are not intact.

Explanation: Peros that were taught are not Peros that he ate, for even the principal itself, if he ate it, she does not get [compensation];

Rather, it needs to teach that she does not get Peros that he detached, and they are still intact.

Alternatively, it discusses the enactment of Peros (redemption), that she does not have it. E.g. if she was captured and borrowed and redeemed herself, and afterwards did Mi'un, similar to [the case of] food.

Explanation #1: Here it connotes that if Peros return, they return only because it is like Ribis Ketzutzah.

Implied question: Ravina took Peros [from the buyer]. You are forced to say that it was not due to this reason, for he holds (above, 62a) that Mashkanta without deducting, in our laws we do not return it from the lender to the borrower!

Answer: We must say that Ravina's reason is because it is mistaken pardon, which is invalid.

Limitation: Only regarding a sale like the case of Rabah bar Rav Huna, Ravina took Peros [from the buyer], but not regarding a loan.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): "Here, it is like Ribis Ketzutzah" is not because judges return Ribis Ketzutzah. Rather, it is because mistaken pardon is not valid, and it is returned, like Ribis Ketzutzah is returned;

Or, perhaps [mistaken pardon] is pardon, and it is not returned, like Avak Ribis, which judges do not return.

Rebuttal: This is wrong. Why should we attribute mistaken pardon to Ribis Ketzutzah?!

Conclusion: Surely, Ravina's reason is due to pardon, like I explained.

Question: Why is this unlike deducting?

You are forced to say that he can evict [the lender]. If he cannot evict him, even without deducting it is permitted, like it connotes above;

It says "in a place where they evict, he may eat [the Peros] only with deducting";

Inference: In a place where they do not evict, he may eat even without deducting!

Poor Answer #1: With deducting, it is normal to deduct only a small amount, but Mashkanta of Sura, they normally appraise the real value [of the Peros].

Rejection: It connotes that because they write this, it is permitted!

Answer #2: Since he explains so, it does not looks like a loan, rather, like one who buys Peros of these years for this amount of money;

However, when he does not write so to him, rather, he deducts every year by itself, it looks like he sells to him cheaper the Peros of that year, due to the rest of the loan, like the Mishnah (above, 64b) forbids renting from [the borrower] for less [than the usual rental].

Implied question: If we will say that he cannot inflate the [deduction for] Peros of another year, for presumably, they do not make a new stipulation every year [it is as if they fixed the number of years]!

Answer: Even so, since they did not limit the number of years, to specify in the document that at the end of these years [the land returns], it looks like a loan.

Explanation: This is like Metaltelim of orphans. A creditor has no lien on them.

Implied question: Why is this unlike orphans who collected land for money owed to their father? A creditor collects it from them, even though Shuma (a creditor who collected land) always returns (when the borrower is able to pay the debt)!

Answer: It returns only due to "v'Asisa ha'Yashar veha'Tov." It is a new sale in which [the borrower] buys it [from the lender], like we said above (16b).

Support: This is why [the lender] eats the Peros without deducting.

Implied question: Why is this unlike one who lends [relying] on a security? Shemitah does not cancel [such a loan]!

Answer: Metaltelim are different, for he is Tofes them, and acquires them [if he took them] not at the time of the loan, like R. Yitzchak taught (below, 82a);

Therefore, even [if he took them] at the time of the loan, it is considered "of your brother in your hand" [so it is not canceled]. This does not apply to land.

Suggestion: This is because the lender said that he will leave, and these are empty words, for the borrower must stipulate.

Rejection: If so, why must he acquire? He should say that the borrower should stipulate!

Explanation: We discuss after he borrowed from him Stam. Even if the borrower will stipulate, he needs a Kinyan so [the lender] cannot retract;

If [he stipulated] at the beginning of the loan, even in a place where they do not evict, since [the borrower] stood and screamed (i.e. demanded that he will be able to evict him, the lender) can acquire only [with the terms] that the other is Makneh to him.

Question #1: Above, we said that a Chacham may not eat even with deducting!

Question #2: Above, Rav Acha and Ravina argued about Kitzusa (the lender eats the Peros for a specified time without deducting, or he deducts a fixed amount per year according to Version #2, and after this he deducts the value of all Peros that he eats). Even the one who permits, agrees that through deducting is forbidden, at least for a Chacham!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Ravina did not want to consider himself a Chacham.

Answer #2: In corrected Seforim of R. Tam it says "Rafram" in place of Ravina in the argument of Kitzusa.

Answer #3: This deducting of Ravina is Kitzusa in Version #2 above. For five years he ate with deducting. From then and onwards, we appraise all the Peros;

Rav Acha and Ravina argued about this above, and we hold like Ravina to be lenient.

Support: R. Chananel holds like this, for he ruled that we hold like Rav Ashi, who did not eat with deducting, and he permitted a Chacham only like Mashkanta of Sura;

Inference: He holds that deducting here is Kitzusa, since he permits only like Mashkanta of Sura.