Bava Metzia 60

ואין צריך לומר חדשים בישנים

And needless to say, one may not intermingle new produce with old produce, in the event that the old produce is superior, as with grains, since intermingling lowers its value.

באמת אמרו ביין התירו לערב קשה ברך מפני שהוא משביחו אין מערבין שמרי יין ביין אבל נותן לו את שמריו

Actually, they said: With regard to wine, they permitted one to mix strong wine with weak wine, because one thereby enhances it. One may not intentionally mix wine sediment with the wine, but one may give the buyer wine with its sediment; the seller is not required to filter the wine.

מי שנתערב מים ביינו לא ימכרנו בחנות אלא אם כן הודיעו ולא לתגר אף על פי שהודיעו שאינו אלא לרמות בו מקום שנהגו להטיל מים ביין יטילו

One who had water mix with his wine may not sell it in the store, unless he informs the buyer that it contains water. And he may not sell it to a merchant, even if he informs him of the mixture, as, although he is aware that there is water mixed with the wine, it will be used for nothing other than deceit because the merchant will likely not inform the buyer that it is diluted. In a place where they are accustomed to place water into the wine to dilute it and everyone is aware of that fact, one may place water in the wine.

התגר נוטל מחמש גרנות ונותן לתוך מגורה אחת מחמש גתות ונותן לתוך פיטום אחד ובלבד שלא יהא מתכוין לערב

The prohibition against mixing different types of produce applies only to an individual selling the produce of his field. By contrast, a merchant may take grain from five threshing floors belonging to different people, and place the produce in one warehouse. He may also take wine from five winepresses and place the wine in one large cask [pitom], provided that he does not intend to mix low-quality merchandise with high-quality merchandise.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן אין צריך לומר חדשות מארבע וישנות משלש דאין מערבין אלא אפילו חדשות משלש וישנות מארבע אין מערבין מפני שאדם רוצה לישנן

GEMARA: The Sages taught: Needless to say, if the price of the new produce is four se’a for a sela and the price of the old produce is three se’a for a sela, one may not intermingle them together. That is full-fledged deceit, as one is selling inexpensive produce at the price of expensive produce. Rather, even if the price of the new produce is three se’a for a sela and the price of the old produce is four se’a for a sela, one may not intermingle them. This is because in this case the price of the new produce is higher, as people want to age the produce, i.e., new produce is more valuable to those who seek to place it in storage for a lengthy period, although it may be of inferior quality compared to old produce.

באמת אמרו ביין התירו לערב קשה ברך מפני שהוא משביחו וכו׳ אמר רבי אלעזר עדא אמרה כל באמת אמרו הלכה היא

The mishna teaches: Actually, they said: With regard to wine, they permitted one to mix strong wine with weak wine because mixing the wine enhances it. Rabbi Elazar said: That is to say, every time a halakha is introduced with the phrase: Actually they said, it is an established halakha with regard to which there is no uncertainty.

אמר רב נחמן ובין הגיתות שנו

Rav Naḥman says: And it is with regard to the period when the wine is among the winepresses, i.e., before the wine ferments, that they taught this halakha. When the wine is still in the process of fermentation, if different wines are mixed and ferment together, this enhances their flavor. By contrast, if they are mixed at a later stage, this will harm their flavor.

והאידנא דקא מערבי שלא בין הגיתות אמר רב פפא דידעי וקא מחלי רב אחא בריה דרב איקא אמר הא מני רבי אחא היא דתניא רבי אחא מתיר בדבר הנטעם

The Gemara asks: And today, when people mix old and new wine even when the wine is not among the winepresses, on what basis is mixing permitted? Rav Pappa said: It is because buyers are aware of the potential loss and waive it. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Aḥa, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Aḥa permits mixing in a case where the product will be tasted before its purchase. Then there is no deceit, as when the buyer tastes it, he is immediately aware that it is a mixture, and the choice of whether or not to purchase the product is his.

ואין מערבין שמרי יין ביין אבל נותן לו את שמריו וכו׳ והא אמרת רישא אין מערבין כלל וכי תימא מאי נותן לו את שמריו דקא מודע ליה הא מדקתני סיפא לא ימכרנו בחנות אלא אם כן מודיעו ולא לתגר אף על פי שמודיעו מכלל דרישא אף על גב דלא מודע ליה

The mishna teaches: And one may not intentionally mix wine sediment with the wine, but one may give the buyer wine with its sediment. The Gemara asks: But didn’t you say in the former clause of the mishna that one may not mix sediment at all? And lest you say: What is the meaning of: He may give the buyer wine with its sediment; it means that he informs the buyer that the wine contains sediment, this suggestion is not tenable. From the fact that the latter clause teaches: One may not sell it in the store unless he informs the buyer and he may not sell it to a merchant even if he informs him, it may be inferred that the former clause is speaking of a situation where one may sell it in the store even if he does not inform the buyer.

אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר אין מערבין שמרים של אמש בשל יום ולא של יום בשל אמש אבל נותן לו את שמריו תניא נמי הכי רבי יהודה אומר השופה יין לחבירו הרי זה לא יערב של אמש בשל יום ולא של יום בשל אמש אבל מערב של אמש בשל אמש ושל יום בשל יום

Rav Yehuda said: This is what the tanna is saying: One may neither mix sediment remaining from wine that he poured the night before with the wine of the next day, nor the sediment of the next day with the wine of the night before. But he may give the buyer sediment of that wine itself. That is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to one who pours wine for another, attempting to pour the liquid while leaving the sediment in the cask, that person may neither mix sediment remaining from wine that he poured the night before with the wine of the next day, nor the sediment of the next day with the wine of the night before. But he may mix the sediment of the night before with the wine poured the night before, and the sediment of the next day with the wine of the next day.

מי שנתערב מים ביינו הרי זה לא ימכרנו בחנות אלא אם כן מודיעו וכו׳ רבא אייתו ליה חמרא מחנותא מזגיה טעמיה לא הוה בסים שדריה לחנותא אמר ליה אביי והא אנן תנן ולא לתגר אף על פי שהודיעו אמר ליה מזגא דידי מידע ידיע וכי תימא דטפי ומחייליה ומזבין ליה אם כן אין לדבר סוף

The mishna teaches: One who had water mix with his wine may not sell it in the store, unless he informs the buyer that it contains water. The Gemara relates: They brought wine to Rava from a store. He diluted it with water, tasted it, and it was not tasty. He sent it back to the store, so they could sell it there. Abaye said to him: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: And he may not sell it to a merchant, even if he informs him? Rava said to him: My dilution of the wine is evident to all, as I add more water than is typically added. And lest you say that the storekeeper will add wine, and sweeten the mixture, and sell it again, when the dilution is no longer evident, if this is a concern, there is no end to the matter. It should be prohibited to sell any wine to a merchant due to the concern lest he engage in deceit in its resale.

מקום שנהגו להטיל מים ביין יטילו וכו׳ תנא למחצה לשליש ולרביע אמר רב ובין הגיתות שנו

The mishna teaches: In a place where they are accustomed to place water into the wine to dilute it and everyone is aware of that fact, one may place water in the wine. It was taught: One may dilute the wine by adding water that will constitute one-half, one-third, or one-fourth of the mixture, in accordance with the local custom. Rav says: And it is with regard to the period when the wine is among the winepresses, before the wine ferments, that they taught this halakha. If wine is diluted at a later stage, the dilution will cause the wine to spoil.

מתני׳ רבי יהודה אומר לא יחלק החנוני קליות ואגוזין לתינוקות מפני שהוא מרגילן לבא אצלו וחכמים מתירין ולא יפחות את השער וחכמים אומרים זכור לטוב

MISHNA: Rabbi Yehuda says: A storekeeper may not hand out toasted grain and nuts to children who patronize his store, due to the fact that he thereby accustoms them to come to him at the expense of competing storekeepers. And the Rabbis permit doing so. And one may not reduce the price of sale items below the market rate. And the Rabbis say: If he wishes to do so, he should be remembered positively.

לא יבור את הגריסין דברי אבא שאול וחכמים מתירין ומודים שלא יבור מעל פי מגורה שאינו אלא כגונב את העין אין מפרכסין לא את האדם ולא את הבהמה ולא את הכלים

One may not sift ground beans to remove the waste, lest he charge an inappropriately high price for the sifted meal, beyond its actual value; this is the statement of Abba Shaul. And the Rabbis permit doing so. And the Rabbis concede that one may not sift the meal only from the beans that are close to the opening of the bin to create the impression that the contents of the entire bin were sifted, as this is nothing other than deception. One may neither adorn a person before selling him on the slave market, nor an animal nor vessels that he seeks to sell. Rather, they must be sold unembellished, to avoid deceiving the buyer.

גמ׳ מאי טעמייהו דרבנן דאמר ליה אנא מפליגנא אמגוזי ואת פליג שיסקי

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis, who permit the free distribution of toasted grain and nuts? It is because the storekeeper can say to his competitors: I hand out nuts; and you hand out jujubes [shiskei]. All merchants are able to hand out goods that will attract children, and consequently this is not unfair competition.

ולא יפחות את השער וחכמים אומרים זכור לטוב וכו׳ מאי טעמא דרבנן

The mishna teaches: And one may not reduce the price of items below the market rate. And the Rabbis say: If he wishes to do so, he should be remembered positively. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis, who not only condone the practice but even praise the person, saying that he should be remembered positively?

משום דקא מרווח לתרעא

The Gemara explains: It is due to the fact that by lowering the price he eases the market rate, i.e., his actions lead to the establishment of a lower market price.

ולא יבור את הגריסין דברי אבא שאול וחכמים מתירין וכו׳ מאן חכמים רבי אחא דתניא רבי אחא מתיר בדבר הנראה

The mishna teaches: And one may not sift ground beans to remove the waste and charge a higher price; this is the statement of Abba Shaul. And the Rabbis permit doing so. The Gemara comments: Who are the Rabbis whose opinion is cited in the mishna? It is Rabbi Aḥa, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Aḥa permits mixing, and sifting, and the like, in the case of an item in which the change is obvious.

אין מפרכסין לא את האדם וכו׳ ולא את הכלים תנו רבנן אין משרבטין את הבהמה ואין נופחין בקרביים ואין שורין את הבשר במים מאי אין משרבטין הכא תרגמו מיא דחיזרא זעירי אמר רב כהנא מזקפתא

The mishna taught: One may neither adorn a person, nor an animal, nor vessels. The Sages taught: One may neither stiffen the hair of an animal to create the impression that it is more voluminous than it is, nor inflate innards sold as meat to create the impression that it is a more substantial piece of meat, nor soak meat in water in order to change its color and create the impression that it is a choice cut. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: One may not stiffen the hair of an animal? Here, in Babylonia, they explained that it means to feed the animal bran water, which inflates its intestines and causes its hair to stand on end. Ze’eiri said in the name of Rav Kahana: It means scrubbing the hair clean to increase its volume.

שמואל שרא למרמא תומי לסרבלא רב יהודה שרא לכסכוסי קרמי רבה שרא למידק צרדי רבא שרא לצלומי גירי רב פפא בר שמואל שרא לצלומי דיקולי והא אנן תנן אין מפרכסין לא את האדם ולא את הבהמה ולא את הכלים לא קשיא הא בחדתי הא בעתיקי

The Gemara relates: Shmuel permitted sellers to place fringes on a cloak; Rav Yehuda permitted them to clean and adorn ornamented garments; Rabba permitted them to taper linen garments to cause them to appear more fine; Rava permitted them to draw arrows to ornament garments; Rav Pappa bar Shmuel permitted them to draw baskets for ornamentation. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: One may neither adorn a person, nor an animal, nor vessels? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this series of cases, where the Sages permitted adorning merchandise, are cases of new merchandise. It may be decorated, as doing so merely enhances its intrinsic beauty. That ruling in the mishna, according to which adornment is prohibited, is referring to cases of old merchandise, as the adornment is meant to conceal its flaws.

פרכוס דאדם מאי היא כי הא דההוא עבדא סבא דאזל צבעיה לרישיה ולדיקניה אתא לקמיה דרבא אמר ליה זיבנן אמר ליה יהיו עניים בני ביתך

The Gemara asks: Adornment of a person, what is it? The Gemara relates: It is as in that incident involving a certain elderly slave who went and dyed his head and beard black to create a younger impression. He came before Rava and said to him: Purchase me as your slave. Rava said to him that there is a rabbinic adage: Let the poor be members of your household. I follow their advice and therefore do not require a slave. If I need assistance, the paupers who frequent my house can assist me.

אתא לקמיה דרב פפא בר שמואל זבניה יומא חד אמר ליה אשקיין מיא אזל חווריה לרישיה ולדיקניה אמר ליה חזי דאנא קשיש מאבוך קרי אנפשיה צדיק מצרה נחלץ ויבא אחר תחתיו

The slave came before Rav Pappa bar Shmuel, who purchased him. One day Rav Pappa said to the slave: Give me water to drink. The slave went and removed the dye and whitened the hair on his head and his beard. The slave said to Rav Pappa: See that I am older than your father, and I am unfit to serve you. Rav Pappa read about himself: The righteous person is delivered from trouble, and another comes in his stead (see Proverbs 11:8). Rav Pappa applied the verse to the incident of the slave. The righteous person, Rava, was spared the problem of the slave; while another, Rav Pappa bar Shmuel, came in his stead.

הדרן עלך הזהב

מתני׳ איזהו נשך ואיזהו תרבית

MISHNA: The Torah states the prohibition against taking interest: “And if your brother becomes impoverished, and his hand falters with you, then you shall support him; whether a stranger or a native, he shall live with you. You shall not take from him interest [neshekh] or increase [tarbit]; you shall fear your God and your brother shall live with you. You shall not give him your money with neshekh and with marbit you shall not give him your food” (Leviticus 25:35–37). The mishna asks: Which is neshekh, and which is tarbit?

איזהו נשך המלוה סלע בחמשה דינרין סאתים חטין בשלש אסור מפני שהוא נושך

Which is the case in which there is neshekh? With regard to one who lends another a sela, worth four dinars, for five dinars to be paid later, or one who lends another two se’a of wheat for three se’a to be returned later, this is prohibited, as it is taking interest [noshekh].

ואיזהו תרבית המרבה בפירות כיצד לקח הימנו חטין בדינר זהב הכור וכן השער עמדו חטין בשלשים דינרין

And which is the case in which there is tarbit? It is the case of one who enters into a transaction that yields an increase in the produce beyond his investment. How so? For example, one acquired wheat from another at the price of one kor of wheat for one gold dinar, worth twenty-five silver dinars, with the wheat to be supplied at a later date, and such was the market price of wheat at the time he acquired it. The price of one kor of wheat then increased and stood at thirty dinars.

אמר לו תן לי חטי שאני רוצה למוכרן וליקח בהן יין אמר לו הרי חטיך עשויות עלי בשלשים והרי לך אצלי בהן יין ויין אין לו

At that point, the buyer said to the seller: Give me all of my wheat now, as I wish to sell it and purchase wine with it. The seller said to him: Since it is ultimately wine that you want, not wheat, each kor of your wheat is considered by me to be worth thirty dinars, and you have the right to collect its value in wine from me. And in this case, the seller did not have wine in his possession. If wine then appreciates in value, the result will be an interest-bearing transaction, as the buyer collects from the seller wine worth more than the wheat for which he paid.

גמ׳ מדשביק לריבית דאורייתא וקא מפרש דרבנן מכלל דאורייתא דנשך ותרבית חדא מלתא היא והא קראי כתיבי נשך כסף וריבית אוכל

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From the fact that in explaining the term tarbit, the tanna sets aside the topic of interest by Torah law, which is interest decided upon at the time of a loan, and instead explicates a case of lending with interest that is prohibited by rabbinic law, one can conclude by inference that by Torah law, neshekh and tarbit are one matter, and there is no halakhic distinction between them. The Gemara asks: But aren’t the verses written using the term neshekh for interest that is on a loan of money and tarbit or marbit, which are cognates of the term ribit, for interest that is on a loan of food? This is as the verse states: “You shall not give him your money with neshekh and with marbit you shall not give him your food” (Leviticus 25:37).

ותיסברא דאיכא נשך בלא תרבית ותרבית בלא נשך נשך בלא תרבית היכי דמי

The Gemara asks: And can you understand that there is neshekh without tarbit, and tarbit without neshekh? The term neshekh, from a root meaning bite, connotes loss to the borrower, while the term tarbit, literally increase, connotes profit for the lender. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances where there could be neshekh without tarbit?

אי דאוזפיה מאה במאה ועשרים מעיקרא קיימי מאה בדנקא ולבסוף קיימי מאה ועשרים בדנקא נשך איכא דקא נכית ליה דקא שקיל מיניה מידי דלא יהיב ותרבית ליכא דלית ליה רווחא דדנקא אוזפיה ודנקא קא שקיל מיניה

If it is in a case where one lends to another one hundred perutot with the agreement to be repaid one hundred and twenty, and initially one hundred copper perutot are worth one-sixth [bedanka] of a dinar, and ultimately, when he pays, one hundred and twenty perutot are worth one-sixth of a dinar, this is not an example of one without the other. Although one might say that there is neshekh, as the lender reduces the borrower’s assets since the lender takes in payment from the borrower coins that he did not give him in the loan, and there is no tarbit, as there is no profit for the lender in this transaction, since he lent him one-sixth of a dinar and he received from him one-sixth of a dinar, that is not correct.

סוף סוף אי בתר מעיקרא אזלת הרי נשך והרי תרבית אי בתר בסוף אזלת לא נשך איכא ולא תרבית איכא

The Gemara explains: Ultimately, if you go according to the initial value, when the loan was granted, there is neshekh and there is tarbit, as the borrower agreed to pay more than he received. If you go according to the ultimate value, when the loan was repaid, there is neither neshekh nor is there tarbit, as he repaid only the value he received.

ותו תרבית בלא נשך היכי דמי אי דאוזיף מאה במאה מעיקרא קיימי מאה בדנקא ולבסוף מאה בחומשא

Additionally, what are the circumstances in which there could be tarbit without neshekh? If it is in a case where one lends to another one hundred perutot with the agreement to be repaid one hundred, and initially one hundred copper perutot are worth one-sixth of a dinar, and ultimately, when he is repaid, one hundred perutot are worth one-fifth of a dinar, this is not an example of one without the other.

אי בתר מעיקרא אזלת לא נשך איכא ולא תרבית איכא אי בתר סוף אזלת הרי נשך והרי תרבית

The Gemara explains: If you go according to the initial value, when the loan was granted, there is neither neshekh nor is there tarbit, as he is repaid only the value that he lent. If you go according to the ultimate value, when the loan was repaid, there is neshekh and there is tarbit, as the value of one hundred perutot has increased.

אלא אמר רבא אי אתה מוצא לא נשך בלא תרבית ולא תרבית בלא נשך ולא חלקן הכתוב אלא לעבור עליו בשני לאוין

Rather, Rava said: You do not find neshekh without tarbit nor tarbit without neshekh, and the verse distinguished between them only so that lending with interest always involves violating two prohibitions.

תנו רבנן את כספך לא תתן לו בנשך ובמרבית לא תתן אכלך אין לי אלא נשך בכסף ורבית באוכל נשך באוכל מנין תלמוד לומר נשך אכל רבית בכסף מנין תלמוד לומר נשך כסף

The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “You shall not give him your money with neshekh and with marbit you shall not give him your food” (Leviticus 25:37). I have derived only that there is a prohibition of neshekh for a loan of money and a prohibition of ribit for a loan of food. From where is it derived that there is neshekh with regard to a loan of food as well? The baraita answers: A different verse states: “You shall not lend with interest [tashikh] to your brother: Neshekh of money, neshekh of food, neshekh of anything that is lent with interest [asher yishakh]” (Deuteronomy 23:20). The baraita continues: From where is it derived that there is ribit with regard to a loan of money? The verse states: “Neshekh of money.”