What practices are permissible in conducting an ethical business? Can one commingle produce from various fields or dilute wine before selling it? What criteria determine what is allowed or prohibited? What tactics are deemed acceptable or forbidden in a competitive commercial environment? Different rabbis offer varying perspectives on these questions. The fifth chapter delves into the laws of interest. The Mishna initiates the discussion by delineating what is interest that is prohibited by Torah law and by rabbinic law. The Gemara elucidates the terminology used in the Torah – neshech (interest causing a loss for the borrower) and marbit (interest generating gain for the lender) – and elucidates that both terms signify the existence of two negative commandments concerning lending or borrowing money with interest that both apply in all cases.
Bava Metzia 60
Share this shiur:
Bava Metzia
Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v’Yehuda Tzvi.
רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על־כלנה
This week’s learning is sponsored by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaima for Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya and Binyamin Yisrael ben Malka Enya.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Bava Metzia
Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v’Yehuda Tzvi.
רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על־כלנה
This week’s learning is sponsored by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaima for Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya and Binyamin Yisrael ben Malka Enya.
Bava Metzia 60
וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר, חֲדָשִׁים בִּישָׁנִים.
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.
בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ: בְּיַיִן הִתִּירוּ לְעָרֵב קָשֶׁה בְּרַךְ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַשְׁבִּיחוֹ. אֵין מְעָרְבִין שִׁמְרֵי יַיִן בְּיַיִן, אֲבָל נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת שְׁמָרָיו.
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.
מִי שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב מַיִם בְּיֵינוֹ, לֹא יִמְכְּרֶנּוּ בַּחֲנוּת, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הוֹדִיעוֹ. וְלֹא לַתַּגָּר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹדִיעוֹ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְרַמּוֹת בּוֹ. מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהָטִיל מַיִם בַּיַּיִן – יָטִילוּ.
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.
הַתַּגָּר נוֹטֵל מֵחָמֵשׁ גֳּרָנוֹת וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹךְ מְגוּרָה אַחַת, מֵחָמֵשׁ גִּתּוֹת וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹךְ פִּיטוֹם אֶחָד, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא מִתְכַּוֵּין לְעָרֵב.
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.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר חֲדָשׁוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע וִישָׁנוֹת מִשָּׁלֹשׁ דְּאֵין מְעָרְבִין, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ חֲדָשׁוֹת מִשָּׁלֹשׁ וִישָׁנוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע – אֵין מְעָרְבִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָדָם רוֹצֶה לְיַשְּׁנָן.
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.
בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ: בַּיַּיִן הִתִּירוּ לְעָרֵב קָשֶׁה בְּרַךְ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַשְׁבִּיחוֹ וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: עֲדָא אָמְרָה, כֹּל ״בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ״ – הֲלָכָה הִיא.
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.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: וּבֵין הַגִּיתּוֹת שָׁנוּ.
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.
וְהָאִידָּנָא דְּקָא מְעָרְבִי שֶׁלֹּא בֵּין הַגִּיתּוֹת? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דְּיָדְעִי וְקָא מָחֲלִי. רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא אָמַר: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי אַחָא הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אַחָא מַתִּיר בְּדָבָר הַנִּטְעָם.
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.
וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין שִׁמְרֵי יַיִן בְּיַיִן, אֲבָל נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת שְׁמָרָיו וְכוּ׳. וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ רֵישָׁא אֵין מְעָרְבִין כְּלָל! וְכִי תֵּימָא מַאי ״נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת שְׁמָרָיו״? דְּקָא מוֹדַע לֵיהּ, הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: לֹא יִמְכְּרֶנּוּ בַּחֲנוּת אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מוֹדִיעוֹ, וְלֹא לַתַּגָּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמּוֹדִיעוֹ, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מוֹדַע לֵיהּ!
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.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הָכִי קָאָמַר, אֵין מְעָרְבִין שְׁמָרִים שֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ בְּשֶׁל יוֹם, וְלֹא שֶׁל יוֹם בְּשֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ. אֲבָל נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת שְׁמָרָיו. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַשּׁוֹפֶה יַיִן לַחֲבֵירוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יְעָרֵב שֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ בְּשֶׁל יוֹם, וְלֹא שֶׁל יוֹם בְּשֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ. אֲבָל מְעָרֵב שֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ בְּשֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ, וְשֶׁל יוֹם בְּשֶׁל יוֹם.
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.
מִי שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב מַיִם בְּיֵינוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִמְכְּרֶנּוּ בַּחֲנוּת, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מוֹדִיעוֹ וְכוּ׳. רָבָא אַיְיתוֹ לֵיהּ חַמְרָא מֵחָנוּתָא, מַזְגֵיהּ, טַעְמֵיהּ, לָא הֲוָה בְּסִים, שַׁדְּרֵיהּ לְחָנוּתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן, וְלֹא לַתַּגָּר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹדִיעוֹ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִזְגָּא דִּידִי מִידָּע יְדִיעַ. וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּטָפֵי וּמְחַיְּילֵיהּ וּמְזַבֵּין לֵיהּ – אִם כֵּן, אֵין לַדָּבָר סוֹף.
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.
מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַטִּיל מַיִם בַּיַּיִן, יָטִילוּ וְכוּ׳. תָּנָא: לְמֶחֱצָה, לִשְׁלִישׁ, וְלִרְבִיעַ. אָמַר רַב: וּבֵין הַגִּיתּוֹת שָׁנוּ.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא יְחַלֵּק הַחֶנְוָנִי קְלָיוֹת וֶאֱגוֹזִין לַתִּינוֹקוֹת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַרְגִּילָן לָבֹא אֶצְלוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין. וְלֹא יִפְחוֹת אֶת הַשַּׁעַר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: זָכוּר לַטּוֹב.
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.
לֹא יָבוֹר אֶת הַגְּרִיסִין, דִּבְרֵי אַבָּא שָׁאוּל. וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין, וּמוֹדִים שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹר מֵעַל פִּי מְגוּרָה, שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְּגוֹנֵב אֶת הָעַיִן. אֵין מְפַרְכְּסִין לֹא אֶת הָאָדָם, וְלֹא אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה, וְלֹא אֶת הַכֵּלִים.
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.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן? דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא מְפַלֵּיגְנָא אַמְגּוֹזֵי, וְאַתְּ פַּלֵּיג שִׁיסְקֵי.
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.
וְלֹא יִפְחוֹת אֶת הַשַּׁעַר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: זָכוּר לַטּוֹב וְכוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן?
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?
מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מַרְוַוח לְתַרְעָא:
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.
וְלֹא יָבוֹר אֶת הַגְּרִיסִין, דִּבְרֵי אַבָּא שָׁאוּל. וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין וְכוּ׳. מַאן חֲכָמִים? רַבִּי אַחָא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אַחָא מַתִּיר בְּדָבָר הַנִּרְאֶה.
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.
אֵין מְפַרְכְּסִין, לֹא אֶת הָאָדָם וְכוּ׳ וְלֹא אֶת הַכֵּלִים. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין מְשַׁרְבְּטִין אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה, וְאֵין נוֹפְחִין בַּקְּרָבַיִים, וְאֵין שׁוֹרִין אֶת הַבָּשָׂר בַּמַּיִם. מַאי אֵין מְשַׁרְבְּטִין? הָכָא תַּרְגִּמוּ: מַיָּא דְחִיזְרָא. זְעֵירִי אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מַזְקַפְתָּא.
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.
שְׁמוּאֵל שְׁרָא לְמִרְמֵא תּוּמֵי לְסַרְבָּלָא. רַב יְהוּדָה שְׁרָא לְכַסְכּוֹסֵי קִרְמֵי. רַבָּה שְׁרָא לְמִידַּק (צַרְדֵי) [צַדְרֵי]. רָבָא שְׁרָא לְצַלּוֹמֵי גִּירֵי. רַב פָּפָּא בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל שְׁרָא לְצַלּוֹמֵי דִּיקּוּלֵי. וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: אֵין מְפַרְכְּסִין לֹא אֶת הָאָדָם, וְלֹא אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה, וְלֹא אֶת הַכֵּלִים! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּחַדְתֵי, הָא בְּעַתִּיקֵי.
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.
פִּרְכּוּס דְּאָדָם מַאי הִיא? כִּי הָא דְּהָהוּא עַבְדָּא סָבָא, דַּאֲזַל צַבְעֵיהּ לְרֵישֵׁיהּ וּלְדִיקְנֵיהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיבְנַן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יִהְיוּ עֲנִיִּים בְּנֵי בֵיתֶךָ.
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.
אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל, זַבְנֵיהּ. יוֹמָא חַד אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אַשְׁקְיַין מַיָּא!״ אֲזַל חַוְּורֵיהּ לְרֵישֵׁיהּ וּלְדִיקְנֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״חֲזִי דַּאֲנָא קַשִּׁישׁ מֵאֲבוּךְ״. קָרֵי אַנַּפְשֵׁיהּ: ״צַדִּיק מִצָּרָה נֶחֱלָץ וַיָּבֹא אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו״.
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.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַזָּהָב
מַתְנִי׳ אֵיזֶהוּ נֶשֶׁךְ וְאֵיזֶהוּ תַּרְבִּית?
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?
אֵיזֶהוּ נֶשֶׁךְ? הַמַּלְוֶה סֶלַע בַּחֲמִשָּׁה דִּינָרִין, סָאתַיִם חִטִּין בְּשָׁלֹשׁ – אָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא נוֹשֵׁךְ.
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].
וְאֵיזֶהוּ תַּרְבִּית? הַמַּרְבֶּה בְּפֵירוֹת. כֵּיצַד? לָקַח הֵימֶנּוּ חִטִּין בְּדִינַר זָהָב הַכּוֹר, וְכֵן הַשַּׁעַר. עָמְדוּ חִטִּין בִּשְׁלֹשִׁים דִּינָרִין.
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.
אָמַר לוֹ: תֵּן לִי חִטַּי, שֶׁאֲנִי רוֹצֶה לְמוֹכְרָן וְלִיקַּח בָּהֶן יַיִן. אָמַר לוֹ: הֲרֵי חִטֶּיךָ עֲשׂוּיוֹת עָלַי בִּשְׁלֹשִׁים, וַהֲרֵי לְךָ אֶצְלִי בָּהֶן יַיִן, וְיַיִן אֵין לוֹ.
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.
גְּמָ׳ מִדְּשָׁבֵיק לְרִיבִּית דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְקָא מְפָרֵשׁ דְּרַבָּנַן, מִכְּלָל דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, (דְּ)נֶשֶׁךָ וְתַרְבִּית – חֲדָא מִלְּתָא הִיא. וְהָא קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי: נֶשֶׁךְ כֶּסֶף, וְרִיבִּית אוֹכֶל!
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).
וְתִיסְבְּרָא דְּאִיכָּא נֶשֶׁךְ בְּלֹא תַּרְבִּית, וְתַרְבִּית בְּלֹא נֶשֶׁךְ? נֶשֶׁךְ בְּלֹא תַּרְבִּית הֵיכִי דָּמֵי?
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?
אִי דְּאוֹזְפֵיהּ מְאָה בִּמְאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים, מֵעִיקָּרָא קָיְימִי מְאָה בְּדַנְקָא, וּלְבַסּוֹף קָיְימִי מְאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים בְּדַנְקָא. נֶשֶׁךְ אִיכָּא – דְּקָא נָכֵית לֵיהּ, דְּקָא שָׁקֵיל מִינֵּיהּ מִידֵּי דְּלָא יָהֵיב. וְתַרְבִּית לֵיכָּא – דְּלֵית לֵיהּ רַוְוחָא, דְּדַנְקָא אוֹזְפֵיהּ וְדַנְקָא קָא שָׁקֵיל מִינֵּיהּ.
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.
סוֹף סוֹף, אִי בָּתַר מֵעִיקָּרָא אָזְלַתְּ – הֲרֵי נֶשֶׁךְ וַהֲרֵי תַּרְבִּית. אִי בָּתַר בְּסוֹף אָזְלַתְּ, לָא נֶשֶׁךְ אִיכָּא וְלָא תַּרְבִּית אִיכָּא.
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.
וְתוּ, תַּרְבִּית בְּלֹא נֶשֶׁךְ הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאוֹזֵיף מְאָה בִּמְאָה, מֵעִיקָּרָא קָיְימִי מְאָה בְּדַנְקָא, וּלְבַסּוֹף מְאָה בְּחוּמְשָׁא.
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.
אִי בָּתַר מֵעִיקָּרָא אָזְלַתְּ – לָא נֶשֶׁךְ אִיכָּא וְלָא תַּרְבִּית אִיכָּא. אִי בָּתַר סוֹף אָזְלַתְּ – הֲרֵי נֶשֶׁךְ וַהֲרֵי תַּרְבִּית!
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.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אִי אַתָּה מוֹצֵא לֹא נֶשֶׁךְ בְּלֹא תַּרְבִּית, וְלֹא תַּרְבִּית בְּלֹא נֶשֶׁךְ. וְלֹא חִלְּקָן הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֶת כַּסְפְּךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לוֹ בְּנֶשֶׁךְ וּבְמַרְבִּית לֹא תִתֵּן אׇכְלֶךָ״. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא נֶשֶׁךְ בְּכֶסֶף וְרִבִּית בְּאוֹכֶל. נֶשֶׁךְ בְּאוֹכֶל מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״נֶשֶׁךְ אֹכֶל״. רִבִּית בְּכֶסֶף מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״נֶשֶׁךְ כֶּסֶף״.
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.”
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Raanana, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
Blacksburg, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
Bava Metzia 60
וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר, חֲדָשִׁים בִּישָׁנִים.
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.
בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ: בְּיַיִן הִתִּירוּ לְעָרֵב קָשֶׁה בְּרַךְ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַשְׁבִּיחוֹ. אֵין מְעָרְבִין שִׁמְרֵי יַיִן בְּיַיִן, אֲבָל נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת שְׁמָרָיו.
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.
מִי שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב מַיִם בְּיֵינוֹ, לֹא יִמְכְּרֶנּוּ בַּחֲנוּת, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הוֹדִיעוֹ. וְלֹא לַתַּגָּר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹדִיעוֹ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְרַמּוֹת בּוֹ. מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהָטִיל מַיִם בַּיַּיִן – יָטִילוּ.
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.
הַתַּגָּר נוֹטֵל מֵחָמֵשׁ גֳּרָנוֹת וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹךְ מְגוּרָה אַחַת, מֵחָמֵשׁ גִּתּוֹת וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹךְ פִּיטוֹם אֶחָד, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא מִתְכַּוֵּין לְעָרֵב.
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.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר חֲדָשׁוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע וִישָׁנוֹת מִשָּׁלֹשׁ דְּאֵין מְעָרְבִין, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ חֲדָשׁוֹת מִשָּׁלֹשׁ וִישָׁנוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע – אֵין מְעָרְבִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָדָם רוֹצֶה לְיַשְּׁנָן.
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.
בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ: בַּיַּיִן הִתִּירוּ לְעָרֵב קָשֶׁה בְּרַךְ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַשְׁבִּיחוֹ וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: עֲדָא אָמְרָה, כֹּל ״בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ״ – הֲלָכָה הִיא.
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.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: וּבֵין הַגִּיתּוֹת שָׁנוּ.
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.
וְהָאִידָּנָא דְּקָא מְעָרְבִי שֶׁלֹּא בֵּין הַגִּיתּוֹת? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דְּיָדְעִי וְקָא מָחֲלִי. רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא אָמַר: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי אַחָא הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אַחָא מַתִּיר בְּדָבָר הַנִּטְעָם.
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.
וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין שִׁמְרֵי יַיִן בְּיַיִן, אֲבָל נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת שְׁמָרָיו וְכוּ׳. וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ רֵישָׁא אֵין מְעָרְבִין כְּלָל! וְכִי תֵּימָא מַאי ״נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת שְׁמָרָיו״? דְּקָא מוֹדַע לֵיהּ, הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: לֹא יִמְכְּרֶנּוּ בַּחֲנוּת אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מוֹדִיעוֹ, וְלֹא לַתַּגָּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמּוֹדִיעוֹ, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מוֹדַע לֵיהּ!
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.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הָכִי קָאָמַר, אֵין מְעָרְבִין שְׁמָרִים שֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ בְּשֶׁל יוֹם, וְלֹא שֶׁל יוֹם בְּשֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ. אֲבָל נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת שְׁמָרָיו. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַשּׁוֹפֶה יַיִן לַחֲבֵירוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יְעָרֵב שֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ בְּשֶׁל יוֹם, וְלֹא שֶׁל יוֹם בְּשֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ. אֲבָל מְעָרֵב שֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ בְּשֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ, וְשֶׁל יוֹם בְּשֶׁל יוֹם.
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.
מִי שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב מַיִם בְּיֵינוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִמְכְּרֶנּוּ בַּחֲנוּת, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מוֹדִיעוֹ וְכוּ׳. רָבָא אַיְיתוֹ לֵיהּ חַמְרָא מֵחָנוּתָא, מַזְגֵיהּ, טַעְמֵיהּ, לָא הֲוָה בְּסִים, שַׁדְּרֵיהּ לְחָנוּתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן, וְלֹא לַתַּגָּר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹדִיעוֹ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִזְגָּא דִּידִי מִידָּע יְדִיעַ. וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּטָפֵי וּמְחַיְּילֵיהּ וּמְזַבֵּין לֵיהּ – אִם כֵּן, אֵין לַדָּבָר סוֹף.
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.
מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַטִּיל מַיִם בַּיַּיִן, יָטִילוּ וְכוּ׳. תָּנָא: לְמֶחֱצָה, לִשְׁלִישׁ, וְלִרְבִיעַ. אָמַר רַב: וּבֵין הַגִּיתּוֹת שָׁנוּ.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא יְחַלֵּק הַחֶנְוָנִי קְלָיוֹת וֶאֱגוֹזִין לַתִּינוֹקוֹת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַרְגִּילָן לָבֹא אֶצְלוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין. וְלֹא יִפְחוֹת אֶת הַשַּׁעַר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: זָכוּר לַטּוֹב.
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.
לֹא יָבוֹר אֶת הַגְּרִיסִין, דִּבְרֵי אַבָּא שָׁאוּל. וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין, וּמוֹדִים שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹר מֵעַל פִּי מְגוּרָה, שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְּגוֹנֵב אֶת הָעַיִן. אֵין מְפַרְכְּסִין לֹא אֶת הָאָדָם, וְלֹא אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה, וְלֹא אֶת הַכֵּלִים.
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.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן? דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא מְפַלֵּיגְנָא אַמְגּוֹזֵי, וְאַתְּ פַּלֵּיג שִׁיסְקֵי.
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.
וְלֹא יִפְחוֹת אֶת הַשַּׁעַר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: זָכוּר לַטּוֹב וְכוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן?
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?
מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מַרְוַוח לְתַרְעָא:
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.
וְלֹא יָבוֹר אֶת הַגְּרִיסִין, דִּבְרֵי אַבָּא שָׁאוּל. וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין וְכוּ׳. מַאן חֲכָמִים? רַבִּי אַחָא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אַחָא מַתִּיר בְּדָבָר הַנִּרְאֶה.
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.
אֵין מְפַרְכְּסִין, לֹא אֶת הָאָדָם וְכוּ׳ וְלֹא אֶת הַכֵּלִים. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין מְשַׁרְבְּטִין אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה, וְאֵין נוֹפְחִין בַּקְּרָבַיִים, וְאֵין שׁוֹרִין אֶת הַבָּשָׂר בַּמַּיִם. מַאי אֵין מְשַׁרְבְּטִין? הָכָא תַּרְגִּמוּ: מַיָּא דְחִיזְרָא. זְעֵירִי אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מַזְקַפְתָּא.
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.
שְׁמוּאֵל שְׁרָא לְמִרְמֵא תּוּמֵי לְסַרְבָּלָא. רַב יְהוּדָה שְׁרָא לְכַסְכּוֹסֵי קִרְמֵי. רַבָּה שְׁרָא לְמִידַּק (צַרְדֵי) [צַדְרֵי]. רָבָא שְׁרָא לְצַלּוֹמֵי גִּירֵי. רַב פָּפָּא בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל שְׁרָא לְצַלּוֹמֵי דִּיקּוּלֵי. וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: אֵין מְפַרְכְּסִין לֹא אֶת הָאָדָם, וְלֹא אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה, וְלֹא אֶת הַכֵּלִים! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּחַדְתֵי, הָא בְּעַתִּיקֵי.
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.
פִּרְכּוּס דְּאָדָם מַאי הִיא? כִּי הָא דְּהָהוּא עַבְדָּא סָבָא, דַּאֲזַל צַבְעֵיהּ לְרֵישֵׁיהּ וּלְדִיקְנֵיהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיבְנַן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יִהְיוּ עֲנִיִּים בְּנֵי בֵיתֶךָ.
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.
אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל, זַבְנֵיהּ. יוֹמָא חַד אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אַשְׁקְיַין מַיָּא!״ אֲזַל חַוְּורֵיהּ לְרֵישֵׁיהּ וּלְדִיקְנֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״חֲזִי דַּאֲנָא קַשִּׁישׁ מֵאֲבוּךְ״. קָרֵי אַנַּפְשֵׁיהּ: ״צַדִּיק מִצָּרָה נֶחֱלָץ וַיָּבֹא אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו״.
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.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַזָּהָב
מַתְנִי׳ אֵיזֶהוּ נֶשֶׁךְ וְאֵיזֶהוּ תַּרְבִּית?
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?
אֵיזֶהוּ נֶשֶׁךְ? הַמַּלְוֶה סֶלַע בַּחֲמִשָּׁה דִּינָרִין, סָאתַיִם חִטִּין בְּשָׁלֹשׁ – אָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא נוֹשֵׁךְ.
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].
וְאֵיזֶהוּ תַּרְבִּית? הַמַּרְבֶּה בְּפֵירוֹת. כֵּיצַד? לָקַח הֵימֶנּוּ חִטִּין בְּדִינַר זָהָב הַכּוֹר, וְכֵן הַשַּׁעַר. עָמְדוּ חִטִּין בִּשְׁלֹשִׁים דִּינָרִין.
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.
אָמַר לוֹ: תֵּן לִי חִטַּי, שֶׁאֲנִי רוֹצֶה לְמוֹכְרָן וְלִיקַּח בָּהֶן יַיִן. אָמַר לוֹ: הֲרֵי חִטֶּיךָ עֲשׂוּיוֹת עָלַי בִּשְׁלֹשִׁים, וַהֲרֵי לְךָ אֶצְלִי בָּהֶן יַיִן, וְיַיִן אֵין לוֹ.
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.
גְּמָ׳ מִדְּשָׁבֵיק לְרִיבִּית דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְקָא מְפָרֵשׁ דְּרַבָּנַן, מִכְּלָל דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, (דְּ)נֶשֶׁךָ וְתַרְבִּית – חֲדָא מִלְּתָא הִיא. וְהָא קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי: נֶשֶׁךְ כֶּסֶף, וְרִיבִּית אוֹכֶל!
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).
וְתִיסְבְּרָא דְּאִיכָּא נֶשֶׁךְ בְּלֹא תַּרְבִּית, וְתַרְבִּית בְּלֹא נֶשֶׁךְ? נֶשֶׁךְ בְּלֹא תַּרְבִּית הֵיכִי דָּמֵי?
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?
אִי דְּאוֹזְפֵיהּ מְאָה בִּמְאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים, מֵעִיקָּרָא קָיְימִי מְאָה בְּדַנְקָא, וּלְבַסּוֹף קָיְימִי מְאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים בְּדַנְקָא. נֶשֶׁךְ אִיכָּא – דְּקָא נָכֵית לֵיהּ, דְּקָא שָׁקֵיל מִינֵּיהּ מִידֵּי דְּלָא יָהֵיב. וְתַרְבִּית לֵיכָּא – דְּלֵית לֵיהּ רַוְוחָא, דְּדַנְקָא אוֹזְפֵיהּ וְדַנְקָא קָא שָׁקֵיל מִינֵּיהּ.
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.
סוֹף סוֹף, אִי בָּתַר מֵעִיקָּרָא אָזְלַתְּ – הֲרֵי נֶשֶׁךְ וַהֲרֵי תַּרְבִּית. אִי בָּתַר בְּסוֹף אָזְלַתְּ, לָא נֶשֶׁךְ אִיכָּא וְלָא תַּרְבִּית אִיכָּא.
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.
וְתוּ, תַּרְבִּית בְּלֹא נֶשֶׁךְ הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאוֹזֵיף מְאָה בִּמְאָה, מֵעִיקָּרָא קָיְימִי מְאָה בְּדַנְקָא, וּלְבַסּוֹף מְאָה בְּחוּמְשָׁא.
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.
אִי בָּתַר מֵעִיקָּרָא אָזְלַתְּ – לָא נֶשֶׁךְ אִיכָּא וְלָא תַּרְבִּית אִיכָּא. אִי בָּתַר סוֹף אָזְלַתְּ – הֲרֵי נֶשֶׁךְ וַהֲרֵי תַּרְבִּית!
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.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אִי אַתָּה מוֹצֵא לֹא נֶשֶׁךְ בְּלֹא תַּרְבִּית, וְלֹא תַּרְבִּית בְּלֹא נֶשֶׁךְ. וְלֹא חִלְּקָן הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֶת כַּסְפְּךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לוֹ בְּנֶשֶׁךְ וּבְמַרְבִּית לֹא תִתֵּן אׇכְלֶךָ״. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא נֶשֶׁךְ בְּכֶסֶף וְרִבִּית בְּאוֹכֶל. נֶשֶׁךְ בְּאוֹכֶל מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״נֶשֶׁךְ אֹכֶל״. רִבִּית בְּכֶסֶף מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״נֶשֶׁךְ כֶּסֶף״.
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.”
