Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

April 29, 2024 | 讻状讗 讘谞讬住谉 转砖驻状讚

  • 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鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

Bava Metzia 61

What is the source indicating that both the borrower and lender are prohibited from borrowing or lending on interest? Why did the Torah find it necessary to delineate separate negative commandments for interest, theft, and exploitation (ona鈥檃h), rather than deriving one from the other, considering their similarities in taking what isn’t rightfully theirs? Furthermore, why does the Torah mention the Exodus from Egypt in verses concerning interest,聽tzitzit, and using fair measurements in business? Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar debate whether the court can compel individuals who have collected interest at a fixed rate from the outset (ribit k鈥檛zutza) to return the interest payments they received.

讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇谞砖讱 讻住祝 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 转砖讬讱 诇讗讞讬讱 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇专讘讬转 讻住祝


If the verse is not referring to the matter of neshekh with money, as it is already stated in that same verse: 鈥淵ou shall not lend with interest [tashikh] to your brother,鈥 indicating that taking money as interest is prohibited, apply the expression 鈥neshekh of money鈥 to the matter of ribit, i.e., tarbit with money.


讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘诇讜讛 讘诪诇讜讛 诪谞讬谉


The baraita continues: I have derived a source for this prohibition only with regard to a borrower, for whom it is prohibited to pay interest on a loan. From where is it derived that there is also a prohibition stated with regard to a lender?


谞讗诪专 谞砖讱 讘诇讜讛 讜谞讗诪专 谞砖讱 讘诪诇讜讛 诪讛 谞砖讱 讛讗诪讜专 讘诇讜讛 诇讗 讞诇拽转 讘讜 讘讬谉 讘讻住祝 讘讬谉 讘讗讜讻诇 讘讬谉 讘谞砖讱 讘讬谉 讘专讘讬转 讗祝 谞砖讱 讛讗诪讜专 讘诪诇讜讛 诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘讜 讘讬谉 讘讻住祝 讘讬谉 讘讗讜讻诇 讘讬谉 讘谞砖讱 讘讬谉 讘专讘讬转 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讚讘专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞砖讱 讻诇 讚讘专 讗砖专 讬砖讱


The baraita answers: Neshekh is stated with regard to a borrower, and neshekh is stated with regard to a lender. Just as concerning neshekh that is stated with regard to a borrower, you did not distinguish with regard to it between a loan of money and a loan of food, or between whether the interest is forbidden as neshekh or as ribit, so too, concerning neshekh stated with regard to a lender, do not distinguish with regard to it between a loan of money and a loan of food, or between whether the interest is forbidden as neshekh or as ribit. The baraita concludes: From where is it derived to include in the prohibition interest of any sort? The verse states: 鈥Neshekh of anything that is lent with interest.鈥


专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 谞砖讱 讘讗讜讻诇 讜诇讗 专讘讬转 讘讻住祝 爪专讬讻讬 拽专讗 讚讗讬 讻转讬讘 讗转 讻住驻讱 诇讗 转转谉 诇讜 讘谞砖讱 讜讗讻诇讱 讘诪专讘讬转 讻讚拽讗诪专转 讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗转 讻住驻讱 诇讗 转转谉 诇讜 讘谞砖讱 讜讘诪专讘讬转 诇讗 转转谉 讗讻诇讱 拽专讬 讘讬讛 讛讻讬 讗转 讻住驻讱 诇讗 转转谉 诇讜 讘谞砖讱 讜讘诪专讘讬转 讜讘谞砖讱 讜讘诪专讘讬转 诇讗 转转谉 讗讻诇讱


Ravina said: An explicit verse is not required, neither to derive neshekh of food nor to derive ribit of money. As, if it were written: You shall not give him your money with neshekh and your food with marbit, juxtaposing neshekh with money alone and marbit with food alone, it would be as you say, that there is a need for the derivation of the baraita. But now that it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not give him your money with neshekh and with marbit you shall not give him your food,鈥 interposing both neshekh and marbit between money and food, read into the verse this interpretation: Your money you shall not give him for neshekh and for marbit; and for neshekh and for marbit you shall not give your food.


讜讛讗 转谞讗 谞讗诪专 谞讗诪专 拽讗诪专


The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 the tanna of the baraita saying that neshekh of food and tarbit of money are derived by means of a verbal analogy: Neshekh is stated with regard to a borrower, and neshekh is also stated with regard to a lender? How can Ravina, an amora, state that the verbal analogy is not needed?


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬诇讜 诇讗 谞讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 注讻砖讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 拽专讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讗诇讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇谞砖讱 讻诇 讚讘专 讗砖专 讬砖讱 讚诇讗 讻转讘 讘诪诇讜讛


The Gemara answers: This is what Ravina is saying: Had the verse not stated the terms neshekh and tarbit interposed between money and food, I would have said that the halakha that both terms apply to both money and food would be derived by means of a verbal analogy. Now, as the verse is stated in that manner, a verbal analogy is not necessary. The Gemara asks: Rather, why do I need this verbal analogy? The Gemara explains: I need the verbal analogy to teach that neshekh of anything that is lent for interest鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:20), which is written with regard to a borrower but not written with regard to a lender, applies to a lender as well.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讜 讘专讘讬转 诇讗讜 讘讙讝诇 诇讗讜 讘讗讜谞讗讛


Rava said: Why do I need it to be that the Merciful One writes a prohibition with regard to interest, a prohibition with regard to robbery (see Leviticus 19:13), and a prohibition with regard to exploitation (see Leviticus 25:14), a transaction where one of the parties overcharged or underpaid? There appears to be one principle underlying all three prohibitions: One must not take possession of another鈥檚 money in illegitimate ways.


爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讜 讘专讘讬转 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘诇讜讛 讗住专讛 专讞诪谞讗


The Gemara explains: They are necessary. As, had the Merciful One written the prohibition only with regard to interest, one could not have derived the other prohibitions from it because it is a prohibition with a novel element that does not appear in other halakhot. This novel element is that the Merciful One prohibited a loan with interest even for the borrower. With regard to the two other prohibitions, there is a prohibition against taking another鈥檚 money, but there is no prohibition for the victim, who has his money taken.


讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讜 讘讙讝诇 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注诇 讻专讞讬讛 讗讘诇 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗


And had the Merciful One written the prohibition only with regard to robbery, one could not have derived the other prohibitions from it, as perhaps robbery is prohibited only due to the fact that it is an action taken against the will of the victim. But in the cases of exploitation and interest, where there is an element of consent, one would say they are not prohibited.


讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讜 讘讗讜谞讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讬讚注 讚诪讞讬诇


And had the Merciful One written the prohibition only with regard to exploitation, one could not have derived the other prohibitions from it, as perhaps exploitation is prohibited only due to the fact that the victim does not know that he was the victim of exploitation and therefore cannot waive repayment. In the cases of interest and robbery, the borrower and the victim, respectively, are aware that their money was taken and waiving repayment is possible, so perhaps those actions are is not prohibited.


讞讚讗 诪讞讚讗 诇讗 讗转讬讗 转讬转讬 讞讚讗 诪转专转讬 讛讬 转讬转讬 诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讜 讘专讘讬转 讜转讬转讬 诪讛谞讱 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 砖诇讗 诪讚注转 转讗诪专 讘专讘讬转 讚诪讚注转讬讛


The Gemara suggests: Although no one of these prohibitions can be derived from one of the other prohibitions, perhaps one of them can be derived from the other two. The Gemara clarifies: Which prohibition will you derive from the other two? Let the Merciful One not write the prohibition with regard to interest, and instead derive that prohibition from these two, robbery and exploitation. The Gemara rejects that suggestion: What is notable about these prohibitions? They are notable in that they are transgressed without the consent of the victim. Will you say the same with regard to interest, which the borrower gives with his consent, as he agrees to accept the loan under those conditions?


诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讜 讘讗讜谞讗讛 讜转讬转讬 诪讛谞讱 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 讗讬谉 讚专讱 诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专 讘讻讱


The Gemara suggests: Let the Merciful One not write the prohibition with regard to exploitation, and instead derive that prohibition from these two, robbery and interest. The Gemara rejects that suggestion: What is notable about these prohibitions? They are notable in that they are not transgressed in the typical manner of buying and selling. Will you say the same with regard to exploitation, which is transgressed in the context of typical buying and selling?


讗诇讗 诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讜 讘讙讝诇 讜转讬转讬 诪讛谞讱 讚诪讗讬 驻专讻转 诪讛 诇专讘讬转 砖讻谉 讞讬讚讜砖 讗讜谞讗讛 转讜讻讬讞


Rather, let the Merciful One not write the prohibition with regard to robbery, and instead derive that prohibition from these two, interest and exploitation. As what refutation will you offer? If you say: What is notable about interest? It is notable in that the prohibition of interest contains a novel element; the case of exploitation will prove that a novel element is not a factor, as the prohibition against exploitation contains no novel element.


诪讛 诇讗讜谞讗讛 砖讻谉 诇讗 讬讚注 讜诪讞讬诇 专讘讬转 转讜讻讬讞


If you say, what is notable about exploitation? It is notable in that in this case, the victim does not know that he was the victim of exploitation and therefore he cannot waive repayment; the case of interest will prove that the inability to waive repayment is not a factor, as the borrower is aware of the interest and able to waive repayment.


讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 讙讜讝诇讜 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 讙讝诇


The Gemara comments: And the inference has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this case, interest, is not like the aspect of that case, exploitation, and the aspect of that case, exploitation, is not like the aspect of this case, interest. Their common denominator is that one robs another of money, i.e., takes money from another that is not due to him. I will also bring the prohibition against robbery, which shares that common denominator, and derive it from the other two prohibitions.


讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讙讝诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讜讘砖 砖讻专 砖讻讬专


The Sages said: Indeed, the prohibition against robbery is superfluous. But if the prohibition against robbery can be derived from the prohibitions against interest and exploitation, why do I need the prohibition written in the Torah with regard to robbery? The Gemara answers: That verse is not written to prohibit a standard case of robbery; rather, it serves to prohibit the action of one who withholds the wages of a hired laborer. In that case, unlike robbery, the employer does not take money from the laborer; he merely fails to pay him his wages.


讻讜讘砖 砖讻专 砖讻讬专 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 诇讗 转注砖拽 砖讻讬专 注谞讬 讜讗讘讬讜谉 诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬 诇讗讜讬谉


The Gemara challenges: With regard to one who withholds the wages of a hired laborer, it is explicitly written: 鈥淵ou shall not oppress a hired laborer who is poor and destitute鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:14). There is no need to derive this prohibition from the verse concerning robbery. The Gemara answers: It is written so that withholding the wages of a hired laborer always involves violating two prohibitions.


讜诇讜拽诪讛 讘专讘讬转 讜讗讜谞讗讛 讜诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 诪注谞讬讬谞讜


The Gemara asks: But let us interpret the verse concerning robbery as prohibiting interest or exploitation, and say that it is written so that these prohibitions always involve violating two prohibitions. The Gemara answers: The prohibition against robbery is applied to the case of withholding the wages of a hired laborer because it is a matter derived from its context,


讜讘注谞讬讬谞讗 讚砖讻讬专 讻转讬讘


and this prohibition is written in the context of the matter of a hired laborer: 鈥淵ou shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him, and the wages of a hired servant shall not abide with you all night until the morning鈥 (Leviticus 19:13).


诇讗 转讙谞讘讜 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 转讙谞讘 注诇 诪谞转 诇诪讬拽讟 诇讗 转讙谞讘 注诇 诪谞转 诇砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇


The Gemara asks: Why do I need the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not steal鈥 (Leviticus 19:11), that the Merciful One wrote? This is yet another prohibition against taking money by illegitimate means, and it could be derived from the other prohibitions mentioned previously. The Gemara answers that it is necessary for the Merciful One to write that prohibition for that which is taught in a baraita: 鈥淵ou shall not steal鈥 applies in all circumstances, even if you do so only in order to aggravate the victim; 鈥測ou shall not steal鈥 applies in all circumstances, even if you do so in order to pay the double payment as a gift to the person from whom you stole.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讬诪专 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗讜 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘诪砖拽诇讜转 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讟讜诪谉 诪砖拽诇讜转讬讜 讘诪诇讞 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讝诇 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 诪砖注转 注砖讬讬讛


Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: Why do I need the prohibition that the Merciful One wrote with regard to weights: 鈥淵ou shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in measure, in weight, or in volume鈥 (Leviticus 19:35)? It is merely another form of robbery. Rav Ashi said to him: It is referring to a seller who buries his weights in salt, in order to lighten them. Rav Yeimar said: That is the same as full-fledged robbery; therefore, it should not require a separate derivation. Rav Ashi answered: It is written to establish that he violates the prohibition from the moment of the act of burying them. He violates the prohibition even before he actually deceives a buyer with the buried weights.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 转注砖讜 注讜诇 讘诪砖驻讟 讘诪讚讛 讘诪砖拽诇 讜讘诪砖讜专讛 讘诪讚讛 讝讜 诪讚讬讚转 拽专拽注 砖诇讗 讬诪讚讜讚 诇讗讞讚 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜诇讗讞讚 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讘诪砖拽诇 砖诇讗 讬讟诪讬谉 诪砖拽诇讜转讬讜 讘诪诇讞 讜讘诪砖讜专讛 砖诇讗 讬专转讬讞


The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in measure, in weight, or in volume [uvamesura]鈥 (Leviticus 19:35). 鈥淚n measure鈥; this is referring to the measurement of land, e.g., this means that in a case where two people are dividing their jointly owned field, one may not measure the land to be given to one during the summer and measure the land to be given to the other during the rainy season, because the length of the measuring cord is affected by the weather conditions. 鈥淚n weight鈥; this is referring to the fact that he may not bury his measuring weights in salt. And 鈥渋n volume鈥; this teaches that one may not froth the liquid one is selling, creating the impression that there is more liquid in the vessel than there actually is.


讜讛诇讗 讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 诪砖讜专讛 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讚 诪砖诇砖讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 讘诇讜讙 讛拽驻讬讚讛 注诇讬讜 转讜专讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讛讬谉 讜讞爪讬 讛讬谉 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 讛讬谉 讜专讘讬注讬转 讛讛讬谉 讜诇讜讙 讜讞爪讬 诇讜讙 讜专讘讬注讬转 讛诇讜讙


The Gemara adds: And are the following matters not inferred a fortiori: And if with regard to the mesura volume, which equals one thirtythird of a log, the Torah was fastidious concerning it that one may not deceive another, it can be inferred a fortiori that with regard to a hin, which equals twelve log, and a half-hin, and a third-hin, and a quarter-hin, and a log, and a half-log, and a quarter-log, which are all much larger volumes, that one may not deceive another.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讘专讘讬转 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讙讘讬 爪讬爪讬转 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讘诪砖拽诇讜转


Rava says: Why do I need the mention of the exodus from Egypt that the Merciful One wrote in the context of the halakhot of the prohibition against interest (see Leviticus 25:37鈥38), and the mention of the exodus from Egypt with regard to the mitzva to wear ritual fringes (see Numbers 15:39鈥41), and the mention of the exodus from Egypt in the context of the prohibition concerning weights (see Leviticus 19:35鈥36)?


讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗谞讬 讛讜讗 砖讛讘讞谞转讬 讘诪爪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讟驻讛 砖诇 讘讻讜专 诇讟驻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇 讘讻讜专 讗谞讬 讛讜讗 砖注转讬讚 诇讬驻专注 诪诪讬 砖转讜诇讛 诪注讜转讬讜 讘谞讻专讬 讜诪诇讜讛 讗讜转诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 讘专讘讬转 讜诪诪讬 砖讟讜诪谉 诪砖拽诇讜转讬讜 讘诪诇讞 讜诪诪讬 砖转讜诇讛 拽诇讗 讗讬诇谉 讘讘讙讚讜 讜讗讜诪专 转讻诇转 讛讜讗


Rava explains: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I am He Who distinguished in Egypt between the drop of seed that became a firstborn and the drop of seed that did not become a firstborn, and I killed only the firstborn. I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who attributes ownership of his money to a gentile and thereby lends it to a Jew with interest. Even if he is successful in deceiving the court, God knows the truth. And I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who buries his weights in salt, as this changes their weight in a manner not visible to the eye. And I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who hangs ritual fringes dyed with indigo [kala ilan] dye on his garment and says it is dyed with the sky-blue dye required in ritual fringes. The allusion to God鈥檚 ability to distinguish between two apparently like entities is why the exodus is mentioned in all of these contexts.


专讘讬谞讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇住讜专讗 讚驻专转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 诪住讜专讗 讚驻专转 诇专讘讬谞讗 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 砖专爪讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗谞讬 讛讜讗 砖讛讘讞谞转讬 讘讬谉 讟驻讛 砖诇 讘讻讜专 诇讟驻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇 讘讻讜专 讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇讬驻专注 诪诪讬 砖诪注专讘 拽专讘讬 讚讙讬诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讘拽专讘讬 讚讙讬诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜诪讜讻专谉 诇讬砖专讗诇


The Gemara relates: Ravina happened to come to Sura on the Euphrates. Rav 岣nina of Sura on the Euphrates said to Ravina: Why do I need the mention of the exodus from Egypt that the Merciful One wrote in the context of creeping animals: 鈥淒o not make yourselves detestable with all the creeping animals that swarm鈥or I am the Lord Who brings you up from the land of Egypt鈥 (Leviticus 11:43鈥45)? Ravina said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I am He Who distinguished in Egypt between the drop of seed that became a firstborn and the drop of seed that did not become a firstborn, and I killed only the firstborn. I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who intermingles the innards of non-kosher fish with the innards of kosher fish and sells them to a Jew, who is unable to distinguish between them.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讛诪注诇讛 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讛诪注诇讛 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗


Rav 岣nina said to him: I was not asking about the very mention of the exodus. Rather, I was asking about the term 鈥淲ho brings you up鈥 mentioned in that verse; that is what is difficult for me. What is different here, that the Merciful One wrote: 鈥淲ho brings you up from the land of Egypt,鈥 as opposed to the other three instances cited by Rava where the exodus is mentioned in the context of mitzvot and prohibitions, where it is written: 鈥淲ho brought you out鈥?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗讬诇诪诇讗 (诇讗) 讛注诇讬转讬 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 诪诪爪专讬诐 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讬诇 讚讘专 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘砖专爪讬诐 讚讬讬


Ravina said to him: It is to teach as it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael. As it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Had I brought the Jewish people up from Egypt only for this matter, so that they would not become impure by consuming creeping animals, it would be sufficient for Me, as observance of this mitzva elevates their spiritual stature.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讬 谞驻讬砖 讗讙专讬讬讛讜 讟驻讬 诪专讘讬转 讜诪爪讬爪讬转 讜诪诪砖拽诇讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖 讗讙专讬讬讛讜 讟驻讬 诪讗讬住讬 诇诪讻诇讬谞讛讜


Rav 岣nina said to him: And is the reward for abstaining from consuming creeping animals greater than the reward for observing the halakhot with regard to interest and ritual fringes and weights? Let the Merciful One write: Who brings you up, in the context of those mitzvot as well. Ravina said to him: Even though their reward is not greater, it is more repulsive for Jews to eat creeping animals. Avoiding those animals brings them up, in the sense that it is praiseworthy and enhances the transcendent nature of the Jews.


讜讗讬讝讛讜 转专讘讬转 讛诪专讘讛 讘驻讬专讜转 讻讬爪讚 诇拽讞 讛讬诪谞讜 讞讟讬诐 讘讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 讜讻讜壮 讗讟讜 讻诇 讛谞讬 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 注讚 讛砖转讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬转 讛讜讗


搂 The mishna teaches: And which 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, a case where one acquired wheat from another at the price of one kor of wheat for one gold dinar, 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. 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. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that all these cases that we said in the mishna until now are not cases of interest?


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 注讚 讻讗谉 砖诇 转讜专讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 砖诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 注讚 讻讗谉 砖诇 转讜专讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 砖诇 讚讘专讬讛诐


Rabbi Abbahu says: Until here, i.e., in the first two cases it presents, the mishna is referring to cases of interest by Torah law, and from this point forward the mishna is referring to cases of interest by rabbinic law. If the lender does not explicitly stipulate that the debtor must pay a sum greater than the value of the loan they do not violate the Torah prohibition of interest, but the Sages prohibited doing so. And so says Rava: Until here the mishna is referring to cases of interest by Torah law, and from this point forward the mishna is referring to cases of interest by rabbinic law.


注讚 讻讗谉 讬讻讬谉 专砖注 讜讬诇讘砖 爪讚讬拽 注讚 讻讗谉 讜转讜 诇讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 注讚 讻讗谉 讬讻讬谉 专砖注 讜讬诇讘砖 爪讚讬拽


The Gemara comments: In the cases in the mishna cited until here there is a fulfillment of the verse: The wicked may prepare and the righteous shall don (see Job 27:17), which is interpreted as referring to the case of a wicked father who collects interest from borrowers. Upon inheriting the father鈥檚 estate, his righteous son is not obligated to return the interest to the borrower. The Gemara asks: Is this verse applicable only in the cases discussed until here, and no further? It is logical that if the heir does not need to return the interest that was prohibited by Torah law, all the more so the heir should not need to return the interest that was prohibited by rabbinic law. Rather, Rava said: Even in the cases discussed until here one can apply the verse: The wicked may prepare and the righteous shall don.


注讚 讻讗谉 专讘讬转 拽爪讜爪讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讗讘拽 专讘讬转


The Gemara comments: Until here the tanna cites cases of fixed interest, i.e., where the amount to be paid as interest was fixed at the time of the loan, which is prohibited by Torah law. From this point forward the tanna cites cases with only a hint of interest, prohibited by rabbinic law, as there is no fixed sum paid as interest.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 专讘讬转 拽爪讜爪讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讚讬讬谞讬谉 讗讘拽 专讘讬转 讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讚讬讬谞讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬转 拽爪讜爪讛 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讚讬讬谞讬谉


Rabbi Elazar says: Fixed interest can be removed from the lender鈥檚 possession by means of legal proceedings adjudicated by judges. By contrast, in cases of a hint of interest, prohibited by rabbinic law, the money paid cannot be removed by means of legal proceedings adjudicated by judges. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even fixed interest cannot be removed by means of legal proceedings adjudicated by judges.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讘谞砖讱 谞转谉 讜转专讘讬转 诇拽讞 讜讞讬 诇讗 讬讞讬讛 讗转 讻诇 讛转注讘讜转 讛讗诇讛 注砖讛 诇诪讬转讛 谞讬转谉 讜诇讗 诇讛讬砖讘讜谉 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗诇 转拽讞 诪讗转讜 谞砖讱 讜转专讘讬转 讜讬专讗转 诪讗诇讛讬讱 诇诪讜专讗 谞讬转谉 讜诇讗 诇讛砖讘讜谉


Rabbi Yitz岣k says: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan? It is as the verse states: 鈥淗e has given forth with neshekh and he took tarbit, shall he live? He shall not live. He performed all these abominations, he shall be executed; his blood shall be upon him鈥 (Ezekiel 18:13). It can be inferred that one who takes interest is subject to death at the hand of Heaven but not to repayment, as the court cannot compel him to repay the interest. Citing a different proof, Rav Adda bar Ahava said that the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not take from him neshekh or tarbit; you shall fear your God and your brother shall live with you.鈥 (Leviticus 25:36). It can be inferred that one who does so is subject to shirking the fear of Heaven, but not to repayment.


专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讙讜驻讬讛 讚拽专讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讚诪讬讜 讘讜 讬讛讬讛 讛讜拽砖讜 诪诇讜讬 专讘讬转 诇砖讜驻讻讬 讚诪讬诐 诪讛 砖讜驻讻讬 讚诪讬诐 诇讗 谞讬转谞讜 诇讛砖讘讜谉 讗祝 诪诇讜讬 专讘讬转 诇讗 谞转谞讜 诇讛砖讘讜谉


Rava said: It can be derived from the verse in Ezekiel itself, not by inference, as it is written: 鈥淗e shall be executed; his blood shall be upon him鈥 (Ezekiel 18:13). In the verse, lenders who charged interest were juxtaposed with shedders of blood. This teaches: Just as shedders of blood are not subject to repayment, so too, lenders who charge interest are not subject to repayment.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 拽专讗


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar that interest prohibited by Torah law can be reclaimed by means of legal proceedings adjudicated by judges? It is as the verse concerning the prohibition against taking interest states:


  • 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鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

talking talmud_square

Bava Metzia 61: Only God Knows the Truth

Chapter 5! A new mishnah, a new topic - moneylending, and the prohibition against taking interest. Also, the sidebar explanation...

Bava Metzia 61

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 61

讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇谞砖讱 讻住祝 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 转砖讬讱 诇讗讞讬讱 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇专讘讬转 讻住祝


If the verse is not referring to the matter of neshekh with money, as it is already stated in that same verse: 鈥淵ou shall not lend with interest [tashikh] to your brother,鈥 indicating that taking money as interest is prohibited, apply the expression 鈥neshekh of money鈥 to the matter of ribit, i.e., tarbit with money.


讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘诇讜讛 讘诪诇讜讛 诪谞讬谉


The baraita continues: I have derived a source for this prohibition only with regard to a borrower, for whom it is prohibited to pay interest on a loan. From where is it derived that there is also a prohibition stated with regard to a lender?


谞讗诪专 谞砖讱 讘诇讜讛 讜谞讗诪专 谞砖讱 讘诪诇讜讛 诪讛 谞砖讱 讛讗诪讜专 讘诇讜讛 诇讗 讞诇拽转 讘讜 讘讬谉 讘讻住祝 讘讬谉 讘讗讜讻诇 讘讬谉 讘谞砖讱 讘讬谉 讘专讘讬转 讗祝 谞砖讱 讛讗诪讜专 讘诪诇讜讛 诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘讜 讘讬谉 讘讻住祝 讘讬谉 讘讗讜讻诇 讘讬谉 讘谞砖讱 讘讬谉 讘专讘讬转 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讚讘专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞砖讱 讻诇 讚讘专 讗砖专 讬砖讱


The baraita answers: Neshekh is stated with regard to a borrower, and neshekh is stated with regard to a lender. Just as concerning neshekh that is stated with regard to a borrower, you did not distinguish with regard to it between a loan of money and a loan of food, or between whether the interest is forbidden as neshekh or as ribit, so too, concerning neshekh stated with regard to a lender, do not distinguish with regard to it between a loan of money and a loan of food, or between whether the interest is forbidden as neshekh or as ribit. The baraita concludes: From where is it derived to include in the prohibition interest of any sort? The verse states: 鈥Neshekh of anything that is lent with interest.鈥


专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 谞砖讱 讘讗讜讻诇 讜诇讗 专讘讬转 讘讻住祝 爪专讬讻讬 拽专讗 讚讗讬 讻转讬讘 讗转 讻住驻讱 诇讗 转转谉 诇讜 讘谞砖讱 讜讗讻诇讱 讘诪专讘讬转 讻讚拽讗诪专转 讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗转 讻住驻讱 诇讗 转转谉 诇讜 讘谞砖讱 讜讘诪专讘讬转 诇讗 转转谉 讗讻诇讱 拽专讬 讘讬讛 讛讻讬 讗转 讻住驻讱 诇讗 转转谉 诇讜 讘谞砖讱 讜讘诪专讘讬转 讜讘谞砖讱 讜讘诪专讘讬转 诇讗 转转谉 讗讻诇讱


Ravina said: An explicit verse is not required, neither to derive neshekh of food nor to derive ribit of money. As, if it were written: You shall not give him your money with neshekh and your food with marbit, juxtaposing neshekh with money alone and marbit with food alone, it would be as you say, that there is a need for the derivation of the baraita. But now that it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not give him your money with neshekh and with marbit you shall not give him your food,鈥 interposing both neshekh and marbit between money and food, read into the verse this interpretation: Your money you shall not give him for neshekh and for marbit; and for neshekh and for marbit you shall not give your food.


讜讛讗 转谞讗 谞讗诪专 谞讗诪专 拽讗诪专


The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 the tanna of the baraita saying that neshekh of food and tarbit of money are derived by means of a verbal analogy: Neshekh is stated with regard to a borrower, and neshekh is also stated with regard to a lender? How can Ravina, an amora, state that the verbal analogy is not needed?


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬诇讜 诇讗 谞讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 注讻砖讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 拽专讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讗诇讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇谞砖讱 讻诇 讚讘专 讗砖专 讬砖讱 讚诇讗 讻转讘 讘诪诇讜讛


The Gemara answers: This is what Ravina is saying: Had the verse not stated the terms neshekh and tarbit interposed between money and food, I would have said that the halakha that both terms apply to both money and food would be derived by means of a verbal analogy. Now, as the verse is stated in that manner, a verbal analogy is not necessary. The Gemara asks: Rather, why do I need this verbal analogy? The Gemara explains: I need the verbal analogy to teach that neshekh of anything that is lent for interest鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:20), which is written with regard to a borrower but not written with regard to a lender, applies to a lender as well.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讜 讘专讘讬转 诇讗讜 讘讙讝诇 诇讗讜 讘讗讜谞讗讛


Rava said: Why do I need it to be that the Merciful One writes a prohibition with regard to interest, a prohibition with regard to robbery (see Leviticus 19:13), and a prohibition with regard to exploitation (see Leviticus 25:14), a transaction where one of the parties overcharged or underpaid? There appears to be one principle underlying all three prohibitions: One must not take possession of another鈥檚 money in illegitimate ways.


爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讜 讘专讘讬转 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘诇讜讛 讗住专讛 专讞诪谞讗


The Gemara explains: They are necessary. As, had the Merciful One written the prohibition only with regard to interest, one could not have derived the other prohibitions from it because it is a prohibition with a novel element that does not appear in other halakhot. This novel element is that the Merciful One prohibited a loan with interest even for the borrower. With regard to the two other prohibitions, there is a prohibition against taking another鈥檚 money, but there is no prohibition for the victim, who has his money taken.


讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讜 讘讙讝诇 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注诇 讻专讞讬讛 讗讘诇 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗


And had the Merciful One written the prohibition only with regard to robbery, one could not have derived the other prohibitions from it, as perhaps robbery is prohibited only due to the fact that it is an action taken against the will of the victim. But in the cases of exploitation and interest, where there is an element of consent, one would say they are not prohibited.


讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讜 讘讗讜谞讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讬讚注 讚诪讞讬诇


And had the Merciful One written the prohibition only with regard to exploitation, one could not have derived the other prohibitions from it, as perhaps exploitation is prohibited only due to the fact that the victim does not know that he was the victim of exploitation and therefore cannot waive repayment. In the cases of interest and robbery, the borrower and the victim, respectively, are aware that their money was taken and waiving repayment is possible, so perhaps those actions are is not prohibited.


讞讚讗 诪讞讚讗 诇讗 讗转讬讗 转讬转讬 讞讚讗 诪转专转讬 讛讬 转讬转讬 诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讜 讘专讘讬转 讜转讬转讬 诪讛谞讱 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 砖诇讗 诪讚注转 转讗诪专 讘专讘讬转 讚诪讚注转讬讛


The Gemara suggests: Although no one of these prohibitions can be derived from one of the other prohibitions, perhaps one of them can be derived from the other two. The Gemara clarifies: Which prohibition will you derive from the other two? Let the Merciful One not write the prohibition with regard to interest, and instead derive that prohibition from these two, robbery and exploitation. The Gemara rejects that suggestion: What is notable about these prohibitions? They are notable in that they are transgressed without the consent of the victim. Will you say the same with regard to interest, which the borrower gives with his consent, as he agrees to accept the loan under those conditions?


诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讜 讘讗讜谞讗讛 讜转讬转讬 诪讛谞讱 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 讗讬谉 讚专讱 诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专 讘讻讱


The Gemara suggests: Let the Merciful One not write the prohibition with regard to exploitation, and instead derive that prohibition from these two, robbery and interest. The Gemara rejects that suggestion: What is notable about these prohibitions? They are notable in that they are not transgressed in the typical manner of buying and selling. Will you say the same with regard to exploitation, which is transgressed in the context of typical buying and selling?


讗诇讗 诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讜 讘讙讝诇 讜转讬转讬 诪讛谞讱 讚诪讗讬 驻专讻转 诪讛 诇专讘讬转 砖讻谉 讞讬讚讜砖 讗讜谞讗讛 转讜讻讬讞


Rather, let the Merciful One not write the prohibition with regard to robbery, and instead derive that prohibition from these two, interest and exploitation. As what refutation will you offer? If you say: What is notable about interest? It is notable in that the prohibition of interest contains a novel element; the case of exploitation will prove that a novel element is not a factor, as the prohibition against exploitation contains no novel element.


诪讛 诇讗讜谞讗讛 砖讻谉 诇讗 讬讚注 讜诪讞讬诇 专讘讬转 转讜讻讬讞


If you say, what is notable about exploitation? It is notable in that in this case, the victim does not know that he was the victim of exploitation and therefore he cannot waive repayment; the case of interest will prove that the inability to waive repayment is not a factor, as the borrower is aware of the interest and able to waive repayment.


讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 讙讜讝诇讜 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 讙讝诇


The Gemara comments: And the inference has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this case, interest, is not like the aspect of that case, exploitation, and the aspect of that case, exploitation, is not like the aspect of this case, interest. Their common denominator is that one robs another of money, i.e., takes money from another that is not due to him. I will also bring the prohibition against robbery, which shares that common denominator, and derive it from the other two prohibitions.


讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讙讝诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讜讘砖 砖讻专 砖讻讬专


The Sages said: Indeed, the prohibition against robbery is superfluous. But if the prohibition against robbery can be derived from the prohibitions against interest and exploitation, why do I need the prohibition written in the Torah with regard to robbery? The Gemara answers: That verse is not written to prohibit a standard case of robbery; rather, it serves to prohibit the action of one who withholds the wages of a hired laborer. In that case, unlike robbery, the employer does not take money from the laborer; he merely fails to pay him his wages.


讻讜讘砖 砖讻专 砖讻讬专 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 诇讗 转注砖拽 砖讻讬专 注谞讬 讜讗讘讬讜谉 诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬 诇讗讜讬谉


The Gemara challenges: With regard to one who withholds the wages of a hired laborer, it is explicitly written: 鈥淵ou shall not oppress a hired laborer who is poor and destitute鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:14). There is no need to derive this prohibition from the verse concerning robbery. The Gemara answers: It is written so that withholding the wages of a hired laborer always involves violating two prohibitions.


讜诇讜拽诪讛 讘专讘讬转 讜讗讜谞讗讛 讜诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 诪注谞讬讬谞讜


The Gemara asks: But let us interpret the verse concerning robbery as prohibiting interest or exploitation, and say that it is written so that these prohibitions always involve violating two prohibitions. The Gemara answers: The prohibition against robbery is applied to the case of withholding the wages of a hired laborer because it is a matter derived from its context,


讜讘注谞讬讬谞讗 讚砖讻讬专 讻转讬讘


and this prohibition is written in the context of the matter of a hired laborer: 鈥淵ou shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him, and the wages of a hired servant shall not abide with you all night until the morning鈥 (Leviticus 19:13).


诇讗 转讙谞讘讜 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 转讙谞讘 注诇 诪谞转 诇诪讬拽讟 诇讗 转讙谞讘 注诇 诪谞转 诇砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇


The Gemara asks: Why do I need the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not steal鈥 (Leviticus 19:11), that the Merciful One wrote? This is yet another prohibition against taking money by illegitimate means, and it could be derived from the other prohibitions mentioned previously. The Gemara answers that it is necessary for the Merciful One to write that prohibition for that which is taught in a baraita: 鈥淵ou shall not steal鈥 applies in all circumstances, even if you do so only in order to aggravate the victim; 鈥測ou shall not steal鈥 applies in all circumstances, even if you do so in order to pay the double payment as a gift to the person from whom you stole.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讬诪专 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗讜 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘诪砖拽诇讜转 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讟讜诪谉 诪砖拽诇讜转讬讜 讘诪诇讞 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讝诇 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 诪砖注转 注砖讬讬讛


Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: Why do I need the prohibition that the Merciful One wrote with regard to weights: 鈥淵ou shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in measure, in weight, or in volume鈥 (Leviticus 19:35)? It is merely another form of robbery. Rav Ashi said to him: It is referring to a seller who buries his weights in salt, in order to lighten them. Rav Yeimar said: That is the same as full-fledged robbery; therefore, it should not require a separate derivation. Rav Ashi answered: It is written to establish that he violates the prohibition from the moment of the act of burying them. He violates the prohibition even before he actually deceives a buyer with the buried weights.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 转注砖讜 注讜诇 讘诪砖驻讟 讘诪讚讛 讘诪砖拽诇 讜讘诪砖讜专讛 讘诪讚讛 讝讜 诪讚讬讚转 拽专拽注 砖诇讗 讬诪讚讜讚 诇讗讞讚 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜诇讗讞讚 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讘诪砖拽诇 砖诇讗 讬讟诪讬谉 诪砖拽诇讜转讬讜 讘诪诇讞 讜讘诪砖讜专讛 砖诇讗 讬专转讬讞


The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in measure, in weight, or in volume [uvamesura]鈥 (Leviticus 19:35). 鈥淚n measure鈥; this is referring to the measurement of land, e.g., this means that in a case where two people are dividing their jointly owned field, one may not measure the land to be given to one during the summer and measure the land to be given to the other during the rainy season, because the length of the measuring cord is affected by the weather conditions. 鈥淚n weight鈥; this is referring to the fact that he may not bury his measuring weights in salt. And 鈥渋n volume鈥; this teaches that one may not froth the liquid one is selling, creating the impression that there is more liquid in the vessel than there actually is.


讜讛诇讗 讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 诪砖讜专讛 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讚 诪砖诇砖讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 讘诇讜讙 讛拽驻讬讚讛 注诇讬讜 转讜专讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讛讬谉 讜讞爪讬 讛讬谉 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 讛讬谉 讜专讘讬注讬转 讛讛讬谉 讜诇讜讙 讜讞爪讬 诇讜讙 讜专讘讬注讬转 讛诇讜讙


The Gemara adds: And are the following matters not inferred a fortiori: And if with regard to the mesura volume, which equals one thirtythird of a log, the Torah was fastidious concerning it that one may not deceive another, it can be inferred a fortiori that with regard to a hin, which equals twelve log, and a half-hin, and a third-hin, and a quarter-hin, and a log, and a half-log, and a quarter-log, which are all much larger volumes, that one may not deceive another.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讘专讘讬转 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讙讘讬 爪讬爪讬转 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讘诪砖拽诇讜转


Rava says: Why do I need the mention of the exodus from Egypt that the Merciful One wrote in the context of the halakhot of the prohibition against interest (see Leviticus 25:37鈥38), and the mention of the exodus from Egypt with regard to the mitzva to wear ritual fringes (see Numbers 15:39鈥41), and the mention of the exodus from Egypt in the context of the prohibition concerning weights (see Leviticus 19:35鈥36)?


讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗谞讬 讛讜讗 砖讛讘讞谞转讬 讘诪爪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讟驻讛 砖诇 讘讻讜专 诇讟驻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇 讘讻讜专 讗谞讬 讛讜讗 砖注转讬讚 诇讬驻专注 诪诪讬 砖转讜诇讛 诪注讜转讬讜 讘谞讻专讬 讜诪诇讜讛 讗讜转诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 讘专讘讬转 讜诪诪讬 砖讟讜诪谉 诪砖拽诇讜转讬讜 讘诪诇讞 讜诪诪讬 砖转讜诇讛 拽诇讗 讗讬诇谉 讘讘讙讚讜 讜讗讜诪专 转讻诇转 讛讜讗


Rava explains: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I am He Who distinguished in Egypt between the drop of seed that became a firstborn and the drop of seed that did not become a firstborn, and I killed only the firstborn. I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who attributes ownership of his money to a gentile and thereby lends it to a Jew with interest. Even if he is successful in deceiving the court, God knows the truth. And I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who buries his weights in salt, as this changes their weight in a manner not visible to the eye. And I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who hangs ritual fringes dyed with indigo [kala ilan] dye on his garment and says it is dyed with the sky-blue dye required in ritual fringes. The allusion to God鈥檚 ability to distinguish between two apparently like entities is why the exodus is mentioned in all of these contexts.


专讘讬谞讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇住讜专讗 讚驻专转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 诪住讜专讗 讚驻专转 诇专讘讬谞讗 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 砖专爪讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗谞讬 讛讜讗 砖讛讘讞谞转讬 讘讬谉 讟驻讛 砖诇 讘讻讜专 诇讟驻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇 讘讻讜专 讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇讬驻专注 诪诪讬 砖诪注专讘 拽专讘讬 讚讙讬诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讘拽专讘讬 讚讙讬诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜诪讜讻专谉 诇讬砖专讗诇


The Gemara relates: Ravina happened to come to Sura on the Euphrates. Rav 岣nina of Sura on the Euphrates said to Ravina: Why do I need the mention of the exodus from Egypt that the Merciful One wrote in the context of creeping animals: 鈥淒o not make yourselves detestable with all the creeping animals that swarm鈥or I am the Lord Who brings you up from the land of Egypt鈥 (Leviticus 11:43鈥45)? Ravina said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I am He Who distinguished in Egypt between the drop of seed that became a firstborn and the drop of seed that did not become a firstborn, and I killed only the firstborn. I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who intermingles the innards of non-kosher fish with the innards of kosher fish and sells them to a Jew, who is unable to distinguish between them.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讛诪注诇讛 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讛诪注诇讛 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗


Rav 岣nina said to him: I was not asking about the very mention of the exodus. Rather, I was asking about the term 鈥淲ho brings you up鈥 mentioned in that verse; that is what is difficult for me. What is different here, that the Merciful One wrote: 鈥淲ho brings you up from the land of Egypt,鈥 as opposed to the other three instances cited by Rava where the exodus is mentioned in the context of mitzvot and prohibitions, where it is written: 鈥淲ho brought you out鈥?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗讬诇诪诇讗 (诇讗) 讛注诇讬转讬 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 诪诪爪专讬诐 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讬诇 讚讘专 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘砖专爪讬诐 讚讬讬


Ravina said to him: It is to teach as it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael. As it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Had I brought the Jewish people up from Egypt only for this matter, so that they would not become impure by consuming creeping animals, it would be sufficient for Me, as observance of this mitzva elevates their spiritual stature.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讬 谞驻讬砖 讗讙专讬讬讛讜 讟驻讬 诪专讘讬转 讜诪爪讬爪讬转 讜诪诪砖拽诇讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖 讗讙专讬讬讛讜 讟驻讬 诪讗讬住讬 诇诪讻诇讬谞讛讜


Rav 岣nina said to him: And is the reward for abstaining from consuming creeping animals greater than the reward for observing the halakhot with regard to interest and ritual fringes and weights? Let the Merciful One write: Who brings you up, in the context of those mitzvot as well. Ravina said to him: Even though their reward is not greater, it is more repulsive for Jews to eat creeping animals. Avoiding those animals brings them up, in the sense that it is praiseworthy and enhances the transcendent nature of the Jews.


讜讗讬讝讛讜 转专讘讬转 讛诪专讘讛 讘驻讬专讜转 讻讬爪讚 诇拽讞 讛讬诪谞讜 讞讟讬诐 讘讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 讜讻讜壮 讗讟讜 讻诇 讛谞讬 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 注讚 讛砖转讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬转 讛讜讗


搂 The mishna teaches: And which 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, a case where one acquired wheat from another at the price of one kor of wheat for one gold dinar, 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. 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. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that all these cases that we said in the mishna until now are not cases of interest?


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 注讚 讻讗谉 砖诇 转讜专讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 砖诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 注讚 讻讗谉 砖诇 转讜专讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 砖诇 讚讘专讬讛诐


Rabbi Abbahu says: Until here, i.e., in the first two cases it presents, the mishna is referring to cases of interest by Torah law, and from this point forward the mishna is referring to cases of interest by rabbinic law. If the lender does not explicitly stipulate that the debtor must pay a sum greater than the value of the loan they do not violate the Torah prohibition of interest, but the Sages prohibited doing so. And so says Rava: Until here the mishna is referring to cases of interest by Torah law, and from this point forward the mishna is referring to cases of interest by rabbinic law.


注讚 讻讗谉 讬讻讬谉 专砖注 讜讬诇讘砖 爪讚讬拽 注讚 讻讗谉 讜转讜 诇讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 注讚 讻讗谉 讬讻讬谉 专砖注 讜讬诇讘砖 爪讚讬拽


The Gemara comments: In the cases in the mishna cited until here there is a fulfillment of the verse: The wicked may prepare and the righteous shall don (see Job 27:17), which is interpreted as referring to the case of a wicked father who collects interest from borrowers. Upon inheriting the father鈥檚 estate, his righteous son is not obligated to return the interest to the borrower. The Gemara asks: Is this verse applicable only in the cases discussed until here, and no further? It is logical that if the heir does not need to return the interest that was prohibited by Torah law, all the more so the heir should not need to return the interest that was prohibited by rabbinic law. Rather, Rava said: Even in the cases discussed until here one can apply the verse: The wicked may prepare and the righteous shall don.


注讚 讻讗谉 专讘讬转 拽爪讜爪讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讗讘拽 专讘讬转


The Gemara comments: Until here the tanna cites cases of fixed interest, i.e., where the amount to be paid as interest was fixed at the time of the loan, which is prohibited by Torah law. From this point forward the tanna cites cases with only a hint of interest, prohibited by rabbinic law, as there is no fixed sum paid as interest.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 专讘讬转 拽爪讜爪讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讚讬讬谞讬谉 讗讘拽 专讘讬转 讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讚讬讬谞讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬转 拽爪讜爪讛 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讚讬讬谞讬谉


Rabbi Elazar says: Fixed interest can be removed from the lender鈥檚 possession by means of legal proceedings adjudicated by judges. By contrast, in cases of a hint of interest, prohibited by rabbinic law, the money paid cannot be removed by means of legal proceedings adjudicated by judges. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even fixed interest cannot be removed by means of legal proceedings adjudicated by judges.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讘谞砖讱 谞转谉 讜转专讘讬转 诇拽讞 讜讞讬 诇讗 讬讞讬讛 讗转 讻诇 讛转注讘讜转 讛讗诇讛 注砖讛 诇诪讬转讛 谞讬转谉 讜诇讗 诇讛讬砖讘讜谉 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗诇 转拽讞 诪讗转讜 谞砖讱 讜转专讘讬转 讜讬专讗转 诪讗诇讛讬讱 诇诪讜专讗 谞讬转谉 讜诇讗 诇讛砖讘讜谉


Rabbi Yitz岣k says: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan? It is as the verse states: 鈥淗e has given forth with neshekh and he took tarbit, shall he live? He shall not live. He performed all these abominations, he shall be executed; his blood shall be upon him鈥 (Ezekiel 18:13). It can be inferred that one who takes interest is subject to death at the hand of Heaven but not to repayment, as the court cannot compel him to repay the interest. Citing a different proof, Rav Adda bar Ahava said that the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not take from him neshekh or tarbit; you shall fear your God and your brother shall live with you.鈥 (Leviticus 25:36). It can be inferred that one who does so is subject to shirking the fear of Heaven, but not to repayment.


专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讙讜驻讬讛 讚拽专讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讚诪讬讜 讘讜 讬讛讬讛 讛讜拽砖讜 诪诇讜讬 专讘讬转 诇砖讜驻讻讬 讚诪讬诐 诪讛 砖讜驻讻讬 讚诪讬诐 诇讗 谞讬转谞讜 诇讛砖讘讜谉 讗祝 诪诇讜讬 专讘讬转 诇讗 谞转谞讜 诇讛砖讘讜谉


Rava said: It can be derived from the verse in Ezekiel itself, not by inference, as it is written: 鈥淗e shall be executed; his blood shall be upon him鈥 (Ezekiel 18:13). In the verse, lenders who charged interest were juxtaposed with shedders of blood. This teaches: Just as shedders of blood are not subject to repayment, so too, lenders who charge interest are not subject to repayment.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 拽专讗


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar that interest prohibited by Torah law can be reclaimed by means of legal proceedings adjudicated by judges? It is as the verse concerning the prohibition against taking interest states:


Scroll To Top