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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 27, 2016 | 讻状讜 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Metzia 62

Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar debate whether the court can force one who collects interest聽at a fixed rate to return the interest payment that he collected. 聽Various sources are brought to prove/disprove the opinions. 聽The first mishna in the chapter described interest forbidden by the rabbis. 聽The case was multi-tiered and the gemara attempts to explain exactly what the case is and what makes it forbidden. 聽Both attempts are rejected and in the next daf, Rava will bring an alternate explanation.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讞讬 讗讞讬讱 注诪讱 讗讛讚专 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞讬讞讬

鈥淎nd your brother shall live with you鈥 (Leviticus 25:36), from which it is derived: Return the interest to him so that he may live.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讬 讜讞讬 讗讞讬讱 注诪讱 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讘讚专讱 讜讘讬讚 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 诪讬诐 讗诐 砖讜转讬谉 砖谞讬讛诐 诪转讬诐 讜讗诐 砖讜转讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诪讙讬注 诇讬砖讜讘 讚专砖 讘谉 驻讟讜专讗 诪讜讟讘 砖讬砖转讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讜讬诪讜转讜 讜讗诇 讬专讗讛 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讘诪讬转转讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 注讚 砖讘讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜诇讬诪讚 讜讞讬 讗讞讬讱 注诪讱 讞讬讬讱 拽讜讚诪讬诐 诇讞讬讬 讞讘讬专讱

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yo岣nan, what does he do with this verse: 鈥淎nd your brother shall live with you鈥? The Gemara answers: He requires the verse for that which is taught in a baraita: If two people were walking on a desolate path and there was a jug [kiton] of water in the possession of one of them, and the situation was such that if both drink from the jug, both will die, as there is not enough water, but if only one of them drinks, he will reach a settled area, there is a dispute as to the halakha. Ben Petora taught: It is preferable that both of them drink and die, and let neither one of them see the death of the other. This was the accepted opinion until Rabbi Akiva came and taught that the verse states: 鈥淎nd your brother shall live with you,鈥 indicating that your life takes precedence over the life of the other.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛谞讬讞 诇讛诐 讗讘讬讛诐 诪注讜转 砖诇 专讘讬转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬讜讚注讬诐 砖讛谉 砖诇 专讘讬转 讗讬谞谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讞讝讬专谉 讛讗 讗讘讬讛谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita to the opinion that one is not obligated to return interest that he took: If their father bequeathed them money that he had collected as interest, even though his sons know that the money was collected as interest, they are not obligated to return the money. The Gemara infers: But this indicates that their father himself is obligated to return the money.

讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讘讜讛讜谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛谞讬讞 诇讛谉 讗讘讬讛诐 驻专讛 讜讟诇讬转 讜讻诇 讚讘专 讛诪住讜讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讛诐 转谞讬 谞诪讬 专讬砖讗 讘讚讬讚讛讜

The Gemara rejects the inference: By right, it should have said that their father is also not obligated to return the money. But since the tanna wants to teach the latter clause, which states: If their father bequeathed them a cow, or a garment, or any defined item that was stolen property, they are obligated to return it to its owner due to their obligation to uphold their father鈥檚 honor, the tanna also taught the first clause with regard to their obligation, not that of their father.

讜讛谞讬 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讛诐 诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘讬 拽专讬 讻讗谉 讜谞砖讬讗 讘注诪讱 诇讗 转讗专 讘注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 注诪讱

The Gemara asks: And these children, are they obligated to take action due to the obligation to uphold their father鈥檚 honor? Read and apply here the verse: 鈥淣or curse a ruler of your people鈥 (Exodus 22:27), from which it is inferred that this prohibition applies only to one who performs an action becoming of your people. The actions of the father, who lent money with interest, were unbecoming of the Jewish people. Why then, must his sons uphold his honor?

讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 驻谞讞住 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘砖注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讗讬 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬 讙讘讬讛 砖诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讛讞讝讬专 注讚 砖诪转

The Gemara explains: It is as Rabbi Pine岣s said in the name of Rava in a different context, that it is referring to a case where the father repented. Here too, it is a case where the father repented, and therefore he was righteous and worthy of respect. The Gemara asks: If he repented, what is the stolen item doing in his possession? The Gemara answers: It is a case where the father did not manage to return the item before he died. Consequently, the children must return the item in order to uphold their father鈥檚 honor.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讙讝诇谞讬谉 讜诪诇讜讬 专讘讬转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讙讘讜 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讙讝诇谞讬诐 诪讗讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讙讘讜 讗讬讻讗 讗讬 讙讝讜诇 讙讝讜诇 讗讬 诇讗 讙讝讜诇 讙讝诇谞讬谉 拽专讬转 诇讛讜 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讙讝诇谞讬谉 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诪诇讜讬 专讘讬转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讙讘讜 诪讞讝讬专讬谉

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Concerning robbers and those who lend money with interest, even though they collected the money, they must return it. The Gemara analyzes the language of the baraita: In the case of robbers, what case is there that can be described as: Even though they collected the money? If they robbed, they robbed, and it is imprecise to use the language of collecting money; if they did not rob, do you call them robbers? Rather, say in explanation of the baraita: Robbers; in this context, who are they? They are those who lend with interest, and even though they collected the money, they must return it. Evidently, money collected as interest must be returned.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 驻讜讟专讬谉 讗转 讛诪诇讜讛 讜讗转 讛注专讘 诪驻谞讬 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 拽讜诐 注砖讛 诪讗讬 拽讜诐 注砖讛 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 拽讜诪讜 讗讛讚讜专讜

The Gemara answers: In fact, this issue is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ne岣mya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov exempt the lender and the guarantor from lashes for violating the prohibition of interest, because although they violated a prohibition, once they have done so they are commanded to arise and take action, and there is a principle that one is not flogged for a transgression that can be rectified by the performance of a mitzva. The Gemara clarifies: What mitzva to arise and take action is there? Is it not due to the fact that we say to them: Arise and return it?

诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讗讛讚讜专讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 诪讗讬 拽讜诐 注砖讛 诇拽专讜注 砖讟专讗

From the opinion of these Sages, it can be derived by inference that the first tanna holds that these people are not subject to the obligation of repayment. Apparently, he holds that there is no mitzva to arise and take action. The Gemara rejects that inference: No, what is the mitzva to arise and take action? It is the mitzva to tear up the promissory note documenting the commitment to pay interest.

诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 砖讟专 讛注讜诪讚 诇讙讘讜转 讻讙讘讜讬 讚诪讬 讜讛讗 注讘讚讜 讗讬住讜专讬讬讛讜 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讙讘讜讬 讚诪讬 讛讗 诇讗 注讘讜讚 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

The Gemara asks: What is accomplished by tearing up the document? What does this tanna hold? If he holds that the legal status of the debt in a document that is fit to be collected is as though it were already collected, and accordingly, they already performed their transgression by writing the document, then they accomplish nothing by tearing it, as the very act of writing the document is tantamount to collecting the debt. And if the legal status of the debt in a document that is fit to be collected is not as though it were already collected, they have done nothing so long as the interest has not been collected. Either way, tearing up the document changes nothing.

诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 砖讟专 讛注讜诪讚 诇讙讘讜转 诇讗讜 讻讙讘讜讬 讚诪讬 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚砖讜诪讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: Actually, this tanna holds that the legal status of the debt in a document that is fit to be collected is not as though it were already collected, and he teaches us the following principle: That appraisal of an item鈥檚 value is a significant matter. If a document was written for a loan with interest and the debtor鈥檚 property was appraised, this is itself a significant matter and punishable with lashes.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚转谞谉 讜讗诇讜 注讜讘专讬诐 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 讛诪诇讜讛 讜讛诇讜讜讛 讛注专讘 讜讛注讚讬诐 讘砖诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛讜 注讘讜讚 诪注砖讛 讗诇讗 注讚讬诐 诪讗讬 注讘讜讚 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚砖讜诪讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to explain the matter in this way, as we learned in a mishna (75b): And these individuals violate the prohibition of interest: The lender, and the borrower, the guarantor, and the witnesses. The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to all of them, i.e., the lender, the borrower, and the guarantor, it is understood that they violate the prohibition, as they performed an action. But with regard to the witnesses, what did they do to render themselves liable? Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from the mishna that the appraisal of an item鈥檚 value is a significant matter? Since the mishna states that the witnesses, whose testimony enables appraisal, participate in the transgression, this proves that appraisal is significant. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the mishna that this is so.

讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讘讚讬谞讬讛诐 诪讜爪讬讗讬诐 诪诇讜讛 诇诪诇讜讛 讘讚讬谞讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诪诪诇讜讛 诇诇讜讛 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讘讚讬谞讬讛诐 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪诇讜讛 诇诪诇讜讛 讘讚讬谞讬谞讜 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诪诪诇讜讛 诇诇讜讛

Rav Safra says: According to the opinion that the lender is compelled to return the money paid as interest, these are the rules to be employed: In any case where the obligation recorded in the document is so clear that by the laws of the gentiles, who are not prohibited from collecting interest, one removes the interest from the possession of the borrower to give to the lender, by our Jewish laws one returns the interest from the lender to the borrower. And in any case where the agreement is not unequivocal and by their laws one does not remove the interest from the possession of the borrower to give to the lender, by our laws one does not return the interest from the lender to the borrower.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗 讜讛专讬 住讗讛 讘住讗讛 讚讘讚讬谞讬讛诐 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪诇讜讛 诇诪诇讜讛 讜讘讚讬谞讬谞讜 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诪诪诇讜讛 诇诇讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讛讜 讘转讜专转 驻拽讚讜谉 讗转讗 诇讬讚讬讛

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And is it an established principle that applies in all cases? But there is the case where one lent a se鈥檃 of produce for the return of a se鈥檃 of the same type of produce, and the price of the produce went up in the interim, where by their laws one removes the interest from the possession of the borrower to give to the lender, and yet by our laws one does not return the interest from the lender to the borrower, as taking this type of interest is not prohibited by Torah law. Rav Yosef said to him: The gentiles do not consider that transaction a loan. Rather, according to their laws, it entered the possession of the borrower with the status of a deposit, and consequently, returning the produce is not considered repayment of a loan with interest, even though its value is greater than it was at the outset.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛专讬 诪砖讻谞转讗 讘诇讗 谞讻讬讬转讗 讚讘讚讬谞讬讛诐 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪诇讜讛 诇诪诇讜讛

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But there is the case of a mortgage without deduction, where the debtor鈥檚 field is held by the creditor until the debt is repaid, and while holding the field the creditor is allowed to consume the produce of the field without deducting from the debt the value of the produce he consumed. The consumption of the produce constitutes a type of interest, and in that case, by the laws of the gentiles one removes the interest from the possession of the borrower to give to the lender.

讜讘讚讬谞讬谞讜 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诪诪诇讜讛 诇诇讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讛讜 讘转讜专转 讝讘讬谞讬 讗转讗 诇讬讚讬讬讛讜

And yet, by our laws one does not return the interest from the lender to the borrower. Since the interest was not fixed from the outset, and there is also no certainty that he will consume any produce, this is merely a case of a hint of interest. Rav Ashi said to him: The gentiles do not consider that transaction a loan; rather, they see this as a case where the field came into his possession by means of a transaction in the form of a sale. The field was temporarily sold to the lender, who sells it back to the borrower when the debt is paid.

讗诇讗 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讘讚讬谞讬讛谉 讚拽讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 诪讗讬 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛讻讬 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讘讚讬谞讬讛谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪诇讜讛 诇诪诇讜讛 讘讚讬谞讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诪诪诇讜讛 诇诇讜讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讘专讘讬转 拽爪讜爪讛 讜讻讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

The Gemara asks: But if one is a case of deposit and the other is a case of sale, the principle that begins with: Any case where by their laws, that Rav Safra is saying, what is he coming to teach us? The Gemara answers that this is what he is coming to teach us: In any case where by their laws one removes the interest from the possession of the borrower to give to the lender, by our laws one returns the interest from the lender to the borrower. And what is that case? It is a case of fixed interest, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讘讚讬谞讬讛诐 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讘讚讬谞讬谞讜 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 专讘讬转 诪讜拽讚诪转 专讘讬转 诪讗讜讞专转

And as for the statement that in any case where by their laws one does not remove the interest from the possession of the borrower to give to the lender, by our laws one does not return the interest from the lender to the borrower, this is referring to a case of prior interest, i.e., interest paid prior to the granting of a loan in order to induce the lender to grant the loan, and subsequent interest, i.e., a gift given after a loan has been repaid to show thanks to the lender for lending the money. Although paying these types of interest is prohibited, as they are not actually part of the agreement, by our laws one does not compel the lender to return those payments.

讻讬爪讚 诇拽讞 讛讬诪谞讜 讞讟讬诐 讘讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 讛讻讜专 讜讻谉 讛砖注专 讜讻讜壮 讜讻讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讬谉 诪讗讬 讛讜讬

搂 The mishna teaches: 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 a 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: 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 does not have wine in his possession. The seller is considered to be a borrower with regard to the lender, who is viewed as lending the wheat to the seller. The Gemara asks: And if he does not have any wine, what of it? Why is this factor relevant?

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 注诇 讛驻讬专讜转 注讚 砖讬爪讗 讛砖注专 讬爪讗 讛砖注专 驻讜住拽讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讝讛 讬砖 诇讝讛

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: When purchasing produce to be collected by the buyer at a later stage, one may not set a price for produce until the market rate is publicized. If the rate has been publicized, one may set a price, despite the fact that the seller is not actually in possession of any such produce, as even though this seller does not have any of that produce, that one, i.e., another seller, does have some of that produce, which the first seller could purchase at the market rate. Evidently, once the market rate is publicized, the transaction is considered a purchase and not a loan with interest, even if the buyer does not receive the produce immediately.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讘讗 诇讞讜讘 讘讚诪讬讛谉 注住拽讬谞谉

Rabba said: In the mishna, we are dealing with one who comes to incur a debt for their value, i.e., for the value of the wine. If the borrower, i.e., the seller, possessed wine at that time he would have transferred it to the lender, i.e., the buyer, in place of the wheat, and this could have constituted a proper sale. Since he did not possess any wine, he promised it to the seller at a later date for a higher price, and this constituted a loan with interest as opposed to a sale.

讜讻讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 谞讜砖讛 讘讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讛 讜讛诇讱 讜注诪讚 注诇 讙讜专谞讜 讜讗讜诪专 转谉 诇讬 诪注讜转讬 砖讗谞讬 专讜爪讛 诇讬拽讞 讘讛诐 讞讟讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讞讟讬诐 讬砖 诇讬 砖讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 爪讗 讜注砖讛 注诇讬 讻砖注专 砖诇 注讻砖讬讜 讜讗谞讬 讗注诇讛 诇讱 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讗住讜专 讚诇讗讜 讻讗讬住专讜 讛讘讗 诇讬讚讜 讚诪讬

And this is as it is taught in a baraita: If a person was owed one hundred dinars by another, and he went and stood by the other鈥檚 granary and said to him: Give me my money, as I wish to buy wheat with it. And the debtor said to him: I have wheat in my granary that I will give you; go and calculate for me the amount of wheat to which you are entitled by the current market rate, and I will give you this amount of wheat over the span of a full twelve months, even if the price rises in the interim. Such a practice is forbidden because of interest, as this is not similar to a case where his issar has come into his possession. Since the lender did not give the borrower even a single issar as payment for the wheat, this is not a sale, but a loan with interest.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 讻讗讬住专讜 讛讘讗 诇讬讚讜 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖 诇讜 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讚转谞讬 专讘 住驻专讗 讘专讘讬转 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗

Abaye said to Rabba: If this transaction is forbidden because it is not similar to a case where his issar has come into his possession, why does the mishna specifically teach the case where he does not have wine? Even if he does have wine, it would also be forbidden, as he gave no money at the time of the acquisition. Rather, Abaye rejected Rabba鈥檚 explanation and said: The mishna should be understood like the baraita taught by Rav Safra with regard to the halakhot of interest, which was taught originally in the school of Rabbi 岣yya.

讚转谞讬 专讘 住驻专讗 讘专讘讬转 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讬砖 讚讘专讬诐 砖讛诐 诪讜转专讬谉 讜讗住讜专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 讛注专诪转 专讘讬转 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 诇讜 讛诇讜讬谞讬 诪谞讛 讗诪专 诇讜 诪谞讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讞讟讬谉 讘诪谞讛 讬砖 诇讬 砖讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 谞转谉 诇讜 讞讟讬谉 讘诪谞讛 讜讞讝专 讜诇拽讞谉 讛讬诪谞讜 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 住诇注 诪讜转专 讜讗住讜专 诇注砖讜转 讻谉 诪驻谞讬 讛注专诪转 专讘讬转

As Rav Safra taught a baraita from the school of Rabbi 岣yya with regard to interest: There are matters that are intrinsically permitted by Torah law, but are prohibited because they are artifices used to circumvent transgressing the prohibition of interest. How so? If one said to another: Lend me one hundred dinars, and the other said to him: I do not have one hundred dinars but I have wheat worth one hundred dinars that I will give you, and he gave him wheat worth one hundred dinars, and later he went and acquired the wheat back from him for twenty-four sela, the equivalent of ninety-six dinars, this is permitted by Torah law, as it is considered a double transaction since it included first a loan of the equivalent of one hundred dinars, and then the purchase of the wheat at a discounted rate. But it is prohibited to do so by rabbinic law because this is an artifice allowing the circumvention of transgressing the prohibition of interest.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讜讬谞讬 砖诇砖讬诐 讚讬谞专讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讚讬谞专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讬 讞讟讬谉 讘砖诇砖讬诐 讚讬谞专讬诐 讬砖 诇讬 砖讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 谞转谉 诇讜 讞讟讬谉 讘砖诇砖讬诐 讚讬谞专讬诐 讜讞讝专讜 讜诇拽讞诐 讛讬诪谞讜 讘讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 诇诇讜讛 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讘砖诇砖讬诐 讚讬谞专 驻讬专讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 砖拽讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讜诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 讜讚讗讬 诪砖拽诇 讝讜讝讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讞讝讬 讻专讘讬转

Here too, the mishna is referring to a case where he said to him: Lend me thirty dinars, and the other said to him: I do not have thirty dinars, but I have wheat worth thirty dinars that I will give you. He then gave him wheat worth thirty dinars, and he subsequently went and acquired the wheat back from him for a gold dinar, which is worth twenty-five dinars. In this case, if the borrower has wine that he gives him in place of the thirty dinars, it is produce that the lender takes from him, and therefore we have no problem with it. And if not, since he does not have wine, certainly the taking of money from him has at least the appearance of interest.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 转谉 诇讬 讞讬讟讬 讚诪讬 讞讬讟讬 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 转谞讬 讚诪讬 讞讬讟讬 砖讗谞讬 诪讜讻专谉 砖诪讻专转讬诐 诇讱 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 转谞讬 砖诪讻专转讬诐 诇讱 讛专讬 讞讟讬讱 注砖讜讬讜转 注诇讬 讘砖诇砖讬诐 讚讬谞专讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗讜拽诪讬谞讛讜 注讬诇讜讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讚诪讬 讞讟讬讱 砖注砖讬转 注诇讬 讘砖诇砖讬诐 讚讬谞专

Rava said to Abaye: If so, your explanation does not accord with the wording of the mishna, as the mishna states: Give me my wheat, while according to your interpretation it should have said: Give me the value of my wheat. Abaye responds: Emend the text and teach: The value of my wheat. Rava further asked: The phrase: As I wish to sell it, is also imprecise, as it should have said: Which I sold to you. Abaye again suggests: Emend the text and teach: Which I sold to you. Rava raises yet another difficulty concerning the language of the mishna. The tanna states: Your wheat is considered by me to be worth thirty dinars, but while according to your interpretation he had also established the price for him at this amount at the outset. Abaye answers: This is what he is saying to him: The wine should be collected according to the value of your wheat that you calculated for me at thirty dinars.

讛专讬 诇讱 讗爪诇讬 讘讛谉 讬讬谉 讜讬讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 讜讛讗 讘讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 讛讻讜专 讜讻谉 讛砖注专 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讬 砖讻讬讘谞讗 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 谞驻拽 诇讜讜转讬

Rava continued to question the wording of the mishna. It states: And you have the right to collect its value in wine from me, and he does not have wine in his possession. But the tanna taught: At the price of one kor of wheat for one gold dinar, and indeed that is the market price of wheat at the time. Both of these clauses do not accord with Abaye鈥檚 explanation. Rather, Rava said another explanation. He prefaced it by commenting: When I die, Rabbi Oshaya will come out from the Garden of Eden to greet me,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 62

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 62

讜讞讬 讗讞讬讱 注诪讱 讗讛讚专 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞讬讞讬

鈥淎nd your brother shall live with you鈥 (Leviticus 25:36), from which it is derived: Return the interest to him so that he may live.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讬 讜讞讬 讗讞讬讱 注诪讱 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讘讚专讱 讜讘讬讚 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 诪讬诐 讗诐 砖讜转讬谉 砖谞讬讛诐 诪转讬诐 讜讗诐 砖讜转讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诪讙讬注 诇讬砖讜讘 讚专砖 讘谉 驻讟讜专讗 诪讜讟讘 砖讬砖转讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讜讬诪讜转讜 讜讗诇 讬专讗讛 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讘诪讬转转讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 注讚 砖讘讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜诇讬诪讚 讜讞讬 讗讞讬讱 注诪讱 讞讬讬讱 拽讜讚诪讬诐 诇讞讬讬 讞讘讬专讱

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yo岣nan, what does he do with this verse: 鈥淎nd your brother shall live with you鈥? The Gemara answers: He requires the verse for that which is taught in a baraita: If two people were walking on a desolate path and there was a jug [kiton] of water in the possession of one of them, and the situation was such that if both drink from the jug, both will die, as there is not enough water, but if only one of them drinks, he will reach a settled area, there is a dispute as to the halakha. Ben Petora taught: It is preferable that both of them drink and die, and let neither one of them see the death of the other. This was the accepted opinion until Rabbi Akiva came and taught that the verse states: 鈥淎nd your brother shall live with you,鈥 indicating that your life takes precedence over the life of the other.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛谞讬讞 诇讛诐 讗讘讬讛诐 诪注讜转 砖诇 专讘讬转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬讜讚注讬诐 砖讛谉 砖诇 专讘讬转 讗讬谞谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讞讝讬专谉 讛讗 讗讘讬讛谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita to the opinion that one is not obligated to return interest that he took: If their father bequeathed them money that he had collected as interest, even though his sons know that the money was collected as interest, they are not obligated to return the money. The Gemara infers: But this indicates that their father himself is obligated to return the money.

讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讘讜讛讜谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛谞讬讞 诇讛谉 讗讘讬讛诐 驻专讛 讜讟诇讬转 讜讻诇 讚讘专 讛诪住讜讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讛诐 转谞讬 谞诪讬 专讬砖讗 讘讚讬讚讛讜

The Gemara rejects the inference: By right, it should have said that their father is also not obligated to return the money. But since the tanna wants to teach the latter clause, which states: If their father bequeathed them a cow, or a garment, or any defined item that was stolen property, they are obligated to return it to its owner due to their obligation to uphold their father鈥檚 honor, the tanna also taught the first clause with regard to their obligation, not that of their father.

讜讛谞讬 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讛诐 诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘讬 拽专讬 讻讗谉 讜谞砖讬讗 讘注诪讱 诇讗 转讗专 讘注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 注诪讱

The Gemara asks: And these children, are they obligated to take action due to the obligation to uphold their father鈥檚 honor? Read and apply here the verse: 鈥淣or curse a ruler of your people鈥 (Exodus 22:27), from which it is inferred that this prohibition applies only to one who performs an action becoming of your people. The actions of the father, who lent money with interest, were unbecoming of the Jewish people. Why then, must his sons uphold his honor?

讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 驻谞讞住 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘砖注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讗讬 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬 讙讘讬讛 砖诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讛讞讝讬专 注讚 砖诪转

The Gemara explains: It is as Rabbi Pine岣s said in the name of Rava in a different context, that it is referring to a case where the father repented. Here too, it is a case where the father repented, and therefore he was righteous and worthy of respect. The Gemara asks: If he repented, what is the stolen item doing in his possession? The Gemara answers: It is a case where the father did not manage to return the item before he died. Consequently, the children must return the item in order to uphold their father鈥檚 honor.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讙讝诇谞讬谉 讜诪诇讜讬 专讘讬转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讙讘讜 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讙讝诇谞讬诐 诪讗讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讙讘讜 讗讬讻讗 讗讬 讙讝讜诇 讙讝讜诇 讗讬 诇讗 讙讝讜诇 讙讝诇谞讬谉 拽专讬转 诇讛讜 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讙讝诇谞讬谉 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诪诇讜讬 专讘讬转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讙讘讜 诪讞讝讬专讬谉

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Concerning robbers and those who lend money with interest, even though they collected the money, they must return it. The Gemara analyzes the language of the baraita: In the case of robbers, what case is there that can be described as: Even though they collected the money? If they robbed, they robbed, and it is imprecise to use the language of collecting money; if they did not rob, do you call them robbers? Rather, say in explanation of the baraita: Robbers; in this context, who are they? They are those who lend with interest, and even though they collected the money, they must return it. Evidently, money collected as interest must be returned.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 驻讜讟专讬谉 讗转 讛诪诇讜讛 讜讗转 讛注专讘 诪驻谞讬 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 拽讜诐 注砖讛 诪讗讬 拽讜诐 注砖讛 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 拽讜诪讜 讗讛讚讜专讜

The Gemara answers: In fact, this issue is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ne岣mya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov exempt the lender and the guarantor from lashes for violating the prohibition of interest, because although they violated a prohibition, once they have done so they are commanded to arise and take action, and there is a principle that one is not flogged for a transgression that can be rectified by the performance of a mitzva. The Gemara clarifies: What mitzva to arise and take action is there? Is it not due to the fact that we say to them: Arise and return it?

诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讗讛讚讜专讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 诪讗讬 拽讜诐 注砖讛 诇拽专讜注 砖讟专讗

From the opinion of these Sages, it can be derived by inference that the first tanna holds that these people are not subject to the obligation of repayment. Apparently, he holds that there is no mitzva to arise and take action. The Gemara rejects that inference: No, what is the mitzva to arise and take action? It is the mitzva to tear up the promissory note documenting the commitment to pay interest.

诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 砖讟专 讛注讜诪讚 诇讙讘讜转 讻讙讘讜讬 讚诪讬 讜讛讗 注讘讚讜 讗讬住讜专讬讬讛讜 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讙讘讜讬 讚诪讬 讛讗 诇讗 注讘讜讚 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

The Gemara asks: What is accomplished by tearing up the document? What does this tanna hold? If he holds that the legal status of the debt in a document that is fit to be collected is as though it were already collected, and accordingly, they already performed their transgression by writing the document, then they accomplish nothing by tearing it, as the very act of writing the document is tantamount to collecting the debt. And if the legal status of the debt in a document that is fit to be collected is not as though it were already collected, they have done nothing so long as the interest has not been collected. Either way, tearing up the document changes nothing.

诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 砖讟专 讛注讜诪讚 诇讙讘讜转 诇讗讜 讻讙讘讜讬 讚诪讬 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚砖讜诪讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: Actually, this tanna holds that the legal status of the debt in a document that is fit to be collected is not as though it were already collected, and he teaches us the following principle: That appraisal of an item鈥檚 value is a significant matter. If a document was written for a loan with interest and the debtor鈥檚 property was appraised, this is itself a significant matter and punishable with lashes.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚转谞谉 讜讗诇讜 注讜讘专讬诐 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 讛诪诇讜讛 讜讛诇讜讜讛 讛注专讘 讜讛注讚讬诐 讘砖诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛讜 注讘讜讚 诪注砖讛 讗诇讗 注讚讬诐 诪讗讬 注讘讜讚 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚砖讜诪讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to explain the matter in this way, as we learned in a mishna (75b): And these individuals violate the prohibition of interest: The lender, and the borrower, the guarantor, and the witnesses. The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to all of them, i.e., the lender, the borrower, and the guarantor, it is understood that they violate the prohibition, as they performed an action. But with regard to the witnesses, what did they do to render themselves liable? Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from the mishna that the appraisal of an item鈥檚 value is a significant matter? Since the mishna states that the witnesses, whose testimony enables appraisal, participate in the transgression, this proves that appraisal is significant. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the mishna that this is so.

讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讘讚讬谞讬讛诐 诪讜爪讬讗讬诐 诪诇讜讛 诇诪诇讜讛 讘讚讬谞讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诪诪诇讜讛 诇诇讜讛 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讘讚讬谞讬讛诐 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪诇讜讛 诇诪诇讜讛 讘讚讬谞讬谞讜 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诪诪诇讜讛 诇诇讜讛

Rav Safra says: According to the opinion that the lender is compelled to return the money paid as interest, these are the rules to be employed: In any case where the obligation recorded in the document is so clear that by the laws of the gentiles, who are not prohibited from collecting interest, one removes the interest from the possession of the borrower to give to the lender, by our Jewish laws one returns the interest from the lender to the borrower. And in any case where the agreement is not unequivocal and by their laws one does not remove the interest from the possession of the borrower to give to the lender, by our laws one does not return the interest from the lender to the borrower.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗 讜讛专讬 住讗讛 讘住讗讛 讚讘讚讬谞讬讛诐 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪诇讜讛 诇诪诇讜讛 讜讘讚讬谞讬谞讜 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诪诪诇讜讛 诇诇讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讛讜 讘转讜专转 驻拽讚讜谉 讗转讗 诇讬讚讬讛

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And is it an established principle that applies in all cases? But there is the case where one lent a se鈥檃 of produce for the return of a se鈥檃 of the same type of produce, and the price of the produce went up in the interim, where by their laws one removes the interest from the possession of the borrower to give to the lender, and yet by our laws one does not return the interest from the lender to the borrower, as taking this type of interest is not prohibited by Torah law. Rav Yosef said to him: The gentiles do not consider that transaction a loan. Rather, according to their laws, it entered the possession of the borrower with the status of a deposit, and consequently, returning the produce is not considered repayment of a loan with interest, even though its value is greater than it was at the outset.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛专讬 诪砖讻谞转讗 讘诇讗 谞讻讬讬转讗 讚讘讚讬谞讬讛诐 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪诇讜讛 诇诪诇讜讛

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But there is the case of a mortgage without deduction, where the debtor鈥檚 field is held by the creditor until the debt is repaid, and while holding the field the creditor is allowed to consume the produce of the field without deducting from the debt the value of the produce he consumed. The consumption of the produce constitutes a type of interest, and in that case, by the laws of the gentiles one removes the interest from the possession of the borrower to give to the lender.

讜讘讚讬谞讬谞讜 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诪诪诇讜讛 诇诇讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讛讜 讘转讜专转 讝讘讬谞讬 讗转讗 诇讬讚讬讬讛讜

And yet, by our laws one does not return the interest from the lender to the borrower. Since the interest was not fixed from the outset, and there is also no certainty that he will consume any produce, this is merely a case of a hint of interest. Rav Ashi said to him: The gentiles do not consider that transaction a loan; rather, they see this as a case where the field came into his possession by means of a transaction in the form of a sale. The field was temporarily sold to the lender, who sells it back to the borrower when the debt is paid.

讗诇讗 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讘讚讬谞讬讛谉 讚拽讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 诪讗讬 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛讻讬 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讘讚讬谞讬讛谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪诇讜讛 诇诪诇讜讛 讘讚讬谞讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诪诪诇讜讛 诇诇讜讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讘专讘讬转 拽爪讜爪讛 讜讻讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

The Gemara asks: But if one is a case of deposit and the other is a case of sale, the principle that begins with: Any case where by their laws, that Rav Safra is saying, what is he coming to teach us? The Gemara answers that this is what he is coming to teach us: In any case where by their laws one removes the interest from the possession of the borrower to give to the lender, by our laws one returns the interest from the lender to the borrower. And what is that case? It is a case of fixed interest, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讘讚讬谞讬讛诐 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讘讚讬谞讬谞讜 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 专讘讬转 诪讜拽讚诪转 专讘讬转 诪讗讜讞专转

And as for the statement that in any case where by their laws one does not remove the interest from the possession of the borrower to give to the lender, by our laws one does not return the interest from the lender to the borrower, this is referring to a case of prior interest, i.e., interest paid prior to the granting of a loan in order to induce the lender to grant the loan, and subsequent interest, i.e., a gift given after a loan has been repaid to show thanks to the lender for lending the money. Although paying these types of interest is prohibited, as they are not actually part of the agreement, by our laws one does not compel the lender to return those payments.

讻讬爪讚 诇拽讞 讛讬诪谞讜 讞讟讬诐 讘讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 讛讻讜专 讜讻谉 讛砖注专 讜讻讜壮 讜讻讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讬谉 诪讗讬 讛讜讬

搂 The mishna teaches: 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 a 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: 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 does not have wine in his possession. The seller is considered to be a borrower with regard to the lender, who is viewed as lending the wheat to the seller. The Gemara asks: And if he does not have any wine, what of it? Why is this factor relevant?

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 注诇 讛驻讬专讜转 注讚 砖讬爪讗 讛砖注专 讬爪讗 讛砖注专 驻讜住拽讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讝讛 讬砖 诇讝讛

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: When purchasing produce to be collected by the buyer at a later stage, one may not set a price for produce until the market rate is publicized. If the rate has been publicized, one may set a price, despite the fact that the seller is not actually in possession of any such produce, as even though this seller does not have any of that produce, that one, i.e., another seller, does have some of that produce, which the first seller could purchase at the market rate. Evidently, once the market rate is publicized, the transaction is considered a purchase and not a loan with interest, even if the buyer does not receive the produce immediately.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讘讗 诇讞讜讘 讘讚诪讬讛谉 注住拽讬谞谉

Rabba said: In the mishna, we are dealing with one who comes to incur a debt for their value, i.e., for the value of the wine. If the borrower, i.e., the seller, possessed wine at that time he would have transferred it to the lender, i.e., the buyer, in place of the wheat, and this could have constituted a proper sale. Since he did not possess any wine, he promised it to the seller at a later date for a higher price, and this constituted a loan with interest as opposed to a sale.

讜讻讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 谞讜砖讛 讘讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讛 讜讛诇讱 讜注诪讚 注诇 讙讜专谞讜 讜讗讜诪专 转谉 诇讬 诪注讜转讬 砖讗谞讬 专讜爪讛 诇讬拽讞 讘讛诐 讞讟讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讞讟讬诐 讬砖 诇讬 砖讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 爪讗 讜注砖讛 注诇讬 讻砖注专 砖诇 注讻砖讬讜 讜讗谞讬 讗注诇讛 诇讱 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讗住讜专 讚诇讗讜 讻讗讬住专讜 讛讘讗 诇讬讚讜 讚诪讬

And this is as it is taught in a baraita: If a person was owed one hundred dinars by another, and he went and stood by the other鈥檚 granary and said to him: Give me my money, as I wish to buy wheat with it. And the debtor said to him: I have wheat in my granary that I will give you; go and calculate for me the amount of wheat to which you are entitled by the current market rate, and I will give you this amount of wheat over the span of a full twelve months, even if the price rises in the interim. Such a practice is forbidden because of interest, as this is not similar to a case where his issar has come into his possession. Since the lender did not give the borrower even a single issar as payment for the wheat, this is not a sale, but a loan with interest.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 讻讗讬住专讜 讛讘讗 诇讬讚讜 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖 诇讜 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讚转谞讬 专讘 住驻专讗 讘专讘讬转 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗

Abaye said to Rabba: If this transaction is forbidden because it is not similar to a case where his issar has come into his possession, why does the mishna specifically teach the case where he does not have wine? Even if he does have wine, it would also be forbidden, as he gave no money at the time of the acquisition. Rather, Abaye rejected Rabba鈥檚 explanation and said: The mishna should be understood like the baraita taught by Rav Safra with regard to the halakhot of interest, which was taught originally in the school of Rabbi 岣yya.

讚转谞讬 专讘 住驻专讗 讘专讘讬转 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讬砖 讚讘专讬诐 砖讛诐 诪讜转专讬谉 讜讗住讜专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 讛注专诪转 专讘讬转 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 诇讜 讛诇讜讬谞讬 诪谞讛 讗诪专 诇讜 诪谞讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讞讟讬谉 讘诪谞讛 讬砖 诇讬 砖讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 谞转谉 诇讜 讞讟讬谉 讘诪谞讛 讜讞讝专 讜诇拽讞谉 讛讬诪谞讜 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 住诇注 诪讜转专 讜讗住讜专 诇注砖讜转 讻谉 诪驻谞讬 讛注专诪转 专讘讬转

As Rav Safra taught a baraita from the school of Rabbi 岣yya with regard to interest: There are matters that are intrinsically permitted by Torah law, but are prohibited because they are artifices used to circumvent transgressing the prohibition of interest. How so? If one said to another: Lend me one hundred dinars, and the other said to him: I do not have one hundred dinars but I have wheat worth one hundred dinars that I will give you, and he gave him wheat worth one hundred dinars, and later he went and acquired the wheat back from him for twenty-four sela, the equivalent of ninety-six dinars, this is permitted by Torah law, as it is considered a double transaction since it included first a loan of the equivalent of one hundred dinars, and then the purchase of the wheat at a discounted rate. But it is prohibited to do so by rabbinic law because this is an artifice allowing the circumvention of transgressing the prohibition of interest.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讜讬谞讬 砖诇砖讬诐 讚讬谞专讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讚讬谞专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讬 讞讟讬谉 讘砖诇砖讬诐 讚讬谞专讬诐 讬砖 诇讬 砖讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 谞转谉 诇讜 讞讟讬谉 讘砖诇砖讬诐 讚讬谞专讬诐 讜讞讝专讜 讜诇拽讞诐 讛讬诪谞讜 讘讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 诇诇讜讛 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讘砖诇砖讬诐 讚讬谞专 驻讬专讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 砖拽讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讜诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 讜讚讗讬 诪砖拽诇 讝讜讝讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讞讝讬 讻专讘讬转

Here too, the mishna is referring to a case where he said to him: Lend me thirty dinars, and the other said to him: I do not have thirty dinars, but I have wheat worth thirty dinars that I will give you. He then gave him wheat worth thirty dinars, and he subsequently went and acquired the wheat back from him for a gold dinar, which is worth twenty-five dinars. In this case, if the borrower has wine that he gives him in place of the thirty dinars, it is produce that the lender takes from him, and therefore we have no problem with it. And if not, since he does not have wine, certainly the taking of money from him has at least the appearance of interest.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 转谉 诇讬 讞讬讟讬 讚诪讬 讞讬讟讬 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 转谞讬 讚诪讬 讞讬讟讬 砖讗谞讬 诪讜讻专谉 砖诪讻专转讬诐 诇讱 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 转谞讬 砖诪讻专转讬诐 诇讱 讛专讬 讞讟讬讱 注砖讜讬讜转 注诇讬 讘砖诇砖讬诐 讚讬谞专讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗讜拽诪讬谞讛讜 注讬诇讜讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讚诪讬 讞讟讬讱 砖注砖讬转 注诇讬 讘砖诇砖讬诐 讚讬谞专

Rava said to Abaye: If so, your explanation does not accord with the wording of the mishna, as the mishna states: Give me my wheat, while according to your interpretation it should have said: Give me the value of my wheat. Abaye responds: Emend the text and teach: The value of my wheat. Rava further asked: The phrase: As I wish to sell it, is also imprecise, as it should have said: Which I sold to you. Abaye again suggests: Emend the text and teach: Which I sold to you. Rava raises yet another difficulty concerning the language of the mishna. The tanna states: Your wheat is considered by me to be worth thirty dinars, but while according to your interpretation he had also established the price for him at this amount at the outset. Abaye answers: This is what he is saying to him: The wine should be collected according to the value of your wheat that you calculated for me at thirty dinars.

讛专讬 诇讱 讗爪诇讬 讘讛谉 讬讬谉 讜讬讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 讜讛讗 讘讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 讛讻讜专 讜讻谉 讛砖注专 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讬 砖讻讬讘谞讗 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 谞驻拽 诇讜讜转讬

Rava continued to question the wording of the mishna. It states: And you have the right to collect its value in wine from me, and he does not have wine in his possession. But the tanna taught: At the price of one kor of wheat for one gold dinar, and indeed that is the market price of wheat at the time. Both of these clauses do not accord with Abaye鈥檚 explanation. Rather, Rava said another explanation. He prefaced it by commenting: When I die, Rabbi Oshaya will come out from the Garden of Eden to greet me,

Scroll To Top