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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 28, 2016 | 讻状讝 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 63

After 2 failed attempts at understanding the case in the mishna where interest is forbidden by rabbinic decree, Rava brings an explanation according to Rabbi Oshaya’s braita and according to Rabii Yannai’s opnion – that one can turn a loan of money into a loan of produce and not be worried that prices will fluctuate if the borrower has the item in his possession. 聽However, if he does not, then it appears like interest since the price may rise and in the end he will receive a higher value. 聽Rav disagrees with Rabbi Yannai adn thinks that one cannot turn a loan for one item inot the value of the item to then transfer it into money or a different item (like wheat for wine – as in the braita of Rabbi Yoshaya). 聽Two explanatinos are given as to how he can go against the braita of Rabbi Oshaya. 聽One of them is that it follows the unique opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that a transaction where there is potential for interest but it is not clear that there will be an interest payment (maybe prices will stay the same or go down and the lender will not receive more value), is allowed. 聽Rabba and Rav Yosef distinguish between and loan and a sale and allow in a sale to pay up front and only receive produce at a later date even if the seller doesn’t have them yet in his possession. 聽Rav Nachman teaches that any case of getting payment for waiting is considered interest and a case is brought to illustrate.


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

讚诪转专爪谞讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讜讜转讬讛

as I resolve the mishna in accordance with his opinion, expressed in the baraitot he edited.

讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 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 讘讛谉 讞讟讬谉 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讞讟讬谉 讬砖 诇讬 砖讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 爪讗 讜注砖讗谉 注诇讬 讻砖注专 砖诇 注讻砖讬讜 讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讞讟讬谉 诇诪讻讜专 讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 讞讟讬谉 砖讗谞讬 专讜爪讛 诇诪讜讻专谉 讜诇讬拽讞 讘讛谉 讬讬谉 讗诪专 诇讜 讬砖 诇讬 讬讬谉 砖讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 爪讗 讜注砖讗谉 注诇讬 讻砖注专 砖诇 注讻砖讬讜

Rava explains: As Rabbi Oshaya teaches in a baraita: One was owed one hundred dinars by another, and he went and stood by the other鈥檚 granary and said: Give me my money, as I wish to buy wheat with it, and the other said to him: I have wheat in my granary that I will give you; go and calculate for me the amount to which you are entitled at the current market rate. When the time to sell wheat arrived, the lender said to him: Give me wheat, as I want to sell it and acquire wine with the money received for it. The borrower said to him: I have wine that I will give you; go and calculate for me the amount of wine to which you are entitled at the current market rate.

讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讬讬谉 诇诪讻讜专 讜讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 讬讬谞讬 砖讗谞讬 专讜爪讛 诇诪讜讻专讜 讜诇讬拽讞 讘讜 砖诪谉 讗诪专 诇讜 砖诪谉 讬砖 诇讬 砖讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 爪讗 讜注砖讛讜 注诇讬 讻砖注专 砖诇 注讻砖讬讜 讻讜诇诐 讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 诪讜转专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗住讜专 讜诪讗讬 诇拽讞 诇拽讞 讘讛诇讜讗转讜

The baraita continues: Then the time to sell wine arrived, and the lender said to the borrower: Give me my wine, as I want to sell it and acquire oil with the money received for it. The borrower said to him: I have oil that I will give you; go and calculate for me the amount of oil to which you are entitled at the current market rate. With regard to all such cases, if the borrower has wine and oil, the transaction is permitted, as this is a proper sale. But if he does not have these items it is forbidden. Since he cannot give him the merchandise at the current moment, if its value appreciates in the interim he is considered to have paid an additional sum for the delay of the repayment of the debt. Rava concludes his explanation: And what is the meaning in the mishna of: Acquired? It means that he acquired it as payment for his loan.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚诪注诪讬讚讬谉 诪诇讜讛 注诇 讙讘讬 驻讬专讜转 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚诇讗 讻讗讬住专讜 讛讘讗 诇讬讚讜 讛讜讗 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讜讗 讚讬砖 诇讜 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬转讗 诇讚专讘讬 讬谞讗讬

Rava said: Conclude from this baraita of Rabbi Oshaya three halakhot: Conclude from it that one may establish repayment of a loan upon produce, meaning that a borrower can promise to pay the lender in produce over the course of a year, based on the market rate at the beginning of the year, and we do not say that this is like a case where his issar has not already come into his possession, as Rabbi 岣yya said in the baraita on the previous amud. Since he owns produce it is as though he has provided it at the present time, and the current lack of payment is not significant. Accordingly, one can conclude from it another halakha, that this practice is permitted provided that he has produce in his possession. And further conclude from it that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yannai.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诪讛 诇讬 讛谉 诪讛 诇讬 讚诪讬讛谉

This is as Rabbi Yannai says: What difference is it to me if he referred to the produce, and what difference is it to me if he referred to the produce鈥檚 value? If he stipulated that he would receive a certain amount of produce, he can later take its value in money rather than the produce itself without violating the prohibition of interest.

讚讗转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 注讜砖讬谉 讗诪谞讛 讘驻讬专讜转 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗诪谞讛 讘讚诪讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 诪讛 诇讬 讛谉 讜诪讛 诇讬 讚诪讬讛谉

As it was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed about this issue: Rav says that one may make an arrangement of trust with regard to the delivery of items such as produce, i.e., one may loan the money in advance with the agreement that he will be repaid with produce at a later date, but one may not make an arrangement of trust with regard to money, i.e., one may not loan the money in advance with the agreement that he will receive the value of the produce at a later date, as this has the appearance of collecting interest. And Rabbi Yannai says: What difference is it to me if the agreement concerned the produce, and what difference is it to me if it concerned the produce鈥檚 value? Just as the lender can take the produce and sell it himself, he can likewise accept the value of the produce directly.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻讜诇诐 讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 诪讜转专 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖诪砖讱 讗讬 讘砖诪砖讱 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讬讞讚 诇讜 拽专谉 讝讜讬转

The Gemara raises an objection against Rav鈥檚 opinion from the above baraita: With regard to all of them, if the borrower has the items in his possession, it is permitted, apparently even if he actually pays with something else. Rav Huna says that Rav says: That baraita is stated with regard to a case where the lender pulled the produce itself, thereby performing an act of acquisition. The Gemara questions Rav Huna鈥檚 statement: If he pulled the produce, does it need to be said? After all, there was a proper act of acquisition. Rather, the baraita is discussing a case where the borrower designated a corner for the lender in which to place the produce that he acquired. For the purposes of this halakha, such an action is sufficient.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 爪讚 讗讞讚 讘专讘讬转 诪讜转专

And Shmuel said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita, which permits the practice if the borrower is in possession of such produce? It is in accordance with that of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that uncertain interest, a transaction that may or may not result in the payment of interest, is permitted. Rabbi Yehuda holds that if at the time of the loan it was not certain that the agreement would result in the paying of interest, then even if it is so that if specific circumstances were to develop there would be interest paid according to the agreement, the transaction is permitted.

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 讜注砖讛 诇讜 砖讚讛讜 诪讻专 讘讝诪谉 砖讛诪讜讻专 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 诪讜转专 诇讜拽讞 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讗住讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讝诪谉 砖讛诇讜拽讞 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 诪讜转专

As it is taught in a baraita: If one was owed one hundred dinars by another, and the borrower performed a sale of his field for him in order to repay the one hundred dinars, if they agreed that the seller, i.e., the borrower, consumes the produce of the field until the debt is repaid, this is certainly permitted, but if the buyer, i.e., the lender, consumes the produce, it is prohibited, as he is in effect taking the produce as interest while awaiting the payment that he is owed. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the buyer consumes the produce, it is permitted.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘讘讬转讜住 讘谉 讝讜谞讬谉 砖注砖讛 砖讚讛讜 诪讻专 注诇 驻讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讜诇讜拽讞 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讛讬讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 诪讜讻专 讗讜讻诇 驻专讜转 讛讬讛 讜诇讗 诇讜拽讞

The tanna relates: Rabbi Yehuda said to the Sages: An incident occurred involving Baitos ben Zunin, who performed a sale of his field on the basis of a directive from Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and that was a case where the buyer consumed the produce. The Sages said to the tanna: Will you bring a proof from there? The reverse was the case: It was the seller, not the buyer, who consumed the produce.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 爪讚 讗讞讚 讘专讘讬转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬转 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛讞讝讬专 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: What is the difference in opinion between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda? Abaye said: The difference between them concerns the halakha of uncertain interest. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, if it is uncertain that a transaction will ultimately involve the payment of interest, it is permitted. Rava said: The difference between them involves the status of interest taken on the condition that it be given back. Rava maintains that Rabbi Yehuda did not mean that the lender can consume the produce without payment, as he must repay the amount he ate if the borrower pays off his debt. The first tanna rules that since the sale is not yet final, his consumption of the produce constitutes interest.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬

Rava said: Now that Rabbi Yannai is saying

诪讛 诇讬 讛谉 讜诪讛 诇讬 讚诪讬讛谉 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讛 诇讬 讚诪讬讛谉 讜诪讛 诇讬 讛谉 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讜驻讜住拽讬谉 注诇 砖注专 砖讘砖讜拽 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜

that we say: What difference is it to me if he referred to the produce, and what difference is it to me if he referred to the produce鈥檚 value, meaning that we do not require the payment to be in the form of the produce stipulated, we therefore also say: What difference is it to me if he referred to the produce鈥檚 value, and what difference is it to me if he referred to the produce, and therefore one may set a price by the market rate. And this is permitted even though he does not have produce at the present moment. Since he could purchase it if he wished it is considered as though he had the produce in his possession, and therefore one may make an agreement with another to provide him with produce at a later date in accordance with the current price.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘讗 讻讜诇诐 讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 诪讜转专 讗诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗住讜专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛转诐 讛诇讜讗讛 讛讻讗 讝讘讬谞讬

Rav Pappa, and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raised an objection to the opinion of Rava from the aforementioned baraita, which explicitly teaches: With regard to all of them, if he has the produce in his possession, the transaction is permitted, and if he does not have it, the transaction is prohibited. Rava said to them: The tanna there is referring to a transaction for the repayment of the debt conducted after a loan has been given but before it has been repaid, whereas here Rabbi Yannai is dealing with an actual sale, without any loan at all, and therefore there is no interest involved.

专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专讜 专讘谞谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 注诇 砖注专 砖讘砖讜拽 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖拽讬诇讗 讟讬讘讜转讬讱 讜砖讚讬讬讗 讗讞讬讝专讬 诪讗讬 讗讛谞讬转 诇讬 讗讬 讛讜讜 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讘讬讚讬 讛讜讛 诪讝讘谞讬谞讗 讘讛讬谞讬 讜讘砖讬诇讬 讘讝讜诇讗

Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: What is the reason that the Sages said one may set a price by the market rate and that one may do so even though he does not have the produce in his possession? Because the buyer says to the seller: Your favor is taken and thrown on the thorns. In other words, I am deriving no benefit from my transaction with you, as how have you helped me? If I had money in my hands I would buy the produce myself in the towns of Hini and Shili, nearby market towns, at an inexpensive price. Consequently, the acquisition of produce at the current market rate is of no benefit to him.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诪讜转专 诇诇讜转 住讗讛 讘住讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖拽讬诇讗 讟讬讘讜转讬讱 讜砖讚讬讬讗 讗讞讬讝专讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讟讬 讚拽讚讞讬 讘讗讻诇讘讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讛诇讜讗讛 讛讻讗 讝讘讬谞讬

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But if that is so, according to this same logic it should be permitted to lend a se鈥檃 of produce for a se鈥檃 of the same produce, as the lender can say to the borrower: Your favor is taken and thrown on the thorns, since he says to him: I stand to gain nothing from the se鈥檃 you will later give me, as the price of my wheat would increase if it were to remain in my granary, and therefore the loan does not benefit me at all, for will the wheat burn in my warehouse [be鈥檃kalbai]? Rav Yosef said to him: The two cases are different, as there it is referring to a loan, and consequently there is a concern about interest, whereas here it is a sale.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转讘 讝讜讝讬 诇住驻住讬专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚拽讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讝讜讝讬 讚讗讬谞砖讬 讗讬谞讛讜 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 住驻住讬专讜转讬讛

Adda bar Abba said to Rava: But with regard to establishing the repayment of the loan upon produce valued at the market rate, the buyer does stand to gain from the agreement, as, if he would have to go to acquire produce elsewhere, he would have to give a dinar to a broker, and therefore he gains a dinar from the early payment. Rava said to him: The case is one where the buyer also gives the seller the broker鈥檚 fee. Rav Ashi said: There is generally no need to add this fee, as a person鈥檚 dinars serve as a broker for him. One who has ready cash has no need for the services of a broker.

专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 讗转专注讗 讞专讬驻讗 爪专讬讱 诇讗讬转讞讝讜讬讬 诇讘讬 讚专讬

搂 The Gemara addresses a related issue. Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: One who gives money in advance to purchase produce at the advance price that is in effect shortly after the harvest but before the market price is set must present himself at the granary when the seller is threshing his produce.

诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇诪拽谞讗 讛讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 讗讬 诇拽讘讜诇讬 注诇讬讛 诪讬 砖驻专注 讻讬 诇讗 诪讬转讞讝讬 谞诪讬 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讛 诪讬 砖驻专注

The Gemara asks: For what reason is he required to be there? If it is in order to acquire the produce, he does not acquire it by merely being present there, as the acquisition is not completed until he pulls the actual produce. And if it is in order for the seller to accept upon himself, in the event that he reneges on the transaction, the curse of: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the people of the generation of the dispersion, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement (see 44a), even if the buyer does not present himself there the seller also accepts upon himself the curse of: He Who exacted payment. This curse is in effect for anyone who reneges on a transaction after the money has been paid.

诇注讜诇诐 诇拽讘讜诇讬 注诇讬讛 诪讬 砖驻专注 讜诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 讗转专注讗 [讞专讬驻讗] 诇讘讬 转专讬 转诇转讗 讬讛讬讘 讗讬 诪讬转讞讝讬 诇讬讛 住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚讗砖讻讞转 驻讬专讬 讚砖驻讬专讬 诪讚讬讚讬 讜砖拽诇转

The Gemara explains: Actually, the reason he must go to the granary is for the seller to accept upon himself the curse of: He Who exacted payment, for the following reason: One who gives money in advance to purchase produce at the advance price gives it to two or three different sellers, in order to ensure that he will collect a profit. Consequently, if he presents himself to the seller when he is threshing his produce, the seller relies upon him, as he knows the transaction will proceed. But if the buyer does not present himself to the seller when he is threshing his produce, the seller could say to him: I said to myself that you must have found better produce than mine, and you took that produce. Since the seller is unsure if the transaction will be completed, he may change his mind and sell to a different buyer.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 诪住诪讱 讚注转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讘砖讜拽讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讛

Rav Ashi said: Now that you have said that the reason is due to the seller鈥檚 relying upon him, it can be concluded that the buyer does not have to go to the seller鈥檚 granary in order to convince him that he intends to uphold the transaction. Rather, even if the buyer finds the seller in the marketplace and says to him that he will not retract his offer to buy the produce, the seller will likewise rely upon him.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻诇诇讗 讚专讬讘讬转讗 讻诇 讗讙专 谞讟专 诇讬讛 讗住讜专 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 诇拽讬专讗讛 讜拽讗 讗讝诇讬 讗专讘注 讗专讘注 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讱 讞诪砖 讞诪砖 讗讬转谞讛讜 讙讘讬讛 砖专讬 诇讬转谞讛讜 讙讘讬讛 讗住讜专

Rav Na岣an said: The principle with regard to the halakhot of interest is: Any payment for his waiting, meaning any additional sum added in consideration of the fact that the lender delays claiming his money, is forbidden. And Rav Na岣an also said: In the case of this one who gives money to a wax seller to purchase loaves of wax from him, and loaves of wax go at the current rate of one dinar for four loaves, and the seller said to him: I will give you wax in the future at the rate of five loaves for each dinar if you pay me now in advance, if the seller has wax with him at the time of the transaction, it is permitted to sell at a discounted rate because he is in need of cash. But if the seller does not have wax with him, it is forbidden, as the extra loaf given is interest.

驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗砖专讗讬 讘诪转讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗砖专讗讬 讘诪转讗 讻注讚 砖讬讘讗 讘谞讬 讗讜 注讚 砖讗诪爪讗 诪驻转讞 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讞住专讬 讙讜讘讬讬谞讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讬转谞讛讜 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? It is clearly interest. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for a case where the seller has credit in the town, and therefore he could receive wax from others. It is necessary lest you say: Since he has credit in the town and could receive wax now, this should be similar to a case where he said: Give me produce until my son comes, or: Until I find the key, and therefore it is permitted to give him money, as this is not considered a loan (see 75a). Rav Na岣an therefore teaches us that since the loaves of wax still lack collection, i.e., the seller does not actually own them, they are considered as though they were not in existence, which means the reduction in price is classified as interest.

讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讜讝讬祝 驻砖讬讟讬 诪讞讘专讬讛 讜讗砖讻讞 讘讬讛 讟讜驻讬讬谞讗 讗讬 讘讻讚讬 砖讛讚注转 讟讜注讛 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诇讗讛讚讜专讬讛 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 诪转谞讛 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛

And Rav Na岣an said: In the case of this one who borrowed coins from another, and when he later counted them he found an additional amount of money, above the sum they had agreed upon, if the addition was within the range that a person can make a mistake, the assumption is that the lender erred in his calculation, and therefore the borrower is obligated to return the extra coins to him. But if not, if the difference was so large that it could not have been the result of a simple mistake, it must only be that the lender has given him a gift.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讘讻讚讬 砖讛讚注转 讟讜注讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝

The Gemara inquires: What are the circumstances where the additional amount would be within the range that one can make a mistake? Rav A岣, son of Rav Yosef, said:

  • 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 63

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 63

讚诪转专爪谞讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讜讜转讬讛

as I resolve the mishna in accordance with his opinion, expressed in the baraitot he edited.

讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 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 讘讛谉 讞讟讬谉 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讞讟讬谉 讬砖 诇讬 砖讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 爪讗 讜注砖讗谉 注诇讬 讻砖注专 砖诇 注讻砖讬讜 讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讞讟讬谉 诇诪讻讜专 讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 讞讟讬谉 砖讗谞讬 专讜爪讛 诇诪讜讻专谉 讜诇讬拽讞 讘讛谉 讬讬谉 讗诪专 诇讜 讬砖 诇讬 讬讬谉 砖讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 爪讗 讜注砖讗谉 注诇讬 讻砖注专 砖诇 注讻砖讬讜

Rava explains: As Rabbi Oshaya teaches in a baraita: One was owed one hundred dinars by another, and he went and stood by the other鈥檚 granary and said: Give me my money, as I wish to buy wheat with it, and the other said to him: I have wheat in my granary that I will give you; go and calculate for me the amount to which you are entitled at the current market rate. When the time to sell wheat arrived, the lender said to him: Give me wheat, as I want to sell it and acquire wine with the money received for it. The borrower said to him: I have wine that I will give you; go and calculate for me the amount of wine to which you are entitled at the current market rate.

讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讬讬谉 诇诪讻讜专 讜讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 讬讬谞讬 砖讗谞讬 专讜爪讛 诇诪讜讻专讜 讜诇讬拽讞 讘讜 砖诪谉 讗诪专 诇讜 砖诪谉 讬砖 诇讬 砖讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 爪讗 讜注砖讛讜 注诇讬 讻砖注专 砖诇 注讻砖讬讜 讻讜诇诐 讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 诪讜转专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗住讜专 讜诪讗讬 诇拽讞 诇拽讞 讘讛诇讜讗转讜

The baraita continues: Then the time to sell wine arrived, and the lender said to the borrower: Give me my wine, as I want to sell it and acquire oil with the money received for it. The borrower said to him: I have oil that I will give you; go and calculate for me the amount of oil to which you are entitled at the current market rate. With regard to all such cases, if the borrower has wine and oil, the transaction is permitted, as this is a proper sale. But if he does not have these items it is forbidden. Since he cannot give him the merchandise at the current moment, if its value appreciates in the interim he is considered to have paid an additional sum for the delay of the repayment of the debt. Rava concludes his explanation: And what is the meaning in the mishna of: Acquired? It means that he acquired it as payment for his loan.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚诪注诪讬讚讬谉 诪诇讜讛 注诇 讙讘讬 驻讬专讜转 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚诇讗 讻讗讬住专讜 讛讘讗 诇讬讚讜 讛讜讗 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讜讗 讚讬砖 诇讜 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬转讗 诇讚专讘讬 讬谞讗讬

Rava said: Conclude from this baraita of Rabbi Oshaya three halakhot: Conclude from it that one may establish repayment of a loan upon produce, meaning that a borrower can promise to pay the lender in produce over the course of a year, based on the market rate at the beginning of the year, and we do not say that this is like a case where his issar has not already come into his possession, as Rabbi 岣yya said in the baraita on the previous amud. Since he owns produce it is as though he has provided it at the present time, and the current lack of payment is not significant. Accordingly, one can conclude from it another halakha, that this practice is permitted provided that he has produce in his possession. And further conclude from it that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yannai.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诪讛 诇讬 讛谉 诪讛 诇讬 讚诪讬讛谉

This is as Rabbi Yannai says: What difference is it to me if he referred to the produce, and what difference is it to me if he referred to the produce鈥檚 value? If he stipulated that he would receive a certain amount of produce, he can later take its value in money rather than the produce itself without violating the prohibition of interest.

讚讗转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 注讜砖讬谉 讗诪谞讛 讘驻讬专讜转 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗诪谞讛 讘讚诪讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 诪讛 诇讬 讛谉 讜诪讛 诇讬 讚诪讬讛谉

As it was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed about this issue: Rav says that one may make an arrangement of trust with regard to the delivery of items such as produce, i.e., one may loan the money in advance with the agreement that he will be repaid with produce at a later date, but one may not make an arrangement of trust with regard to money, i.e., one may not loan the money in advance with the agreement that he will receive the value of the produce at a later date, as this has the appearance of collecting interest. And Rabbi Yannai says: What difference is it to me if the agreement concerned the produce, and what difference is it to me if it concerned the produce鈥檚 value? Just as the lender can take the produce and sell it himself, he can likewise accept the value of the produce directly.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻讜诇诐 讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 诪讜转专 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖诪砖讱 讗讬 讘砖诪砖讱 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讬讞讚 诇讜 拽专谉 讝讜讬转

The Gemara raises an objection against Rav鈥檚 opinion from the above baraita: With regard to all of them, if the borrower has the items in his possession, it is permitted, apparently even if he actually pays with something else. Rav Huna says that Rav says: That baraita is stated with regard to a case where the lender pulled the produce itself, thereby performing an act of acquisition. The Gemara questions Rav Huna鈥檚 statement: If he pulled the produce, does it need to be said? After all, there was a proper act of acquisition. Rather, the baraita is discussing a case where the borrower designated a corner for the lender in which to place the produce that he acquired. For the purposes of this halakha, such an action is sufficient.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 爪讚 讗讞讚 讘专讘讬转 诪讜转专

And Shmuel said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita, which permits the practice if the borrower is in possession of such produce? It is in accordance with that of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that uncertain interest, a transaction that may or may not result in the payment of interest, is permitted. Rabbi Yehuda holds that if at the time of the loan it was not certain that the agreement would result in the paying of interest, then even if it is so that if specific circumstances were to develop there would be interest paid according to the agreement, the transaction is permitted.

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 讜注砖讛 诇讜 砖讚讛讜 诪讻专 讘讝诪谉 砖讛诪讜讻专 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 诪讜转专 诇讜拽讞 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讗住讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讝诪谉 砖讛诇讜拽讞 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 诪讜转专

As it is taught in a baraita: If one was owed one hundred dinars by another, and the borrower performed a sale of his field for him in order to repay the one hundred dinars, if they agreed that the seller, i.e., the borrower, consumes the produce of the field until the debt is repaid, this is certainly permitted, but if the buyer, i.e., the lender, consumes the produce, it is prohibited, as he is in effect taking the produce as interest while awaiting the payment that he is owed. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the buyer consumes the produce, it is permitted.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘讘讬转讜住 讘谉 讝讜谞讬谉 砖注砖讛 砖讚讛讜 诪讻专 注诇 驻讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讜诇讜拽讞 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讛讬讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 诪讜讻专 讗讜讻诇 驻专讜转 讛讬讛 讜诇讗 诇讜拽讞

The tanna relates: Rabbi Yehuda said to the Sages: An incident occurred involving Baitos ben Zunin, who performed a sale of his field on the basis of a directive from Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and that was a case where the buyer consumed the produce. The Sages said to the tanna: Will you bring a proof from there? The reverse was the case: It was the seller, not the buyer, who consumed the produce.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 爪讚 讗讞讚 讘专讘讬转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬转 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛讞讝讬专 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: What is the difference in opinion between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda? Abaye said: The difference between them concerns the halakha of uncertain interest. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, if it is uncertain that a transaction will ultimately involve the payment of interest, it is permitted. Rava said: The difference between them involves the status of interest taken on the condition that it be given back. Rava maintains that Rabbi Yehuda did not mean that the lender can consume the produce without payment, as he must repay the amount he ate if the borrower pays off his debt. The first tanna rules that since the sale is not yet final, his consumption of the produce constitutes interest.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬

Rava said: Now that Rabbi Yannai is saying

诪讛 诇讬 讛谉 讜诪讛 诇讬 讚诪讬讛谉 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讛 诇讬 讚诪讬讛谉 讜诪讛 诇讬 讛谉 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讜驻讜住拽讬谉 注诇 砖注专 砖讘砖讜拽 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜

that we say: What difference is it to me if he referred to the produce, and what difference is it to me if he referred to the produce鈥檚 value, meaning that we do not require the payment to be in the form of the produce stipulated, we therefore also say: What difference is it to me if he referred to the produce鈥檚 value, and what difference is it to me if he referred to the produce, and therefore one may set a price by the market rate. And this is permitted even though he does not have produce at the present moment. Since he could purchase it if he wished it is considered as though he had the produce in his possession, and therefore one may make an agreement with another to provide him with produce at a later date in accordance with the current price.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘讗 讻讜诇诐 讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 诪讜转专 讗诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗住讜专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛转诐 讛诇讜讗讛 讛讻讗 讝讘讬谞讬

Rav Pappa, and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raised an objection to the opinion of Rava from the aforementioned baraita, which explicitly teaches: With regard to all of them, if he has the produce in his possession, the transaction is permitted, and if he does not have it, the transaction is prohibited. Rava said to them: The tanna there is referring to a transaction for the repayment of the debt conducted after a loan has been given but before it has been repaid, whereas here Rabbi Yannai is dealing with an actual sale, without any loan at all, and therefore there is no interest involved.

专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专讜 专讘谞谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 注诇 砖注专 砖讘砖讜拽 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖拽讬诇讗 讟讬讘讜转讬讱 讜砖讚讬讬讗 讗讞讬讝专讬 诪讗讬 讗讛谞讬转 诇讬 讗讬 讛讜讜 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讘讬讚讬 讛讜讛 诪讝讘谞讬谞讗 讘讛讬谞讬 讜讘砖讬诇讬 讘讝讜诇讗

Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: What is the reason that the Sages said one may set a price by the market rate and that one may do so even though he does not have the produce in his possession? Because the buyer says to the seller: Your favor is taken and thrown on the thorns. In other words, I am deriving no benefit from my transaction with you, as how have you helped me? If I had money in my hands I would buy the produce myself in the towns of Hini and Shili, nearby market towns, at an inexpensive price. Consequently, the acquisition of produce at the current market rate is of no benefit to him.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诪讜转专 诇诇讜转 住讗讛 讘住讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖拽讬诇讗 讟讬讘讜转讬讱 讜砖讚讬讬讗 讗讞讬讝专讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讟讬 讚拽讚讞讬 讘讗讻诇讘讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讛诇讜讗讛 讛讻讗 讝讘讬谞讬

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But if that is so, according to this same logic it should be permitted to lend a se鈥檃 of produce for a se鈥檃 of the same produce, as the lender can say to the borrower: Your favor is taken and thrown on the thorns, since he says to him: I stand to gain nothing from the se鈥檃 you will later give me, as the price of my wheat would increase if it were to remain in my granary, and therefore the loan does not benefit me at all, for will the wheat burn in my warehouse [be鈥檃kalbai]? Rav Yosef said to him: The two cases are different, as there it is referring to a loan, and consequently there is a concern about interest, whereas here it is a sale.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转讘 讝讜讝讬 诇住驻住讬专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚拽讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讝讜讝讬 讚讗讬谞砖讬 讗讬谞讛讜 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 住驻住讬专讜转讬讛

Adda bar Abba said to Rava: But with regard to establishing the repayment of the loan upon produce valued at the market rate, the buyer does stand to gain from the agreement, as, if he would have to go to acquire produce elsewhere, he would have to give a dinar to a broker, and therefore he gains a dinar from the early payment. Rava said to him: The case is one where the buyer also gives the seller the broker鈥檚 fee. Rav Ashi said: There is generally no need to add this fee, as a person鈥檚 dinars serve as a broker for him. One who has ready cash has no need for the services of a broker.

专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 讗转专注讗 讞专讬驻讗 爪专讬讱 诇讗讬转讞讝讜讬讬 诇讘讬 讚专讬

搂 The Gemara addresses a related issue. Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: One who gives money in advance to purchase produce at the advance price that is in effect shortly after the harvest but before the market price is set must present himself at the granary when the seller is threshing his produce.

诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇诪拽谞讗 讛讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 讗讬 诇拽讘讜诇讬 注诇讬讛 诪讬 砖驻专注 讻讬 诇讗 诪讬转讞讝讬 谞诪讬 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讛 诪讬 砖驻专注

The Gemara asks: For what reason is he required to be there? If it is in order to acquire the produce, he does not acquire it by merely being present there, as the acquisition is not completed until he pulls the actual produce. And if it is in order for the seller to accept upon himself, in the event that he reneges on the transaction, the curse of: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the people of the generation of the dispersion, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement (see 44a), even if the buyer does not present himself there the seller also accepts upon himself the curse of: He Who exacted payment. This curse is in effect for anyone who reneges on a transaction after the money has been paid.

诇注讜诇诐 诇拽讘讜诇讬 注诇讬讛 诪讬 砖驻专注 讜诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 讗转专注讗 [讞专讬驻讗] 诇讘讬 转专讬 转诇转讗 讬讛讬讘 讗讬 诪讬转讞讝讬 诇讬讛 住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚讗砖讻讞转 驻讬专讬 讚砖驻讬专讬 诪讚讬讚讬 讜砖拽诇转

The Gemara explains: Actually, the reason he must go to the granary is for the seller to accept upon himself the curse of: He Who exacted payment, for the following reason: One who gives money in advance to purchase produce at the advance price gives it to two or three different sellers, in order to ensure that he will collect a profit. Consequently, if he presents himself to the seller when he is threshing his produce, the seller relies upon him, as he knows the transaction will proceed. But if the buyer does not present himself to the seller when he is threshing his produce, the seller could say to him: I said to myself that you must have found better produce than mine, and you took that produce. Since the seller is unsure if the transaction will be completed, he may change his mind and sell to a different buyer.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 诪住诪讱 讚注转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讘砖讜拽讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讛

Rav Ashi said: Now that you have said that the reason is due to the seller鈥檚 relying upon him, it can be concluded that the buyer does not have to go to the seller鈥檚 granary in order to convince him that he intends to uphold the transaction. Rather, even if the buyer finds the seller in the marketplace and says to him that he will not retract his offer to buy the produce, the seller will likewise rely upon him.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻诇诇讗 讚专讬讘讬转讗 讻诇 讗讙专 谞讟专 诇讬讛 讗住讜专 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 诇拽讬专讗讛 讜拽讗 讗讝诇讬 讗专讘注 讗专讘注 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讱 讞诪砖 讞诪砖 讗讬转谞讛讜 讙讘讬讛 砖专讬 诇讬转谞讛讜 讙讘讬讛 讗住讜专

Rav Na岣an said: The principle with regard to the halakhot of interest is: Any payment for his waiting, meaning any additional sum added in consideration of the fact that the lender delays claiming his money, is forbidden. And Rav Na岣an also said: In the case of this one who gives money to a wax seller to purchase loaves of wax from him, and loaves of wax go at the current rate of one dinar for four loaves, and the seller said to him: I will give you wax in the future at the rate of five loaves for each dinar if you pay me now in advance, if the seller has wax with him at the time of the transaction, it is permitted to sell at a discounted rate because he is in need of cash. But if the seller does not have wax with him, it is forbidden, as the extra loaf given is interest.

驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗砖专讗讬 讘诪转讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗砖专讗讬 讘诪转讗 讻注讚 砖讬讘讗 讘谞讬 讗讜 注讚 砖讗诪爪讗 诪驻转讞 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讞住专讬 讙讜讘讬讬谞讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讬转谞讛讜 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? It is clearly interest. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for a case where the seller has credit in the town, and therefore he could receive wax from others. It is necessary lest you say: Since he has credit in the town and could receive wax now, this should be similar to a case where he said: Give me produce until my son comes, or: Until I find the key, and therefore it is permitted to give him money, as this is not considered a loan (see 75a). Rav Na岣an therefore teaches us that since the loaves of wax still lack collection, i.e., the seller does not actually own them, they are considered as though they were not in existence, which means the reduction in price is classified as interest.

讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讜讝讬祝 驻砖讬讟讬 诪讞讘专讬讛 讜讗砖讻讞 讘讬讛 讟讜驻讬讬谞讗 讗讬 讘讻讚讬 砖讛讚注转 讟讜注讛 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诇讗讛讚讜专讬讛 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 诪转谞讛 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛

And Rav Na岣an said: In the case of this one who borrowed coins from another, and when he later counted them he found an additional amount of money, above the sum they had agreed upon, if the addition was within the range that a person can make a mistake, the assumption is that the lender erred in his calculation, and therefore the borrower is obligated to return the extra coins to him. But if not, if the difference was so large that it could not have been the result of a simple mistake, it must only be that the lender has given him a gift.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讘讻讚讬 砖讛讚注转 讟讜注讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝

The Gemara inquires: What are the circumstances where the additional amount would be within the range that one can make a mistake? Rav A岣, son of Rav Yosef, said:

Scroll To Top