Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in loving memory of Joan Behrmann a”h, beloved mother of our friend and co-learner Marcy Behrmann Farrell. “Marcy’s passion for truth and equity has deep roots, and we daven that our learning will serve as a merit for the entire family. המקום ינחם אותם בתוך שאר אבלי ציון וירושלים.”
After two failed attempts at understanding the case in the Mishna where interest is forbidden by rabbinic law, Rava brings an explanation according to Rabbi Oshaya’s braita and according to Rabbi Yannai’s opinion – that one can turn a loan of money into a loan of produce. If the borrower has the item in his/her possession, even if the price goes up, there is no concern for interest. Rav disagrees with Rabbi Yannai and holds that one cannot turn a loan for an item into the value of that item and return the value in money as it appears like interest. How can Rav explain the braita of Rabbi Oshaya per his opinion? Two explanations are given – either the braita is referring to a case where the borrower designated a corner and placed the produce there or 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 is permitted, as perhaps maybe prices will stay the same or go down and the lender will not receive more. Rava infers from Rabbi Yannai’s position why it is permitted to pay in advance for produce and receive it later, even if the seller does not have it yet in his/her possession. Since the seller has the money and could potentially buy produce with that money, it is considered as if the seller has the produce. This, however, would only work in a sale, not a loan. Rabba and Rav Yosef give a different reason why this kind of sale works even if the price goes up and the buyer will receive produce later at a higher value. The benefit of receiving produce at a higher value is not a benefit as the buyer can say, “If I hadn’t given the money to the seller (to receive the produce at a later date), I could have bought the produce from a different seller at the time and they would have increased in value in my possession.” Two difficulties are raised with Rabba and Rav Yosef. Why wouldn’t this argument permit loaning a seah of grain for a seah of grain? Isn’t it a benefit to the buyer that there was no extra payment for a middleman? Both difficulties are resolved. Rabba and Rav Yosef require a buyer who pays in advance to receive produce later, at the current rate, to meet the seller on the threshing floor. For what purpose? Rav Nachman teaches that any case of getting payment for waiting is considered interest and he brings an example of one who discounts a price for receiving the money upfront. This would be permitted only if the seller has the items in his/her possession.
