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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 29, 2016 | 讻状讞 讘诪专讞砖讜谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Metzia 64

Further discussions relating to whether or not something has the appearance of interest.

讘注讬砖讜专讬讬转讗 讜讞讜诪砖讬讬转讗

For example, if the money was given in units of tens or fives, it can be assumed that the owner of the money counted the coins in groups of tens or fives and erred in his count.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗讬 讗讬谞讬砖 转拽讬驻讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诪转谞讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇诪讗 诪讬讙讝诇 讙讝诇讬讛 讜讗讘诇注 诇讬讛 讘讞砖讘讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 讛讙讜讝诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讘诇讬注 诇讜 讘讞砖讘讜谉 讬爪讗

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: And if the one who gave the money is a harsh person, who is not accustomed to giving gifts, what is the halakha? Should it be assumed that he made a mistake? Rav Ashi said to him: Perhaps that person once robbed the recipient, and now he included in the calculation the amount he stole, in order to return the stolen money without informing him of the theft. As it is taught in a baraita: One who robs another and then returns the stolen money by including it in the calculation of money paid for another item has fulfilled his obligation to return the stolen money.

讜讗讬 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讗转讬 诪注诇诪讗 讚诇讗 砖拽讬诇 讜讟专讬 讘讛讚讬讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇诪讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讙讝诇讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 讬讝讬祝 驻诇讜谞讬 驻砖讬讟讬 诪讬谞讱 讗讘诇注 诇讬讛 讘讞砖讘讜谉

Rav A岣, son of Rava, asked Rav Ashi: And if the giver was a person from the outside, with whom the recipient had never conducted business, what is the halakha? Should it be assumed that the additional money was given in error? Rav Ashi said to him: Perhaps another person, an acquaintance of the giver鈥檚, robbed the recipient and said to the giver: When so-and-so borrows money from you, include it in the calculation. It is possible that the one who robbed the recipient chose this manner of restoring the latter鈥檚 money in order to be spared any shame.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘谞讗 讘砖讬诇讛讬 驻专拽讬 讚专讘 讜砖诪注讬转 讚拽讗诪专 拽专讬 拽专讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讘转专 讚拽诐 专讘 讗诪专讬 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 拽专讬 拽专讬 讚拽讗诪专 专讘

Rav Kahana said: I was sitting at the far end of Rav鈥檚 house of study, and I heard him say: Gourds, gourds, but I did not know what he was saying, as I did not hear the entire discussion. After Rav arose and left, I said to the students: What is this statement concerning gourds, gourds, that Rav was saying?

讗诪专讜 诇讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 诇讙讬谞讗讛 讗拽专讬 讜拽讗 讗讝诇讬 注砖专讛 拽专讬 讘谞讬 讝专转讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讛讘讬谞讗 诇讱 讘谞讬 讙专诪讬讚讗 讗讬转谞讛讜 砖专讬 诇讬转谞讛讜 讗住讜专

They said to me: This is what Rav was saying: If someone gave money to a gardener to purchase gourds from him, and they were going for the price of ten gourds of the length of a span, i.e., the distance between the thumb and the little finger, for a dinar, and the gardener said to the buyer: If you pay me the money now, I will give you gourds a cubit in length at a later point in time, the halakha depends on the circumstances. If gourds of this larger kind are in the possession of the seller, this type of sale is permitted. If they are not in his possession, it is prohibited, as, if he gives him larger gourds at a later date for the price of small gourds, this constitutes interest.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪诪讬诇讗 拽讗 专讘讜 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? What is the novelty in Rav鈥檚 statement? The Gemara answers: The statement is necessary, lest you say: Since they increase in and of themselves it is permitted, as the gardener does not perform any action, but simply waits for the gourds to grow larger before supplying them. Rav therefore teaches us that this is also classified as interest.

讻诪讗谉 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讛讜诇讱 诇讞诇讜讘 讗转 注讝讬讜 讜诇讙讝讜讝 讗转 专讞诇讬讜 讜诇专讚讜转 讗转 讻讜讜专转讜 诪爪讗讜 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 诪讛 砖注讝讬 讞讜诇讘讜转 诪讻讜专 诇讱 诪讛 砖专讞诇讬 讙讜讝讝讜转 诪讻讜专 诇讱 诪讛 砖讻讜讜专转讬 专讜讚讛 诪讻讜专 诇讱 诪讜转专

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rav rule? He ruled in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who went to milk his goats, or shear his sheep, or extract the honey from his hives, if another found him and the farmer said to him: Whatever milk my goats produce is sold to you, or whatever wool will be sheared from my sheep is sold to you, or whatever honey will be extracted from my hive is sold to you, this is permitted. It is permitted despite the fact that the farmer did not specify precisely how much he is selling, and the buyer may receive more of the product than the current market value would dictate due to his paying for it in advance, as he may also receive less of the product than the current market value would dictate.

讗讘诇 讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 诪讛 砖注讝讬 讞讜诇讘讜转 讻讱 讜讻讱 诪讻讜专 诇讱 诪讛 砖专讞诇讬 讙讜讝讝讜转 讻讱 讜讻讱 诪讻讜专 诇讱 诪讛 砖讻讜讜专转讬 专讜讚讛 讻讱 讜讻讱 诪讻讜专 诇讱 讗住讜专 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪诪讬诇讗 拽讗 专讘讜 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转谞讛讜 讘讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 讗住讜专

The baraita continues: But if the farmer said to him: Such and such an amount of milk from what my goats produce is sold to you, or such and such an amount of wool from what will be sheared from my sheep is sold to you, or such and such an amount of honey from what will be extracted from my hive is sold to you, a transaction of this kind is prohibited, as the farmer is selling him more of the product than the current market value would dictate due to his paying for it in advance. The Gemara states its question: And one sees in this baraita that even though these products increased in value in and of themselves, since they are not in existence at the time of the sale, the practice is forbidden.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪诪讬诇讗 拽讗 专讘讜 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻讱 讜讻讱 讗住讜专

The Gemara records another version of this discussion: There are those who say that Rava said: The halakha is that since the sold items grow by themselves it is permitted, as it does not constitute interest. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that if he specifies: Such and such an amount, it is forbidden?

讛转诐 诇讗讜 诪讬谞讬讛 拽讗 专讘讜 讚砖拽诇讬 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 讜讗转讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 讘讚讜讻转讬讛 讛讻讗 诪讬谞讬讛 拽讗 专讘讜 讚讻讬 砖拽诇讬 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 诇讗 讗转讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 讘讚讜讻转讬讛

The Gemara answers that there is a difference between the two cases: There, with regard to milk and wool, they do not increase in and of themselves. This is evident from the fact that if they remove this milk from the goat, other milk replaces it. Therefore, the milk or wool that is generated after the sale is not an extension of the milk or wool that was present at the time of the sale. Conversely, here, in the case of the gourds, they increase in and of themselves, as the same gourds continue to grow. This is evident from the fact that when they remove this gourd from the ground, no other will replace it. Consequently, if he sells him gourds now, any additional growth belongs to the buyer, as the gourds are in his possession from the moment of acquisition.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖专讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讬谞讬砖 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讛讬诇讱 讗专讘注讛 讝讜讝讬 讗讞讘讬转讗 讚讞诪专讗 讗讬 转拽驻讛 讘专砖讜转讱 讗讬 讬拽专讗 讗讬 讝讬诇讗 讘专砖讜转讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖专讘讬讗 诇讗讘讬讬

Abaye said: It is permitted for a person to say to another: Take these four dinars for the future delivery of a barrel of wine; if it sours, it is in your possession and you are responsible, but if it appreciates or depreciates in value, it is in my possession, as I accept any loss that results from a change in price. Rav Sherevya said to Abaye:

讛讗讬 拽专讜讘 诇砖讻专 讜专讞讜拽 诇讛驻住讚 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讛 讝讜诇讗 拽专讜讘 诇讝讛 讜诇讝讛 讛讜讗

This transaction is close to a gain and far from a loss for the seller, as he accepts upon himself the risk that the wine may go sour. An arrangement of this sort constitutes interest by rabbinic law. Abaye said to him: Since the buyer accepts upon himself the potential loss if the price depreciates, it is considered a transaction that is close to both this and that, as there is the possibility of both gain and loss. The transaction is therefore permitted.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 讬讚讜专 讘讞爪专讜 讞谞诐 讜诇讗 讬砖讻讜专 诪诪谞讜 讘驻讞讜转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 专讘讬转

MISHNA: One who lends another money may not reside in the borrower鈥檚 courtyard free of charge, nor may he rent living quarters from him at less than the going rate, because this is interest. The benefit he receives from living on the borrower鈥檚 property constitutes the equivalent of an additional payment as interest on the loan.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讛讚专 讘讞爪专 讞讘讬专讜 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讜 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 讛诇讜讛讜 讜讚专 讘讞爪讬专讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 讬讚讜专 讘讞爪讬专讜 讞谞诐 讜诇讗 讬砖讻讜专 诪诪谞讜 讘驻讞讜转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 专讘讬转

GEMARA: Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Na岣an says: Even though the Sages said that one who resides in another鈥檚 courtyard without his knowledge does not have to pay him rent if the owner of the courtyard does not suffer any loss from the arrangement, nevertheless, if he lent money to the owner of a courtyard and then resides in his courtyard, the lender must pay him rent. The Gemara poses a question: What is Rav Na岣an teaching us by this statement? We learn this explicitly in the mishna: One who lends money to another may not reside in the borrower鈥檚 courtyard free of charge, nor may he rent living quarters from him at less than the going rate, because this is interest.

讗讬 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讞爪专 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇讗讙专讗 讜讙讘专讗 讚注讘讬讚 诇诪讬讙专 讗讘诇 讞爪专 讚诇讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇讗讙专讗 讜讙讘专讗 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 诇诪讬讙专 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara refutes this claim: If this halakha is learned from the mishna alone, I would say that this matter applies only to a situation with a courtyard that stands to be rented out and a man who usually rents a place of residence that would otherwise need to find a place to reside. But with regard to a courtyard that does not stand to be rented out and a man who does not usually rent a place of residence, as he has another place where he could reside, the owner of the courtyard appears to have lost nothing and the resident appears to have gained nothing, so you might say that he should not have to pay at all. Rav Na岣an therefore teaches us that even in that case he must pay rent in order to prevent the appearance of interest.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讛讚专 讘讞爪专 讞讘讬专讜 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讜 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 讛诇讜讬谞讬 讜讚讜专 讘讞爪专讬 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专

There are those who say a different version of this discussion: Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Na岣an says: Even though the Sages said that one who resides in another鈥檚 courtyard without his knowledge does not have to pay him rent, if the courtyard owner says to another: Lend me money and you may reside in my courtyard, the lender must pay him rent.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讜讛讜 讻诇 砖讻谉 讛诇讜讬谞讬 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讜讬谞讬 讗讘诇 讛诇讜讛讜 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讗 讚讛讻讬 讗讜讝驻讬讛 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

The Gemara analyzes the difference between the two versions. According to the one who said that the lender must pay rent to the courtyard owner if he lent him money without the courtyard owner鈥檚 stipulating any conditions, all the more so would he hold that the lender must pay rent to the courtyard owner if the courtyard owner explicitly stated: Lend me money and you may reside in my courtyard, as this indicates a condition obligating the borrower to pay interest. According to the one who said that the arrangement is forbidden if he says: Lend me money and you may reside in my courtyard, it is forbidden only in such a case. But if he merely lent him money without any stipulation about the courtyard, it is not forbidden. What is the reason for the more lenient ruling? Since initially he did not lend him the money with this intention, we have no problem with it, as it is possible that there is no connection between the loan and his residing in the courtyard.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 转拽讬祝 注讘讚讬 讚讗讬谞砖讬 讚诪住讬拽 讘讛讜 讝讜讝讬 讜注讘讬讚 讘讛讜 注讘讬讚转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讬讚 诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讻专讘 谞讞诪谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注讘讚讗 谞讛讜诐 讻专讬住讬讛 诇讗 砖讜讬

The Gemara relates: Rav Yosef bar 岣ma, Rava鈥檚 father, would seize the slaves of people who owed him money, and he would work them against the will of their owners. Rava, son of Rav Yosef bar 岣ma, said to him: What is the reason that the Master does this, i.e., seizes and uses these slaves? Rav Yosef bar 岣ma said to him: I maintain that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, as Rav Na岣an said: A slave is not worth even the bread in his stomach. When the slaves work for me and eat in my home, I am not causing the owners any monetary loss.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讜专 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗专讬 注讘讚讬讛 讚诪专拽讬讚 讘讬 讻讜讘讬 注讘讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 诪讬 讗诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讚谞讬讗诇 讘专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讚讗诪专 讛转讜拽祝 注讘讚讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜注砖讛 讘讜 诪诇讗讻讛 驻讟讜专

Rava said to him: I will say that Rav Na岣an said this with regard to specific slaves, such as his slave Dari, who only dances among the wine barrels [khuvei] and does not perform any labor. Did he say this concerning other slaves? All other slaves perform labor, and their labor is worth more than their board. His father said to him: I maintain that the halakha is in accordance with this statement said by Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina that Rav says, as he says: One who seizes another鈥檚 slave and has him perform labor is exempt from paying the master for the labor of the slave,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 64

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 64

讘注讬砖讜专讬讬转讗 讜讞讜诪砖讬讬转讗

For example, if the money was given in units of tens or fives, it can be assumed that the owner of the money counted the coins in groups of tens or fives and erred in his count.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗讬 讗讬谞讬砖 转拽讬驻讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诪转谞讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇诪讗 诪讬讙讝诇 讙讝诇讬讛 讜讗讘诇注 诇讬讛 讘讞砖讘讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 讛讙讜讝诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讘诇讬注 诇讜 讘讞砖讘讜谉 讬爪讗

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: And if the one who gave the money is a harsh person, who is not accustomed to giving gifts, what is the halakha? Should it be assumed that he made a mistake? Rav Ashi said to him: Perhaps that person once robbed the recipient, and now he included in the calculation the amount he stole, in order to return the stolen money without informing him of the theft. As it is taught in a baraita: One who robs another and then returns the stolen money by including it in the calculation of money paid for another item has fulfilled his obligation to return the stolen money.

讜讗讬 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讗转讬 诪注诇诪讗 讚诇讗 砖拽讬诇 讜讟专讬 讘讛讚讬讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇诪讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讙讝诇讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 讬讝讬祝 驻诇讜谞讬 驻砖讬讟讬 诪讬谞讱 讗讘诇注 诇讬讛 讘讞砖讘讜谉

Rav A岣, son of Rava, asked Rav Ashi: And if the giver was a person from the outside, with whom the recipient had never conducted business, what is the halakha? Should it be assumed that the additional money was given in error? Rav Ashi said to him: Perhaps another person, an acquaintance of the giver鈥檚, robbed the recipient and said to the giver: When so-and-so borrows money from you, include it in the calculation. It is possible that the one who robbed the recipient chose this manner of restoring the latter鈥檚 money in order to be spared any shame.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘谞讗 讘砖讬诇讛讬 驻专拽讬 讚专讘 讜砖诪注讬转 讚拽讗诪专 拽专讬 拽专讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讘转专 讚拽诐 专讘 讗诪专讬 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 拽专讬 拽专讬 讚拽讗诪专 专讘

Rav Kahana said: I was sitting at the far end of Rav鈥檚 house of study, and I heard him say: Gourds, gourds, but I did not know what he was saying, as I did not hear the entire discussion. After Rav arose and left, I said to the students: What is this statement concerning gourds, gourds, that Rav was saying?

讗诪专讜 诇讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 诇讙讬谞讗讛 讗拽专讬 讜拽讗 讗讝诇讬 注砖专讛 拽专讬 讘谞讬 讝专转讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讛讘讬谞讗 诇讱 讘谞讬 讙专诪讬讚讗 讗讬转谞讛讜 砖专讬 诇讬转谞讛讜 讗住讜专

They said to me: This is what Rav was saying: If someone gave money to a gardener to purchase gourds from him, and they were going for the price of ten gourds of the length of a span, i.e., the distance between the thumb and the little finger, for a dinar, and the gardener said to the buyer: If you pay me the money now, I will give you gourds a cubit in length at a later point in time, the halakha depends on the circumstances. If gourds of this larger kind are in the possession of the seller, this type of sale is permitted. If they are not in his possession, it is prohibited, as, if he gives him larger gourds at a later date for the price of small gourds, this constitutes interest.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪诪讬诇讗 拽讗 专讘讜 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? What is the novelty in Rav鈥檚 statement? The Gemara answers: The statement is necessary, lest you say: Since they increase in and of themselves it is permitted, as the gardener does not perform any action, but simply waits for the gourds to grow larger before supplying them. Rav therefore teaches us that this is also classified as interest.

讻诪讗谉 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讛讜诇讱 诇讞诇讜讘 讗转 注讝讬讜 讜诇讙讝讜讝 讗转 专讞诇讬讜 讜诇专讚讜转 讗转 讻讜讜专转讜 诪爪讗讜 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 诪讛 砖注讝讬 讞讜诇讘讜转 诪讻讜专 诇讱 诪讛 砖专讞诇讬 讙讜讝讝讜转 诪讻讜专 诇讱 诪讛 砖讻讜讜专转讬 专讜讚讛 诪讻讜专 诇讱 诪讜转专

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rav rule? He ruled in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who went to milk his goats, or shear his sheep, or extract the honey from his hives, if another found him and the farmer said to him: Whatever milk my goats produce is sold to you, or whatever wool will be sheared from my sheep is sold to you, or whatever honey will be extracted from my hive is sold to you, this is permitted. It is permitted despite the fact that the farmer did not specify precisely how much he is selling, and the buyer may receive more of the product than the current market value would dictate due to his paying for it in advance, as he may also receive less of the product than the current market value would dictate.

讗讘诇 讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 诪讛 砖注讝讬 讞讜诇讘讜转 讻讱 讜讻讱 诪讻讜专 诇讱 诪讛 砖专讞诇讬 讙讜讝讝讜转 讻讱 讜讻讱 诪讻讜专 诇讱 诪讛 砖讻讜讜专转讬 专讜讚讛 讻讱 讜讻讱 诪讻讜专 诇讱 讗住讜专 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪诪讬诇讗 拽讗 专讘讜 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转谞讛讜 讘讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 讗住讜专

The baraita continues: But if the farmer said to him: Such and such an amount of milk from what my goats produce is sold to you, or such and such an amount of wool from what will be sheared from my sheep is sold to you, or such and such an amount of honey from what will be extracted from my hive is sold to you, a transaction of this kind is prohibited, as the farmer is selling him more of the product than the current market value would dictate due to his paying for it in advance. The Gemara states its question: And one sees in this baraita that even though these products increased in value in and of themselves, since they are not in existence at the time of the sale, the practice is forbidden.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪诪讬诇讗 拽讗 专讘讜 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻讱 讜讻讱 讗住讜专

The Gemara records another version of this discussion: There are those who say that Rava said: The halakha is that since the sold items grow by themselves it is permitted, as it does not constitute interest. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that if he specifies: Such and such an amount, it is forbidden?

讛转诐 诇讗讜 诪讬谞讬讛 拽讗 专讘讜 讚砖拽诇讬 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 讜讗转讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 讘讚讜讻转讬讛 讛讻讗 诪讬谞讬讛 拽讗 专讘讜 讚讻讬 砖拽诇讬 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 诇讗 讗转讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 讘讚讜讻转讬讛

The Gemara answers that there is a difference between the two cases: There, with regard to milk and wool, they do not increase in and of themselves. This is evident from the fact that if they remove this milk from the goat, other milk replaces it. Therefore, the milk or wool that is generated after the sale is not an extension of the milk or wool that was present at the time of the sale. Conversely, here, in the case of the gourds, they increase in and of themselves, as the same gourds continue to grow. This is evident from the fact that when they remove this gourd from the ground, no other will replace it. Consequently, if he sells him gourds now, any additional growth belongs to the buyer, as the gourds are in his possession from the moment of acquisition.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖专讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讬谞讬砖 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讛讬诇讱 讗专讘注讛 讝讜讝讬 讗讞讘讬转讗 讚讞诪专讗 讗讬 转拽驻讛 讘专砖讜转讱 讗讬 讬拽专讗 讗讬 讝讬诇讗 讘专砖讜转讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖专讘讬讗 诇讗讘讬讬

Abaye said: It is permitted for a person to say to another: Take these four dinars for the future delivery of a barrel of wine; if it sours, it is in your possession and you are responsible, but if it appreciates or depreciates in value, it is in my possession, as I accept any loss that results from a change in price. Rav Sherevya said to Abaye:

讛讗讬 拽专讜讘 诇砖讻专 讜专讞讜拽 诇讛驻住讚 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讛 讝讜诇讗 拽专讜讘 诇讝讛 讜诇讝讛 讛讜讗

This transaction is close to a gain and far from a loss for the seller, as he accepts upon himself the risk that the wine may go sour. An arrangement of this sort constitutes interest by rabbinic law. Abaye said to him: Since the buyer accepts upon himself the potential loss if the price depreciates, it is considered a transaction that is close to both this and that, as there is the possibility of both gain and loss. The transaction is therefore permitted.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 讬讚讜专 讘讞爪专讜 讞谞诐 讜诇讗 讬砖讻讜专 诪诪谞讜 讘驻讞讜转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 专讘讬转

MISHNA: One who lends another money may not reside in the borrower鈥檚 courtyard free of charge, nor may he rent living quarters from him at less than the going rate, because this is interest. The benefit he receives from living on the borrower鈥檚 property constitutes the equivalent of an additional payment as interest on the loan.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讛讚专 讘讞爪专 讞讘讬专讜 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讜 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 讛诇讜讛讜 讜讚专 讘讞爪讬专讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 讬讚讜专 讘讞爪讬专讜 讞谞诐 讜诇讗 讬砖讻讜专 诪诪谞讜 讘驻讞讜转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 专讘讬转

GEMARA: Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Na岣an says: Even though the Sages said that one who resides in another鈥檚 courtyard without his knowledge does not have to pay him rent if the owner of the courtyard does not suffer any loss from the arrangement, nevertheless, if he lent money to the owner of a courtyard and then resides in his courtyard, the lender must pay him rent. The Gemara poses a question: What is Rav Na岣an teaching us by this statement? We learn this explicitly in the mishna: One who lends money to another may not reside in the borrower鈥檚 courtyard free of charge, nor may he rent living quarters from him at less than the going rate, because this is interest.

讗讬 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讞爪专 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇讗讙专讗 讜讙讘专讗 讚注讘讬讚 诇诪讬讙专 讗讘诇 讞爪专 讚诇讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇讗讙专讗 讜讙讘专讗 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 诇诪讬讙专 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara refutes this claim: If this halakha is learned from the mishna alone, I would say that this matter applies only to a situation with a courtyard that stands to be rented out and a man who usually rents a place of residence that would otherwise need to find a place to reside. But with regard to a courtyard that does not stand to be rented out and a man who does not usually rent a place of residence, as he has another place where he could reside, the owner of the courtyard appears to have lost nothing and the resident appears to have gained nothing, so you might say that he should not have to pay at all. Rav Na岣an therefore teaches us that even in that case he must pay rent in order to prevent the appearance of interest.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讛讚专 讘讞爪专 讞讘讬专讜 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讜 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 讛诇讜讬谞讬 讜讚讜专 讘讞爪专讬 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专

There are those who say a different version of this discussion: Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Na岣an says: Even though the Sages said that one who resides in another鈥檚 courtyard without his knowledge does not have to pay him rent, if the courtyard owner says to another: Lend me money and you may reside in my courtyard, the lender must pay him rent.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讜讛讜 讻诇 砖讻谉 讛诇讜讬谞讬 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讜讬谞讬 讗讘诇 讛诇讜讛讜 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讗 讚讛讻讬 讗讜讝驻讬讛 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

The Gemara analyzes the difference between the two versions. According to the one who said that the lender must pay rent to the courtyard owner if he lent him money without the courtyard owner鈥檚 stipulating any conditions, all the more so would he hold that the lender must pay rent to the courtyard owner if the courtyard owner explicitly stated: Lend me money and you may reside in my courtyard, as this indicates a condition obligating the borrower to pay interest. According to the one who said that the arrangement is forbidden if he says: Lend me money and you may reside in my courtyard, it is forbidden only in such a case. But if he merely lent him money without any stipulation about the courtyard, it is not forbidden. What is the reason for the more lenient ruling? Since initially he did not lend him the money with this intention, we have no problem with it, as it is possible that there is no connection between the loan and his residing in the courtyard.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 转拽讬祝 注讘讚讬 讚讗讬谞砖讬 讚诪住讬拽 讘讛讜 讝讜讝讬 讜注讘讬讚 讘讛讜 注讘讬讚转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讬讚 诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讻专讘 谞讞诪谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注讘讚讗 谞讛讜诐 讻专讬住讬讛 诇讗 砖讜讬

The Gemara relates: Rav Yosef bar 岣ma, Rava鈥檚 father, would seize the slaves of people who owed him money, and he would work them against the will of their owners. Rava, son of Rav Yosef bar 岣ma, said to him: What is the reason that the Master does this, i.e., seizes and uses these slaves? Rav Yosef bar 岣ma said to him: I maintain that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, as Rav Na岣an said: A slave is not worth even the bread in his stomach. When the slaves work for me and eat in my home, I am not causing the owners any monetary loss.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讜专 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗专讬 注讘讚讬讛 讚诪专拽讬讚 讘讬 讻讜讘讬 注讘讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 诪讬 讗诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讚谞讬讗诇 讘专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讚讗诪专 讛转讜拽祝 注讘讚讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜注砖讛 讘讜 诪诇讗讻讛 驻讟讜专

Rava said to him: I will say that Rav Na岣an said this with regard to specific slaves, such as his slave Dari, who only dances among the wine barrels [khuvei] and does not perform any labor. Did he say this concerning other slaves? All other slaves perform labor, and their labor is worth more than their board. His father said to him: I maintain that the halakha is in accordance with this statement said by Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina that Rav says, as he says: One who seizes another鈥檚 slave and has him perform labor is exempt from paying the master for the labor of the slave,

Scroll To Top