Bava Metzia 65
דְּנִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּלָא נִסְתְּרֵי עַבְדֵּיהּ.
as it is satisfactory for the master that the work habits of his slave not be undone.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא מַסֵּיק בֵּיהּ זוּזֵי. מָר כֵּיוָן דְּמַסֵּיק בְּהוּ זוּזֵי מִחֲזֵי כְּרִבִּית. דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַדָּר בַּחֲצַר חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַעֲלוֹת לוֹ שָׂכָר. הִלְוָהוּ וְדָר בַּחֲצֵירוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַעֲלוֹת לוֹ שָׂכָר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲדַרִי בִּי.
Rava said to him: This statement of Rav Daniel applies when the one who seizes the slave is not owed money by the owner of the slave. But since the Master is owed money by the owner of the slave, this has the appearance of interest, as Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says: Even though the Sages said that one who resides in another’s courtyard without his knowledge does not have to pay him rent, nevertheless, if he lent a courtyard owner money and then resides in his courtyard, the lender must pay him rent. Rav Yosef bar Ḥama said to him: I retract my opinion, and I will no longer seize the slaves of my debtors.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַאי מַאן דְּמַסֵּיק זוּזֵי דְרִיבִּיתָא בְּחַבְרֵיהּ וְקָא אָזְלִי חִטֵּי אַרְבְּעָה גְּרִיוֵי בְּזוּזָא בְּשׁוּקָא, וְיָהֵיב לֵיהּ אִיהוּ חַמְשָׁה, כִּי מַפְּקִינַן מִינֵּיהּ – אַרְבְּעָה מַפְּקִינַן מִינֵּיהּ. אִידַּךְ – אוֹזוֹלֵי הוּא דְּקָא מוֹזֵיל גַּבֵּיהּ. רָבָא אָמַר: חַמְשָׁה מַפְּקִינַן מִינֵּיהּ, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא בְּתוֹרַת רִיבִּיתָא אֲתַאי לִידֵיהּ.
§ Abaye said: In the case of this one, who was owed a dinar of interest by another, and wheat was going for the price of four se’a [gerivei] for a dinar in the market, and the borrower gave the lender five se’a of wheat as the interest payment, when we, the court, remove the interest the lender took from the borrower, we remove only four se’a, worth one dinar, from the lender. As the other, additional se’a is a discount he granted him, it is merely a favor, not counted as part of the interest. Rava said: We take all five se’a from him, as all of the wheat initially came into his possession in the form of interest, and therefore it is all classified as interest.
וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַאי מַאן דְּמַסֵּיק אַרְבְּעָה זוּזֵי דְרִיבִּיתָא בְּחַבְרֵיהּ וְיָהֵיב לֵיהּ גְּלִימָא בְּגַוַּיְיהוּ, כִּי מַפְּקִינַן מִינֵּיהּ – אַרְבְּעָה מַפְּקִינַן מִינֵּיהּ, גְּלִימָא לָא מַפְּקִינַן מִינֵּיהּ. רָבָא אָמַר: גְּלִימָא מַפְּקִינַן מִינֵּיהּ. מַאי טַעְמָא, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לֵימְרוּ: גְּלִימָא דִּמְכַסֵּי וְקָאֵי – גְּלִימָא דְרִיבִּיתָא הוּא.
And Abaye said: In the case of this one, who was owed four dinars of interest by another, and the borrower gave him a cloak as payment for it, when we take the interest from the lender we take four dinars from him, but we do not take the actual cloak from him, as the giving of the cloak is considered a sale. Rava said: We take the cloak from him. What is the reason for this? So that people should not say that the cloak so-and-so is wearing is a cloak procured as interest.
אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי מַאן דְּמַסֵּיק תְּרֵיסַר זוּזֵי דְּרִיבִּיתָא בְּחַבְרֵיהּ וְאֹגַר לֵיהּ חָצֵר דְּמִתַּגְרָא בְּעַשְׂרָה וְאוֹגְרַיהּ נִהֲלֵיהּ בִּתְרֵיסַר, כִּי מַפְּקִינַן מִינֵּיהּ – תְּרֵיסַר מַפְּקִינַן מִינֵּיהּ.
Rava further said: Consider the case of this one, who was owed twelve dinars of interest by another, and the lender rented a courtyard from the borrower that was generally rented for ten dinars, but he rented it to him with the price inflated to twelve dinars. The borrower agreed to forgo the entire rental payment, thereby effectively repaying the twelve dinars of interest. When we take the interest from the lender we take twelve dinars from him to pay for the rental, as this was the amount of interest he is considered to have collected from him.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ, כִּי (אַגְרָא) [אֲגַרִי] הָכִי – דַּהֲוָה קָא מִשְׁתָּרְשִׁי לִי, הַשְׁתָּא דְּלָא מִשְׁתָּרְשִׁי לִי – כִּדְאָגְרִי כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא הוּא דְּאָגַרְנָא, מִשּׁוּם דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: סְבַרְתְּ וְקַבֵּלְתְּ.
Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: But let the lender say to the borrower: If I were to rent it now, I would pay not twelve dinars, but only ten. As when I rented it from you at the higher price it was because I profited from it by not having to pay for it, but now that I am not profiting, I will rent it as everyone else rents, for ten. The Gemara responds: This claim is rejected, as we say to him: You considered and willingly accepted it for the price of twelve dinars.
מַתְנִי׳ מַרְבִּין עַל הַשָּׂכָר וְאֵין מַרְבִּין עַל הַמֶּכֶר. כֵּיצַד? הִשְׂכִּיר לוֹ אֶת חֲצֵרוֹ, וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״אִם מֵעַכְשָׁיו אַתָּה נוֹתֵן לִי – הֲרֵי הוּא לְךָ בְּעֶשֶׂר סְלָעִים לַשָּׁנָה, וְאִם שֶׁל חוֹדֶשׁ בַּחוֹדֶשׁ – סֶלַע לַחוֹדֶשׁ״, מוּתָּר. מָכַר לוֹ אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ, וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״אִם מֵעַכְשָׁיו אַתָּה נוֹתֵן לִי – הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁלְּךָ בְּאֶלֶף זוּז, אִם לַגּוֹרֶן – בִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מָנֶה״, אָסוּר.
MISHNA: One may increase the price of rent to be received at a later date instead of at an earlier one, but one may not similarly increase the price of a sale. How so? If a courtyard owner rented his courtyard to a renter, and the owner said to the renter: If you give me the payment now, the rental is yours for ten sela a year, but if you pay on a monthly basis it will cost a sela for each month, equaling twelve sela a year. Such a practice is permitted, despite the fact that he charges more for a monthly payment. If a field owner sold his field to a buyer and said to him: If you give me the payment now, it is yours for one thousand dinars, but if you wait and pay me at the time of the harvest, it is yours for twelve hundred dinars, this transaction is prohibited as interest.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא? רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: שְׂכִירוּת אֵינָהּ מִשְׁתַּלֶּמֶת אֶלָּא בַּסּוֹף, וְהַאי כֵּיוָן דְּלָא מְטָא זִמְנֵיהּ לְמִיגְבֵּא – לָאו אֲגַר נְטַר לֵיהּ, מִשְׁווֹא הוּא דְּהָכִי שָׁוְיָא, וְהַאי דְּקָאָמַר לֵיהּ ״אִם מֵעַכְשָׁיו אַתָּה נוֹתֵן לִי הֲרֵי הוּא לְךָ בְּעֶשֶׂר סְלָעִים לְשָׁנָה״ – אוֹזוֹלֵי הוּא דְּקָא מוֹזֵיל גַּבֵּיהּ.
GEMARA: The Gemara poses a question: What is different in the first clause of the mishna, and what is different in the latter clause? Why is the additional charge for later payment permitted in the case of rent but prohibited in the case of a sale? Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: The halakha is that the obligation to pay a rental fee is incurred only at the end of the rental period, and therefore, in this case, since its time to be claimed had not yet arrived at the beginning of the rental, the early payment is not considered payment for waiting. Rather, the opposite is the case: This higher price is the value it is worth, and that which he says to him: If you give me payment now it is yours for ten sela a year, is a discount that he offers him for the early payment, and therefore it is not interest.
סֵיפָא: כֵּיוָן דִּזְבִינֵי נִינְהוּ וּבָעֵי לְמִשְׁקַל דְּמֵי מֵעַכְשָׁיו, הִלְכָּךְ אֲגַר נְטַר לֵיהּ הוּא, וְאָסוּר. אָמַר רָבָא: דָּקוּ בַּהּ רַבָּנַן בְּהָא מִילְּתָא וְאוֹקְמוּהָ אַקְּרָא: ״כִּשְׂכִיר שָׁנָה בְּשָׁנָה״, שְׂכִירוּת שֶׁל שָׁנָה זוֹ אֵינָהּ מִשְׁתַּלֶּמֶת אֶלָּא בְּשָׁנָה אַחֶרֶת.
By contrast, in the latter clause, since it is a sale, and the owner of the field wants to take the money from now, if he agrees to a later payment at a higher price, this is therefore considered payment for waiting, and it is forbidden. Rava said: The Sages examined this matter closely and established that this halakha is derived from the verse that states: “Like a hired laborer, year by year” (Leviticus 25:53). It is derived from this verse that the obligation to pay the rental fee of this year is incurred only in the following year.
וְאִם לַגּוֹרֶן בִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מָנֶה – אָסוּר. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: טַרְשָׁא שְׁרֵי.
§ The mishna teaches: If the field owner said: But if you wait and pay me at the time of the harvest, the field is yours for twelve hundred dinars, this is prohibited. Rav Naḥman said: Tacit interest [tarsha] is permitted. In other words, one may make a contract for a sale with a later payment date at an increased price, as long as he does not specify that the higher price is due to the delay but merely states a price and a date.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא לְרַב נַחְמָן, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: וְאִם לַגּוֹרֶן בִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מָנֶה – אָסוּר! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם – קַץ לֵיהּ, הָכָא – לָא קַץ לֵיהּ.
Rami bar Ḥama raised an objection to Rav Naḥman, and some say it was Rav Ukva bar Ḥama who raised the objection to Rav Naḥman: The mishna states: But if you wait and pay me at the time of the harvest, the field is yours for twelve hundred dinars, this is prohibited. Rav Naḥman said to him: There is a difference between the two cases. There, in the case of the mishna, he fixed the price for him as interest, as he explicitly stated that there was an additional cost for a later payment, whereas here, in the case concerning which I stated my ruling, he did not fix it for him as interest, but merely quoted a higher price.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: טַרְשָׁא דִּידִי שְׁרֵי, מַאי טַעְמָא – שִׁכְרַאי לָא פָּסֵיד, זוּזֵי לָא צְרִיכְנָא, אֲנָא הוּא דְּקָא עָבֵידְנָא מִילְּתָא גַּבֵּי לוֹקֵחַ.
Rav Pappa said: My tacit interest arrangement that I offer customers, where I sell my liquor at the times when the market price is low and agree to have the buyer pay me for it later on when the market price is higher, is permitted. What is the reason for this? My liquor would not be lost were I to store it for a while, and I do not need money at the present time. I could therefore simply hold it to sell at a higher price later. I sell it early because it is I who am performing a beneficial matter for the customer, by selling it to him earlier without demanding immediate payment, and this is not interest.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי לְרַב פָּפָּא: מַאי חָזֵי מָר דְּקָא אָזְלַתְּ בָּתַר דִּידָךְ? זִיל בָּתַר דִּידְהוּ, דְּאִילּוּ הֲווֹ לְהוּ זוּזֵי – הֲווֹ שָׁקְלִי כִּי הַשְׁתָּא, הַשְׁתָּא דְּלֵית לְהוּ זוּזֵי – שָׁקְלִי כְּיוּקְרָא דִּלְקַמֵּיהּ!
Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said to Rav Pappa: What does the Master see to indicate that you should follow yourself, i.e., consider this matter from your perspective, and therefore conclude that it is permitted because you are not earning interest? You could equally follow their side, and consider the matter from the perspective of your customers, as, if they had money available they would buy liquor at the current price, but now that they have no money available they buy it in accordance with the future, more expensive rate. Consequently, they are actually paying interest in exchange for the delay in payment. Rav Pappa did not respond.
אָמַר רַב חָמָא: טַרְשָׁא דִּידִי וַדַּאי שְׁרֵי.
Rav Ḥama said: My tacit interest arrangement is certainly permitted. He would contract to sell merchandise in a location where its price was low while setting the price according to the more expensive rate in effect in a different location. Those who would purchase the merchandise from him would then take the merchandise to the other location to sell at the highest price, while Rav Ḥama would accept upon himself a certain measure of responsibility for the risks incurred during transport. This deal is considered a sales partnership, not interest.
מַאי טַעְמָא – נִיחָא לְהוּ דְּלֵיקוּ בִּרְשׁוּתִי, דְּכֹל הֵיכָא דְּקָא אָזְלִי – שָׁבְקִי לְהוּ מִכְסָא (וּנְקוּט) [וְנָקְטִי] לְהוּ שׁוּקָא.
What is the reason for this? Rav Ḥama said: It is convenient for them that the merchandise remains established in my domain, as anywhere that they go, the authorities leave them alone with regard to taxes and other people maintain the market for these sellers. The merchants selling Rav Ḥama’s wares received preferential treatment, as Rav Ḥama was a scholar from the house of the Exilarch, whose members would receive assistance from all. The higher price they paid was in consideration for these advantages; it was not payment for waiting.
וְהִלְכְתָא כְּרַב חָמָא, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי, דְּאָמַר: מָה לִי הֵן וּמָה לִי דְּמֵיהֶן.
The Gemara summarizes the rulings in a number of the cases discussed above: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥama, that his type of tacit interest agreement is permitted. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, that fixed interest can be reclaimed in court. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yannai, who 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’s value? In other words, if one gave an item or money to another as payment of his loan, this is considered a sale without interest.
מַתְנִי׳ מָכַר לוֹ אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה, וְנָתַן לוֹ מִקְצָת דָּמִים, וְאָמַר לוֹ: אֵימָתַי שֶׁתִּרְצֶה הָבֵא מָעוֹת וְטוֹל אֶת שֶׁלְּךָ – אָסוּר. הִלְוָהוּ עַל שָׂדֵהוּ, וְאָמַר לוֹ: אִם אִי אַתָּה נוֹתֵן לִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים – הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁלִּי, הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁלּוֹ. וְכָךְ הָיָה בַּיְתוֹס בֶּן זוֹנִין עוֹשֶׂה עַל פִּי חֲכָמִים.
MISHNA: If one sold another a field and the buyer gave him some of the money, and the seller said to him: Whenever you wish, bring the outstanding money and take your field at that point, this is prohibited. If one lent money to another on the basis of the borrower’s field serving as a guarantee, and said to him: If you do not give me the money now and instead delay your payment from now until three years have passed, the field is mine, then after three years, the field is his. This is permitted even if the field is worth more than the amount of the loan. And this is what Baitos ben Zunin would do, with the consent of the Sages, when he lent money.
גְּמָ׳ מִי אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת? רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: מוֹכֵר אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת. רַב עָנָן אָמַר: מְשַׁלְּשִׁין אֶת הַפֵּירוֹת. וְלָא פְּלִיגִי. הָא דְּאָמַר: לְכִי מַיְיתֵית קְנִי. הָא דְּאָמַר: לְכִי מַיְיתֵית קְנִי מֵעַכְשָׁיו.
GEMARA: The ruling of the mishna is unclear, as it requires clarification: In a sale such as this, when the buyer has made only a partial payment, who enjoys the profits of this field in the interim period, until the entire transaction is complete? Rav Huna says: The seller enjoys the profits until he receives the full payment, while Rav Anan says: In the meantime they deposit the profits in escrow with a third party until the transaction is finalized. The Gemara comments: And Rav Huna and Rav Anan do not disagree. This one is referring to a case where the seller says: When you bring all the money you will acquire the field, whereas that one is referring to a case where he says at the time of the transaction: When you bring all the money you will acquire it from now.
תָּנֵי רַב סָפְרָא בְּרִבִּית דְּבֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: פְּעָמִים שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם מוּתָּרִין, פְּעָמִים שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם אֲסוּרִין, וּפְעָמִים שֶׁהַמּוֹכֵר מוּתָּר וְלוֹקֵחַ אָסוּר, וּפְעָמִים שֶׁהַלּוֹקֵחַ מוּתָּר וּמוֹכֵר אָסוּר.
The Gemara relates: Rav Safra taught the following halakhot of interest as a baraita of the school of Rabbi Ḥiyya: Sometimes they are both permitted to enjoy the profits of the field, as this does not constitute interest at all; sometimes they are both prohibited from doing so. And sometimes it is permitted for the seller to enjoy the profits of the field but it is prohibited for the buyer to do so; and sometimes it is permitted for the buyer to enjoy the profits of the field and it is prohibited for the seller to do so.
עָנֵי רָבָא בָּתְרֵיהּ: פְּעָמִים שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם מוּתָּרִין, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: קְנִי כְּשִׁיעוּר זוּזָךְ. פְּעָמִים שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם אֲסוּרִין, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: לְכִי מַיְיתֵית קְנִי מֵעַכְשָׁיו.
When Rav Safra taught this baraita, Rava answered after him, in explanation: Sometimes they are both permitted to benefit from the field. For example, if the seller said to him: Acquire the field for yourself in accordance with the measure of your money, he effectively acquires the field incrementally in small portions, which is certainly permitted. Sometimes they are both prohibited from benefiting from the field. For example, if the seller said to him: When you bring the money you will acquire it all from now, if the seller enjoys the profits until the remainder of the money is paid, he has clearly taken interest. If the buyer does not make the final payment, the field will remain the property of the seller and his partial payment will be returned, and the field will be considered a loan given to the seller. If the buyer enjoys the profits of the field in the interim, he will have taken interest.
פְּעָמִים מוֹכֵר מוּתָּר וְלוֹקֵחַ אָסוּר, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: לְכִי מַיְיתֵית קְנִי. פְּעָמִים שֶׁהַלּוֹקֵחַ מוּתָּר וּמוֹכֵר אָסוּר, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: קְנִי מֵעַכְשָׁיו וְזוּזַאי לִהְווֹ הַלְוָאָה גַּבָּךְ.
Rava continues: Sometimes the seller is permitted to benefit from the field and the buyer is prohibited from benefiting from it, i.e., the transaction is considered interest from the perspective of the buyer but not the seller. For example, if the seller said to him: When you bring the money you will acquire the field. And sometimes the buyer is permitted to benefit from the field and the seller is prohibited from benefiting from it. For example, if the seller said to him: Acquire it from now, and the money you still owe me will be considered a loan in your possession. In this case, if the seller enjoys the profits he benefits from the extended payment of the loan.
מַאן תָּנָא שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲסוּרִין? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. דְּאִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָאָמַר: צַד אֶחָד בְּרִבִּית – מוּתָּר.
The Gemara poses a question: Who is the tanna who taught that they are both prohibited from benefiting from the field if he says: When you bring the money you will acquire it from now? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says that the opinion of this tanna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, doesn’t Rabbi Yehuda say that uncertain interest is permitted? In this case as well, it is uncertain whether the arrangement will result in the payment of interest, as it depends on whether or not the rest of the payment is given.
מִשְׁכֵּן לוֹ בַּיִת, מִשְׁכֵּן לוֹ שָׂדֶה, וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״לִכְשֶׁתִּרְצֶה לְמוֹכְרָם – לֹא תִּמְכְּרֵם אֶלָּא לִי בַּדָּמִים הַלָּלוּ״ – אָסוּר. ״בְּשׇׁוְיֵיהֶן״ – מוּתָּר.
§ It is taught in a baraita: If a borrower pledged a house to the lender or pledged a field to him as a guarantee for the loan, and the lender said to the borrower: When you want to sell the house or the field, you must sell them only to me for this specified monetary value, it is prohibited, as the selling of the field for a low price is considered interest paid in exchange for the granting of the loan. But if he said: You must sell them to me according to their value at the time of the sale, this is permitted.
מַאן תַּנָּא ״בַּדָּמִים הַלָּלוּ״ אָסוּר? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָאָמַר: צַד אֶחָד בְּרִבִּית – מוּתָּר.
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that if he said: You must sell them only to me for this specified monetary value, it is prohibited? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, doesn’t Rabbi Yehuda say that uncertain interest is permitted? The interest in this case is uncertain, as there is no guarantee that the sale will ever be implemented.
מָכַר לוֹ בַּיִת, מָכַר לוֹ שָׂדֶה, וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״לִכְשֶׁיִּהְיוּ לִי מָעוֹת הַחְזִירֵם לִי״ – אָסוּר. ״לִכְשֶׁיִּהְיוּ לְךָ מָעוֹת אַחֲזִירֵם לָךְ״ – מוּתָּר. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. דְּאִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָאָמַר צַד אֶחָד בְּרִבִּית – מוּתָּר.
If one sold another a house or sold him a field, and said to the buyer: When I have money, give the property back to me in exchange for the return of the money that you paid for it, it is prohibited, as this transaction is essentially a loan, with the buyer enjoying the profits of the field in the interim. But if the buyer said to him of his own accord: When you have money I will return the property to you, this is permitted. The Gemara again asks: Who is the tanna who taught this ruling? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, doesn’t Rabbi Yehuda say that uncertain interest is permitted?
מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא? אָמַר רָבָא: רֵישָׁא – דְּלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ מִדַּעְתֵּיהּ. סֵיפָא – דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ מִדַּעְתֵּיהּ.
The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause and what is different in the latter clause? Why does it matter who stated the condition? Rava says: The first clause is referring to a situation where the seller did not tell the buyer that the decision to return the field will be of the buyer’s own accord, but made it a condition of the sale. Consequently, the seller always retains the option to return the money and recover his field, which means it was essentially a loan with the temporary use of the field serving as a substitute for interest. Conversely, in the latter clause, it is referring to a situation where the buyer said he would return the field of his own accord. Since the buyer can choose to keep the field, it is a proper sale.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּזַבֵּין לֵיהּ אַרְעָא לְחַבְרֵיהּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּאַחְרָיוּת, חַזְיֵיהּ דַּהֲוָה (קָא) עֲצִיב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַמַּאי עֲצִיבַתְּ? אִי טָרְפוּ לַהּ מִינָּךְ, מַגְבֵּינָא לָךְ שׁוּפְרָא, שְׁבָחָא, וּפֵירֵי.
§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who sold land to another without a guarantee that if the field is repossessed, the seller will compensate the buyer for his loss. He observed that the buyer was distressed, as he was concerned that the field might have been designated as a pledge to a creditor and would be taken from him, which would cause him to lose his investment. The seller said to the buyer: Why are you distressed? If the creditor seizes the field from you, I will pay you from my best-quality land, and I will also provide compensation for your investment in the improvement of the field, and in addition, I will give you the value of any produce taken from you.
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר:
Later, the legal status of this promise was called into question. Ameimar said:
