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

Daf Yomi

May 6, 2024 | 讻状讞 讘谞讬住谉 转砖驻状讚

  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

Bava Metzia 68

Today’s daf is dedicated in commemoration of Yom HaShoah, in memory of all those who perished in the Holocaust.

Rava mentions three common business practices that he forbade due to usury concerns. What considerations should one bear in mind when entering into a profit-sharing investment arrangement with another individual to steer clear of usury? Besides both parties assuming responsibility for their respective roles, the investing party must compensate the other for their labor to prevent receiving undue benefit, akin to taking interest. How should this compensation be determined? There are various opinions on this matter.

拽讗 驻专讬拽 诇讛 讘讗专讘注讛 讝讜讝讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗


that he redeems it at four dinars a year, despite the fact that the produce is worth more? Here too, it is no different. Since he established the deduction of a fixed sum that he cannot be sure he will receive, the practice is permitted, even if he in fact profits from the arrangement.


讜诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讗诪专 诇讱 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讛拽讚砖 讛讬讗 讜专讞诪谞讗 讗讜拽诪讬讛 讗驻讚讬讜谉 讛讻讗 讛诇讜讗讛 讛讬讗 讜诪讬讞讝讬 讻专讘讬转


And the one who prohibits this arrangement could have said to you that the halakha with regard to an ancestral field is discussing consecrated property and the Merciful One established redemption for it, on the basis of which the Sages determined the full redemption. Here, by contrast, it is a loan, and therefore it has the appearance of interest.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬 住讘讬 讚诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 住转诐 诪砖讻谞转讗 砖转讗 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讬 讗讻讬诇 诇讛 砖转讗 诪爪讬 诪住诇拽 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪住诇拽 诇讬讛


Rav Ashi said: The elders of the town of Mata Me岣sya told me: An unspecified mortgage [mashkanta] is for a year. The Gemara poses a question: What is the practical difference resulting from this ruling? The Gemara explains: It means that if the lender consumed its produce for a year, the borrower can then remove him; but if not, the borrower cannot yet remove him, as an unspecified mortgage does not last less than this period of time.


讜讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬 住讘讬 讚诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讻谞转讗 讚砖讻讜谞讛 讙讘讬讛 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗


And Rav Ashi said: The elders of Mata Me岣sya told me: What is the meaning of the word mashkanta? It is referring to the fact that it resides [shekhuna] with him. The Gemara again asks: What is the practical difference resulting from his statement? The Gemara answers: It is relevant for the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor. Since the mortgaged field resides with him, it is considered his property to a certain extent, and therefore he is granted the right to purchase a neighboring field before an outside party does so.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 讻讟专砖讬 驻驻讜谞讗讬 讜诇讗 讻砖讟专讬 诪讞讜讝谞讗讬 讜诇讗 讻讞讻讬专讬 谞专砖讗讬


Rava said: The halakha is not in accordance with those who approve of the tacit interest agreement of Rav Pappa, nor in accordance with those who approve of the documents of Me岣za, nor in accordance with those who approve of the tenancies of Neresh.


讻讟专砖讬 驻驻讜谞讗讬 讻讟专砖讬 讚专讘 驻驻讗


The Gemara clarifies these statements: The halakha is not in accordance with those who approve of the tacit interest agreement of Rav Pappa; this is referring to the tacit interest agreement of Rav Pappa (65a). Rav Pappa would sell liquor and accept delayed payment at a higher price, and believed this to be permitted since he did not gain anything from the arrangement.


砖讟专讬 诪讞讜讝谞讗讬 讚讝拽驻讬 诇讬讛 诇专讜讜讞讗 讗拽专谞讗 讜讻转讘讬 诇讬讛 讘砖讟专讗 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚讛讜讛 专讜讜讞讗


What are the documents of Me岣za? In Me岣za they would lend money to someone for him to use in a joint business venture, and add the profits to the principal, as though the transaction were already completed, and they would write the full sum owed, including the lender鈥檚 share of the profits, in the document. The reason it is prohibited to do this is that who says there will be any profit? It is possible that the borrower will suffer a loss or earn less than expected, and he will eventually be paying interest if he pays the full amount recorded in the document.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讘专 讗诪讬诪专 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗讘讗 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讜讻讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 诪讛讬诪谉 诇讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讬谞讞 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讗讬 砖讻讬讘 讜谞驻诇 砖讟专讗 拽诪讬 讬转诪讬 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讻砖讙讙讛 砖讬爪讗 诪诇驻谞讬 讛砖诇讬讟 讜谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讚讗诪讬诪专


Mar, son of Ameimar, said to Rav Ashi: Father would do so, i.e., he would add the profits to the sum of the loan contract, and when they came before him and told him they had not earned enough profit he would believe them and reduce the debt to the amount they had actually earned. Rav Ashi said to him: This works out well while the lender is still here, but if he dies and the document comes before the orphans, what would happen in that case? Unaware that profits have been added to the document, the orphans would demand the entire sum, which would constitute interest. The Gemara comments: This innocent observation of Rav Ashi鈥檚 was 鈥渓ike an error that proceeds from a ruler鈥 (Ecclesiastes 10:5), and Ameimar died shortly afterward.


讞讻讬专讬 谞专砖讗讬 讚讻转讘讬 讛讻讬 诪砖讻谉 诇讬讛 驻诇谞讬讗 讗专注讬讛 诇驻诇谞讬讗 讜讛讚专 讞讻专讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬诪转 拽谞讗讛 讚讗拽谞讬讬讛 谞讛诇讬讛


The Gemara addresses the final ruling. What are the tenancies of Neresh? In the town of Neresh they would write a document in this manner: So-and-so has mortgaged his land to so-and-so, and the borrower then went and leased it back from him for a fee that was added to the payment of the loan. This transaction is problematic. When did the lender acquire it, such that he can subsequently transfer it back to the borrower? As he is not the actual owner of the field, the money for the lease is actually payment for the delay in repaying the loan, and therefore this arrangement is considered interest.


讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚拽讗 讻转讘讬 讛讻讬 拽谞讬谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜砖讛讬谞讗 讻诪讛 注讬讚谞讬 讜讛讚专 讞讻专讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转谞注讜诇 讚诇转 讘驻谞讬 诇讜讜讬谉 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讜诇讗讜 诪诇转讗 讛讬讗


The Gemara comments: And nowadays, when we write a document in this manner: We acquired the property from him and we waited a while and then the borrower went and leased it back for such and such a price, a formula that states that the lender has acquired the field and may now lease it to others, which is utilized so as not to lock the door in the face of potential borrowers, it is permitted, as it does not have the appearance of a loan with interest. The Gemara concludes: But this is not correct, as even if the field is in his possession, since he has not acquired it properly, it is considered interest.


诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诪讜砖讬讘讬谉 讞谞讜谞讬 诇诪讞爪讬转 砖讻专 讜诇讗 讬转谉 诪注讜转 诇讬拽讞 讘讛谉 驻讬专讜转 诇诪讞爪讬转 砖讻专 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专讜 讻驻讜注诇


MISHNA: One may not establish a deal with a storekeeper for half the profits. It is prohibited for one to provide a storekeeper with produce for him to sell in his store, with half the profits going to the lender. In such an arrangement, the storekeeper himself is responsible for half of any loss from the venture, effectively rendering half of the produce as a loan to the storekeeper. The lender remains responsible for the other half of any loss, and the storekeeper provides a service by selling his produce for him. This service, if provided free of charge, is viewed as interest paid for the loan, and is prohibited. And similarly, one may not give a storekeeper money with which to acquire produce for the storekeeper to sell for half the profits. These activities are both prohibited unless the owner gives the storekeeper his wages as a salaried laborer hired to sell the produce, after which they can divide the remaining profits.


讗讬谉 诪讜砖讬讘讬谉 转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 诇诪讞爪讛 讜讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 注讙诇讬谉 讜住讬讬讞讬谉 诇诪讞爪讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专 注诪诇讜 讜诪讝讜谞讜


One may not give eggs to another to place chickens on them in exchange for half the profits, and one may not appraise calves or foals for another to raise them for half the profits. These activities are both prohibited unless the owner gives the other wages for his toil and the cost of the food he gives to the animals in his temporary care. All this applies when the lender establishes a fixed minimum profit he insists on receiving regardless of what happens to the animals.


讗讘诇 诪拽讘诇讬谉 注讙诇讬谉 讜住讬讬讞讬谉 诇诪讞爪讛 讜诪讙讚诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 注讚 砖讬讛讜 诪砖讜诇砖讬谉 讜讞诪讜专 注讚 砖转讛讗 讟讜注谞转


But one may accept calves or foals to raise as a joint venture for half of the earnings, with one side providing the animals and taking full responsibility for losses, and the other providing the work and the sustenance, and the one raising them may raise them until they reach one-third of their maturation, at which point they are sold and the profits shared. And with regard to a donkey, it can be raised in this manner until it is large enough to bear a load.


讙诪壮 转谞讗 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇 诪讗讬 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇


GEMARA: The Sages taught: When the mishna states that the owner must pay the manager of the venture as a salaried laborer, it means he must pay him as an idle laborer. The Gemara poses a question: What does it mean to pay someone as an idle laborer?


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇 砖诇 讗讜转讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讚讘讟诇 诪讬谞讛


Abaye says: It means that he is paid as a laborer who is idle from that typical labor of his from which he is kept idle. In other words, he must receive the amount of money that an individual would be willing to accept to refrain from his current occupation and engage in an easier task.


讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 转谞讗 讞谞讜谞讬 讞谞讜谞讬 讛讜讗 讚住讙讬 诇讬讛 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖 讟专讞讬讛 讗讘诇 诪注讜转 诇讬拽讞 讘讛谉 驻讬专讜转 讚谞驻讬砖 讟专讞讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇


The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the tanna to teach us both halakhot, that of a storekeeper who was given produce to sell as well as one who was given money to buy the produce. As had he taught only the halakha of a storekeeper who receives produce to sell, I would say that it is specifically a storekeeper for whom it is enough to receive his wages as an idle laborer, because his toil is not great, as the produce is already prepared and he merely has to sell it. But in the case of one who was given money with which to acquire produce, whose toil is great, as he must find the produce in the market and bring it back to his store, I might say that it is not sufficient for him to be paid as an idle laborer.


讜讗讬 转谞讗 诪注讜转 诇讬拽讞 讘讛谉 驻讬专讜转 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇 诪砖讜诐 讚谞驻讬砖 讟专讞讬讛 讗讘诇 讞谞讜谞讬 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖 讟专讞讬讛 讗讬诪讗 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘诪砖讛讜 讘注诇诪讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讟讘诇 注诪讜 讗诇讗 讘爪讬专 讜诇讗 讗讻诇 注诪讜 讗诇讗 讙专讜讙专转 讗讞转 讝讛讜 砖讻专讜 爪专讬讻讗


And conversely, had the tanna taught only the halakha of one who receives money with which to acquire produce, I would say it is in the case there that he requires payment as an idle laborer, because his toil is great, but with regard to a storekeeper, whose toil is not great, I would say that any amount is enough for him; that, for example, even if the one providing the produce only immersed his bread in brine with the storekeeper, or only ate one dried fig with him, this is sufficient to count as his wages, i.e., providing the bit of brine or a fig is sufficient to account for the storekeeper鈥檚 labor. It was therefore necessary for this halakha to be stated with regard to both cases.


(讻诪讛 注讬讝讬 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 诪注诇讬谉 住讬诪谉)


搂 Parenthetically, the Gemara lists the terms: How many goats, and chickens, we add; this constitutes a mnemonic device for the following discussions.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诪讛 讛讜讗 砖讻专讜 讘讬谉 诪专讜讘讛 讜讘讬谉 诪讜注讟 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讟讘诇 注诪讜 讗诇讗 讘爪讬专 讜诇讗 讗讻诇 注诪讜 讗诇讗 讙专讜讙专转 讗讞转 讝讛讜 砖讻专讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专讜 诪砖诇诐


The mishna teaches that one may not enter into a joint venture with a storekeeper unless he gives him his wages. The Sages taught in a baraita: How much is his wage? What is the minimum amount he must be paid to avoid the prohibition of interest? It is permitted whether it is a lot or a little, in accordance with the agreement between them; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if he only immersed his bread in brine with him, or only ate one dried fig with him, this is sufficient for his wage. Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: He must give him his full wage, i.e., as a laborer.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 诇讗 讗转 讛注讝讬诐 讜诇讗 讗转 讛专讞诇讬诐 讜诇讗 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 讜讗讜讻诇 诇诪讞爪讛


The Sages taught: One may not appraise animals, i.e., one may not give his animals to someone else to raise after appraising their worth, in exchange for half the profits, neither goats, nor sheep, nor anything else that does not produce revenue while it eats. In other words, one may not enter into an agreement that any increase in value over and above the original appraisal of the animals will be shared between the owner and the one raising the animals. Since the animals do not produce revenue for the one raising them, his caring for the animal on behalf of the owner is tantamount to paying interest, as in the mishna.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诪讬谉 讗转 讛注讝讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讞讜诇讘讜转 讜讗转 讛专讞诇讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讙讜讝讝讜转 讜砖讜讟驻讜转 讜诪讜专讟讜转 讜讗转 讛转专谞讙讜诇转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 注讜砖讛 讜讗讜讻诇转


Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One may appraise goats for another to raise in this manner, because they produce milk, and one may appraise sheep for another to raise in this manner, because they are shorn for their wool, and they also have their wool removed when they are washed in water, and they are plucked of their wool by means of thorns, and the one who raises them can collect this wool. Consequently, the milk and wool generate revenue for the one raising them, and this can serve as a wage to avoid the prohibition of interest. And the same applies to a chicken, because it produces eggs while it eats.


讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讙讬讝讛 讜讞诇讘 诇讗 住驻拽 砖讻专 注诪诇讜 讜诪讝讜谞讜 讘讙讬讝讛 讜讞诇讘 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘谞住讬讜讘讬 讜转讜转专讬


The Gemara asks a question: And as for the first tanna, how does he respond to this claim? Does he claim that shearing and milk do not provide the payment of the wage for his toil and for the animal鈥檚 food? The Gemara answers: If the arrangement allows him to keep the sheared wool and milk, everyone agrees that this is sufficient to avoid the prohibition of interest. When they disagree, it is with regard to a case when he receives only the whey [benasyovi], i.e., the water left from the milk, and the pluckings [vetoteri] from the goats.


转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讚讗诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专讜 诪砖诇诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讟讘诇 注诪讜 讗诇讗 讘爪讬专 讜诇讗 讗讻诇 注诪讜 讗诇讗 讙专讜讙专转 讗讞转 讝讛讜 砖讻专讜


The Gemara clarifies the dispute: The first tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i, who says that he gives him his full wage. Since the value of the whey and pluckings is less than a full wage, his receiving them does not suffice to replace his wage. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds in accordance with the opinion of his father, who says that even if he only immersed his bread in brine with him, or only ate one dried fig with him, this is his wage, as there is no demand that his wages be commensurate with his toil.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪砖讉讻专转 讗砖讛 诇讞讘专转讛 转专谞讙讜诇转 讘砖谞讬 讗驻专讜讞讬谉 讗砖讛 砖讗诪专讛 诇讞讘专转讛 转专谞讙讜诇转 砖诇讬 讜讘讬爪讬诐 砖诇讬讻讬 讜讗谞讬 讜讗转 谞讞诇讜拽 讘讗驻专讜讞讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专


The Sages taught: A woman may rent out to another woman a chicken to sit on the eggs belonging to the renter in exchange for two of the chicks hatched from the eggs. But with regard to a woman who said to another: The chicken is mine and the eggs are yours, and you and I shall share the chicks, i.e., my chicken will sit on your eggs until they hatch, Rabbi Yehuda permits this practice, and Rabbi Shimon prohibits it. He holds that since the owner of the chicken is responsible for half of the loss to the eggs, therefore part of this venture is a loan. As she is not being paid for her efforts, it is considered interest.


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讘注讬 砖讻专 注诪诇讜 讜诪讝讜谞讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬爪讬诐 诪讜讝专讜转


The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda, does he not require one to pay at least a minimal amount of the wage for the toil of the one caring for the chicken and the chicken鈥檚 food? The Gemara answers: There are unfertilized eggs, from which no chicks will hatch. Such eggs are retained by the owner of the chicken, and therefore she does receive some benefit.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛注诇讜转 砖讻专 讻转祝 诇诪注讜转 诇讘讛诪讛 诪注诇讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪砖谞讬谉 诪诪谞讛讙 讛诪讚讬谞讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诪讬谉 注讙诇 注诐 讗诪讜 讜住讬讞 注诐 讗诪讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛注诇讜转 砖讻专 讻转祝 诇诪注讜转


The Sages taught: In a place where people are accustomed to add the wages of a porter for carrying a young animal on his shoulders to the money paid, the owner of the animal must add it to the overall sum, and one may not deviate from the regional custom. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may appraise a calf that grows up with its mother for another to raise, and a foal that grows up with its mother for another to raise, as part of a single venture and split the profits, but one does not add to the wages for his toil, and this applies even in a place where they have the custom to add the wages of a porter to the money paid.


讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讗 讘注讬 砖讻专 注诪诇讜 讜诪讝讜谞讜 讗讬讻讗 讙诇诇讬诐 讜讗讬讚讱 讙诇诇讬诐 讗驻拽讜专讬 诪驻拽讬专 诇讛讜


The Gemara asks: But as for Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, does he not require that one pay at least a minimal amount for the wage for the toil of the one caring for the animals and the animals鈥 food? The Gemara answers: There is the animals鈥 dung, which is of some benefit to the one who raises the animals. The Gemara asks: And how does the other Sage respond to this claim? The Gemara replies: He maintains that he declares the dung ownerless, as he does not consider this important enough to retain. Consequently, this does not qualify as compensation paid to the one raising the young animal.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇


Rav Na岣an said: With regard to these joint ventures involving animals, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda; and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.


讘谞讬 专讘 注讬诇讬砖 谞驻拽 注诇讬讬讛讜 讛讛讜讗 砖讟专讗 讚讛讜讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 驻诇讙讗 讘讗讙专 驻诇讙讗 讘讛驻住讚 讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘 注讬诇讬砖 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗讬谞砖讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 住驻讬 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 驻诇讙讗 讘讗讙专 转专讬 转讬诇转讬 讘讛驻住讚


The Gemara relates: A business document emerged concerning the sons of Rav Ilish, as it was a venture entered into by their late father, in which it was written that Rav Ilish and his partner will share one-half of the profit and one-half of the loss. Rava said: Rav Ilish was a great man, and therefore he would not feed people with something forbidden. In other words, he certainly would not have involved himself in a joint venture through which someone would have earned money by means of interest, and an arrangement of this kind appears to constitute interest. Consequently, no matter what, there must have been some mistake with regard to this document. If the actual condition stated that one party would receive one-half of the profit, the other party must have agreed to accept upon himself two-thirds of the loss,


  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Metzia 鈥 64-70 鈥 Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will continue exploring the laws of interest. A borrower can鈥檛 rent property from the lender at a...
talking talmud_square

Bava Metzia 68: Iska

Rav Ashi shares a halacha about pledged property from the sages of Mechoza and explains the root of the word...

Bava Metzia 68

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 68

拽讗 驻专讬拽 诇讛 讘讗专讘注讛 讝讜讝讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗


that he redeems it at four dinars a year, despite the fact that the produce is worth more? Here too, it is no different. Since he established the deduction of a fixed sum that he cannot be sure he will receive, the practice is permitted, even if he in fact profits from the arrangement.


讜诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讗诪专 诇讱 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讛拽讚砖 讛讬讗 讜专讞诪谞讗 讗讜拽诪讬讛 讗驻讚讬讜谉 讛讻讗 讛诇讜讗讛 讛讬讗 讜诪讬讞讝讬 讻专讘讬转


And the one who prohibits this arrangement could have said to you that the halakha with regard to an ancestral field is discussing consecrated property and the Merciful One established redemption for it, on the basis of which the Sages determined the full redemption. Here, by contrast, it is a loan, and therefore it has the appearance of interest.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬 住讘讬 讚诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 住转诐 诪砖讻谞转讗 砖转讗 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讬 讗讻讬诇 诇讛 砖转讗 诪爪讬 诪住诇拽 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪住诇拽 诇讬讛


Rav Ashi said: The elders of the town of Mata Me岣sya told me: An unspecified mortgage [mashkanta] is for a year. The Gemara poses a question: What is the practical difference resulting from this ruling? The Gemara explains: It means that if the lender consumed its produce for a year, the borrower can then remove him; but if not, the borrower cannot yet remove him, as an unspecified mortgage does not last less than this period of time.


讜讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬 住讘讬 讚诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讻谞转讗 讚砖讻讜谞讛 讙讘讬讛 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗


And Rav Ashi said: The elders of Mata Me岣sya told me: What is the meaning of the word mashkanta? It is referring to the fact that it resides [shekhuna] with him. The Gemara again asks: What is the practical difference resulting from his statement? The Gemara answers: It is relevant for the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor. Since the mortgaged field resides with him, it is considered his property to a certain extent, and therefore he is granted the right to purchase a neighboring field before an outside party does so.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 讻讟专砖讬 驻驻讜谞讗讬 讜诇讗 讻砖讟专讬 诪讞讜讝谞讗讬 讜诇讗 讻讞讻讬专讬 谞专砖讗讬


Rava said: The halakha is not in accordance with those who approve of the tacit interest agreement of Rav Pappa, nor in accordance with those who approve of the documents of Me岣za, nor in accordance with those who approve of the tenancies of Neresh.


讻讟专砖讬 驻驻讜谞讗讬 讻讟专砖讬 讚专讘 驻驻讗


The Gemara clarifies these statements: The halakha is not in accordance with those who approve of the tacit interest agreement of Rav Pappa; this is referring to the tacit interest agreement of Rav Pappa (65a). Rav Pappa would sell liquor and accept delayed payment at a higher price, and believed this to be permitted since he did not gain anything from the arrangement.


砖讟专讬 诪讞讜讝谞讗讬 讚讝拽驻讬 诇讬讛 诇专讜讜讞讗 讗拽专谞讗 讜讻转讘讬 诇讬讛 讘砖讟专讗 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚讛讜讛 专讜讜讞讗


What are the documents of Me岣za? In Me岣za they would lend money to someone for him to use in a joint business venture, and add the profits to the principal, as though the transaction were already completed, and they would write the full sum owed, including the lender鈥檚 share of the profits, in the document. The reason it is prohibited to do this is that who says there will be any profit? It is possible that the borrower will suffer a loss or earn less than expected, and he will eventually be paying interest if he pays the full amount recorded in the document.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讘专 讗诪讬诪专 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗讘讗 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讜讻讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 诪讛讬诪谉 诇讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讬谞讞 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讗讬 砖讻讬讘 讜谞驻诇 砖讟专讗 拽诪讬 讬转诪讬 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讻砖讙讙讛 砖讬爪讗 诪诇驻谞讬 讛砖诇讬讟 讜谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讚讗诪讬诪专


Mar, son of Ameimar, said to Rav Ashi: Father would do so, i.e., he would add the profits to the sum of the loan contract, and when they came before him and told him they had not earned enough profit he would believe them and reduce the debt to the amount they had actually earned. Rav Ashi said to him: This works out well while the lender is still here, but if he dies and the document comes before the orphans, what would happen in that case? Unaware that profits have been added to the document, the orphans would demand the entire sum, which would constitute interest. The Gemara comments: This innocent observation of Rav Ashi鈥檚 was 鈥渓ike an error that proceeds from a ruler鈥 (Ecclesiastes 10:5), and Ameimar died shortly afterward.


讞讻讬专讬 谞专砖讗讬 讚讻转讘讬 讛讻讬 诪砖讻谉 诇讬讛 驻诇谞讬讗 讗专注讬讛 诇驻诇谞讬讗 讜讛讚专 讞讻专讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬诪转 拽谞讗讛 讚讗拽谞讬讬讛 谞讛诇讬讛


The Gemara addresses the final ruling. What are the tenancies of Neresh? In the town of Neresh they would write a document in this manner: So-and-so has mortgaged his land to so-and-so, and the borrower then went and leased it back from him for a fee that was added to the payment of the loan. This transaction is problematic. When did the lender acquire it, such that he can subsequently transfer it back to the borrower? As he is not the actual owner of the field, the money for the lease is actually payment for the delay in repaying the loan, and therefore this arrangement is considered interest.


讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚拽讗 讻转讘讬 讛讻讬 拽谞讬谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜砖讛讬谞讗 讻诪讛 注讬讚谞讬 讜讛讚专 讞讻专讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转谞注讜诇 讚诇转 讘驻谞讬 诇讜讜讬谉 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讜诇讗讜 诪诇转讗 讛讬讗


The Gemara comments: And nowadays, when we write a document in this manner: We acquired the property from him and we waited a while and then the borrower went and leased it back for such and such a price, a formula that states that the lender has acquired the field and may now lease it to others, which is utilized so as not to lock the door in the face of potential borrowers, it is permitted, as it does not have the appearance of a loan with interest. The Gemara concludes: But this is not correct, as even if the field is in his possession, since he has not acquired it properly, it is considered interest.


诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诪讜砖讬讘讬谉 讞谞讜谞讬 诇诪讞爪讬转 砖讻专 讜诇讗 讬转谉 诪注讜转 诇讬拽讞 讘讛谉 驻讬专讜转 诇诪讞爪讬转 砖讻专 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专讜 讻驻讜注诇


MISHNA: One may not establish a deal with a storekeeper for half the profits. It is prohibited for one to provide a storekeeper with produce for him to sell in his store, with half the profits going to the lender. In such an arrangement, the storekeeper himself is responsible for half of any loss from the venture, effectively rendering half of the produce as a loan to the storekeeper. The lender remains responsible for the other half of any loss, and the storekeeper provides a service by selling his produce for him. This service, if provided free of charge, is viewed as interest paid for the loan, and is prohibited. And similarly, one may not give a storekeeper money with which to acquire produce for the storekeeper to sell for half the profits. These activities are both prohibited unless the owner gives the storekeeper his wages as a salaried laborer hired to sell the produce, after which they can divide the remaining profits.


讗讬谉 诪讜砖讬讘讬谉 转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 诇诪讞爪讛 讜讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 注讙诇讬谉 讜住讬讬讞讬谉 诇诪讞爪讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专 注诪诇讜 讜诪讝讜谞讜


One may not give eggs to another to place chickens on them in exchange for half the profits, and one may not appraise calves or foals for another to raise them for half the profits. These activities are both prohibited unless the owner gives the other wages for his toil and the cost of the food he gives to the animals in his temporary care. All this applies when the lender establishes a fixed minimum profit he insists on receiving regardless of what happens to the animals.


讗讘诇 诪拽讘诇讬谉 注讙诇讬谉 讜住讬讬讞讬谉 诇诪讞爪讛 讜诪讙讚诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 注讚 砖讬讛讜 诪砖讜诇砖讬谉 讜讞诪讜专 注讚 砖转讛讗 讟讜注谞转


But one may accept calves or foals to raise as a joint venture for half of the earnings, with one side providing the animals and taking full responsibility for losses, and the other providing the work and the sustenance, and the one raising them may raise them until they reach one-third of their maturation, at which point they are sold and the profits shared. And with regard to a donkey, it can be raised in this manner until it is large enough to bear a load.


讙诪壮 转谞讗 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇 诪讗讬 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇


GEMARA: The Sages taught: When the mishna states that the owner must pay the manager of the venture as a salaried laborer, it means he must pay him as an idle laborer. The Gemara poses a question: What does it mean to pay someone as an idle laborer?


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇 砖诇 讗讜转讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讚讘讟诇 诪讬谞讛


Abaye says: It means that he is paid as a laborer who is idle from that typical labor of his from which he is kept idle. In other words, he must receive the amount of money that an individual would be willing to accept to refrain from his current occupation and engage in an easier task.


讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 转谞讗 讞谞讜谞讬 讞谞讜谞讬 讛讜讗 讚住讙讬 诇讬讛 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖 讟专讞讬讛 讗讘诇 诪注讜转 诇讬拽讞 讘讛谉 驻讬专讜转 讚谞驻讬砖 讟专讞讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇


The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the tanna to teach us both halakhot, that of a storekeeper who was given produce to sell as well as one who was given money to buy the produce. As had he taught only the halakha of a storekeeper who receives produce to sell, I would say that it is specifically a storekeeper for whom it is enough to receive his wages as an idle laborer, because his toil is not great, as the produce is already prepared and he merely has to sell it. But in the case of one who was given money with which to acquire produce, whose toil is great, as he must find the produce in the market and bring it back to his store, I might say that it is not sufficient for him to be paid as an idle laborer.


讜讗讬 转谞讗 诪注讜转 诇讬拽讞 讘讛谉 驻讬专讜转 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬 讻驻讜注诇 讘讟诇 诪砖讜诐 讚谞驻讬砖 讟专讞讬讛 讗讘诇 讞谞讜谞讬 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖 讟专讞讬讛 讗讬诪讗 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘诪砖讛讜 讘注诇诪讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讟讘诇 注诪讜 讗诇讗 讘爪讬专 讜诇讗 讗讻诇 注诪讜 讗诇讗 讙专讜讙专转 讗讞转 讝讛讜 砖讻专讜 爪专讬讻讗


And conversely, had the tanna taught only the halakha of one who receives money with which to acquire produce, I would say it is in the case there that he requires payment as an idle laborer, because his toil is great, but with regard to a storekeeper, whose toil is not great, I would say that any amount is enough for him; that, for example, even if the one providing the produce only immersed his bread in brine with the storekeeper, or only ate one dried fig with him, this is sufficient to count as his wages, i.e., providing the bit of brine or a fig is sufficient to account for the storekeeper鈥檚 labor. It was therefore necessary for this halakha to be stated with regard to both cases.


(讻诪讛 注讬讝讬 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 诪注诇讬谉 住讬诪谉)


搂 Parenthetically, the Gemara lists the terms: How many goats, and chickens, we add; this constitutes a mnemonic device for the following discussions.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诪讛 讛讜讗 砖讻专讜 讘讬谉 诪专讜讘讛 讜讘讬谉 诪讜注讟 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讟讘诇 注诪讜 讗诇讗 讘爪讬专 讜诇讗 讗讻诇 注诪讜 讗诇讗 讙专讜讙专转 讗讞转 讝讛讜 砖讻专讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专讜 诪砖诇诐


The mishna teaches that one may not enter into a joint venture with a storekeeper unless he gives him his wages. The Sages taught in a baraita: How much is his wage? What is the minimum amount he must be paid to avoid the prohibition of interest? It is permitted whether it is a lot or a little, in accordance with the agreement between them; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if he only immersed his bread in brine with him, or only ate one dried fig with him, this is sufficient for his wage. Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: He must give him his full wage, i.e., as a laborer.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 砖诪讬谉 诇讗 讗转 讛注讝讬诐 讜诇讗 讗转 讛专讞诇讬诐 讜诇讗 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 讜讗讜讻诇 诇诪讞爪讛


The Sages taught: One may not appraise animals, i.e., one may not give his animals to someone else to raise after appraising their worth, in exchange for half the profits, neither goats, nor sheep, nor anything else that does not produce revenue while it eats. In other words, one may not enter into an agreement that any increase in value over and above the original appraisal of the animals will be shared between the owner and the one raising the animals. Since the animals do not produce revenue for the one raising them, his caring for the animal on behalf of the owner is tantamount to paying interest, as in the mishna.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诪讬谉 讗转 讛注讝讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讞讜诇讘讜转 讜讗转 讛专讞诇讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讙讜讝讝讜转 讜砖讜讟驻讜转 讜诪讜专讟讜转 讜讗转 讛转专谞讙讜诇转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 注讜砖讛 讜讗讜讻诇转


Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One may appraise goats for another to raise in this manner, because they produce milk, and one may appraise sheep for another to raise in this manner, because they are shorn for their wool, and they also have their wool removed when they are washed in water, and they are plucked of their wool by means of thorns, and the one who raises them can collect this wool. Consequently, the milk and wool generate revenue for the one raising them, and this can serve as a wage to avoid the prohibition of interest. And the same applies to a chicken, because it produces eggs while it eats.


讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讙讬讝讛 讜讞诇讘 诇讗 住驻拽 砖讻专 注诪诇讜 讜诪讝讜谞讜 讘讙讬讝讛 讜讞诇讘 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘谞住讬讜讘讬 讜转讜转专讬


The Gemara asks a question: And as for the first tanna, how does he respond to this claim? Does he claim that shearing and milk do not provide the payment of the wage for his toil and for the animal鈥檚 food? The Gemara answers: If the arrangement allows him to keep the sheared wool and milk, everyone agrees that this is sufficient to avoid the prohibition of interest. When they disagree, it is with regard to a case when he receives only the whey [benasyovi], i.e., the water left from the milk, and the pluckings [vetoteri] from the goats.


转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讚讗诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专讜 诪砖诇诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讟讘诇 注诪讜 讗诇讗 讘爪讬专 讜诇讗 讗讻诇 注诪讜 讗诇讗 讙专讜讙专转 讗讞转 讝讛讜 砖讻专讜


The Gemara clarifies the dispute: The first tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i, who says that he gives him his full wage. Since the value of the whey and pluckings is less than a full wage, his receiving them does not suffice to replace his wage. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds in accordance with the opinion of his father, who says that even if he only immersed his bread in brine with him, or only ate one dried fig with him, this is his wage, as there is no demand that his wages be commensurate with his toil.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪砖讉讻专转 讗砖讛 诇讞讘专转讛 转专谞讙讜诇转 讘砖谞讬 讗驻专讜讞讬谉 讗砖讛 砖讗诪专讛 诇讞讘专转讛 转专谞讙讜诇转 砖诇讬 讜讘讬爪讬诐 砖诇讬讻讬 讜讗谞讬 讜讗转 谞讞诇讜拽 讘讗驻专讜讞讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专


The Sages taught: A woman may rent out to another woman a chicken to sit on the eggs belonging to the renter in exchange for two of the chicks hatched from the eggs. But with regard to a woman who said to another: The chicken is mine and the eggs are yours, and you and I shall share the chicks, i.e., my chicken will sit on your eggs until they hatch, Rabbi Yehuda permits this practice, and Rabbi Shimon prohibits it. He holds that since the owner of the chicken is responsible for half of the loss to the eggs, therefore part of this venture is a loan. As she is not being paid for her efforts, it is considered interest.


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讘注讬 砖讻专 注诪诇讜 讜诪讝讜谞讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬爪讬诐 诪讜讝专讜转


The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda, does he not require one to pay at least a minimal amount of the wage for the toil of the one caring for the chicken and the chicken鈥檚 food? The Gemara answers: There are unfertilized eggs, from which no chicks will hatch. Such eggs are retained by the owner of the chicken, and therefore she does receive some benefit.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛注诇讜转 砖讻专 讻转祝 诇诪注讜转 诇讘讛诪讛 诪注诇讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪砖谞讬谉 诪诪谞讛讙 讛诪讚讬谞讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诪讬谉 注讙诇 注诐 讗诪讜 讜住讬讞 注诐 讗诪讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛注诇讜转 砖讻专 讻转祝 诇诪注讜转


The Sages taught: In a place where people are accustomed to add the wages of a porter for carrying a young animal on his shoulders to the money paid, the owner of the animal must add it to the overall sum, and one may not deviate from the regional custom. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may appraise a calf that grows up with its mother for another to raise, and a foal that grows up with its mother for another to raise, as part of a single venture and split the profits, but one does not add to the wages for his toil, and this applies even in a place where they have the custom to add the wages of a porter to the money paid.


讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讗 讘注讬 砖讻专 注诪诇讜 讜诪讝讜谞讜 讗讬讻讗 讙诇诇讬诐 讜讗讬讚讱 讙诇诇讬诐 讗驻拽讜专讬 诪驻拽讬专 诇讛讜


The Gemara asks: But as for Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, does he not require that one pay at least a minimal amount for the wage for the toil of the one caring for the animals and the animals鈥 food? The Gemara answers: There is the animals鈥 dung, which is of some benefit to the one who raises the animals. The Gemara asks: And how does the other Sage respond to this claim? The Gemara replies: He maintains that he declares the dung ownerless, as he does not consider this important enough to retain. Consequently, this does not qualify as compensation paid to the one raising the young animal.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇


Rav Na岣an said: With regard to these joint ventures involving animals, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda; and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.


讘谞讬 专讘 注讬诇讬砖 谞驻拽 注诇讬讬讛讜 讛讛讜讗 砖讟专讗 讚讛讜讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 驻诇讙讗 讘讗讙专 驻诇讙讗 讘讛驻住讚 讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘 注讬诇讬砖 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗讬谞砖讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 住驻讬 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 驻诇讙讗 讘讗讙专 转专讬 转讬诇转讬 讘讛驻住讚


The Gemara relates: A business document emerged concerning the sons of Rav Ilish, as it was a venture entered into by their late father, in which it was written that Rav Ilish and his partner will share one-half of the profit and one-half of the loss. Rava said: Rav Ilish was a great man, and therefore he would not feed people with something forbidden. In other words, he certainly would not have involved himself in a joint venture through which someone would have earned money by means of interest, and an arrangement of this kind appears to constitute interest. Consequently, no matter what, there must have been some mistake with regard to this document. If the actual condition stated that one party would receive one-half of the profit, the other party must have agreed to accept upon himself two-thirds of the loss,


Scroll To Top