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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 4, 2016 | 讚壮 讘讻住诇讜 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 69

In what manner can people invest with others and share the profits without being concerned about it being interest? 聽This is called an iska and is allowed as long as the one who receives聽the investment and does the work gets some sort of minimum salary so that the investor doesn’t get a service for free (which would then be perceived as an interest payment). 聽There is a debate about how much salary one needs to give – how minimal it can be. 聽Various cases and situations are described to explain what methods of investing are and are not allowed. 聽Renting out money is not the same as renting out an item for two reasons described in the gemara and therefore it is forbidden. 聽One can lend out money with interest if the lender is not the one who receives the interest or the borrower is not the one who pays the interest – meaning there is a third person who pays or gets the interest – as long as he is not acting as a messenger of the lender or borrower.

讗讬 驻诇讙讗 讘讛驻住讚 转专讬 转讬诇转讬 讘讗讙专

or it must have been that the other party accepted one-half of the loss and that Rav Ilish was entitled to two-thirds of the profit. Either way, the disparity in the terms served as payment to Rav Ilish for his effort, removing any concern about violation of the prohibition of interest.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专讬转讗 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬 讚诇诪讗 专讘 注讬诇讬砖 讟讜讘诇 注诪讜 讘爪讬专 讛讜讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬转诪专 讗诇讗 砖讬讟讛 讗讬转诪专

Rav Kahana said: I said this halakha before Rav Zevid of Neharde鈥檃 and he said to me: Why is it certain that the document included all the details of the transaction? Perhaps Rav Ilish immersed his bread in brine together with the other party? According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, this would suffice to avoid the prohibition of interest, and Rav Na岣an says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Kahana said to Rav Zevid: It was not stated by Rav Na岣an that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but rather it was stated that a single opinion is common to three Sages: Rabbi Yehuda; Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. This does not establish the halakha in accordance with their statements, but on the contrary, they all hold one common opinion that is not accepted as the halakha.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬讞砖讘 讜诇诪讬诪专 讛诇讻讛 讛诇讻讛 诇讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚诪讬拽诇 诪讻讜诇讛讜

The Gemara comments: This too stands to reason, as, if you do not say so, why did Rav Na岣an list them individually and say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of so-and-so, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of so-and-so? Instead let Rav Na岣an say simply: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as he is the most lenient of all of them, and their rulings can be derived from his. Since Rav Na岣an did not state this, it is reasonable to say that he was not issuing a ruling in accordance with their opinion, but simply clarifying that these three opinions are actually one.

讗诪专 专讘 诪讜转专 砖诇讬砖 讘砖讻专讱 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜转专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 诪爪讗 诪讜转专 砖诇讬砖 讬诇讱 诇讘讬转讜 专讬拽谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 拽讜爪抓 诇讜 讚讬谞专

Rav says: If one says to another: I am giving you a calf to fatten, and let us divide the profit between us when it is sold, and the surplus over one-third of its current value is your wages, meaning that they will split the profits up to one-third of the value of the calf, and any additional profits will belong exclusively to the one who fattened the animal and serve as his wages, this arrangement is permitted, because the one fattening the calf is compensated for his efforts, and there is therefore no interest on the part that is a loan. And Shmuel says: It is not permitted, because if there is no surplus over one-third and he goes home empty-handed, he will have worked for free, and this is considered interest. Rather, Shmuel says: The owner of the calf must set aside a dinar for the other, to compensate him for his efforts in the event that there is no surplus over one-third.

讜住讘专 专讘 讗讬谉 拽讜爪爪讬谉 诇讜 讚讬谞专 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 专讬砖 注讙诇讗 诇驻讟讜诪讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜转专 砖诇讬砖 讘砖讻专讱

The Gemara asks: And does Rav hold that he is not required to set aside a dinar for him? But doesn鈥檛 Rav say a different way to structure such an arrangement, that the head of the calf is given to the fattener, i.e., they may divide most of the profits evenly, but the head of the calf is given as a supplement to the one who does the fattening? What, is it not that he said to him: The surplus over one-third is your wages, and according to Rav the calf鈥檚 owner must nevertheless also give him the head in case there is no surplus?

诇讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪讜转专 砖诇讬砖 讗讬 专讬砖 注讙诇讗 诇驻讟讜诪讗 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 诪讜转专 砖诇讬砖 讘砖讻专讱 诪讜转专 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讘讛诪讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讙讘讬诇 诇转讜专讗 讙讘讬诇 诇转讜专讬

The Gemara refutes this: No, Rav was referring to a case where the owner of the calf said to him: Either he will receive the surplus over one-third, or the head of the calf will serve as wages to the fattener. Or if you wish, say instead: When Rav says that if the owner said to him: The surplus over one-third is your wages it is permitted, this was a case where the one fattening the calf already had his own animal to fatten, as people say in a common adage: Mix food for an ox, mix for oxen, meaning that since he already has to prepare food for one ox, it is not a big inconvenience and expense for him to add food for an additional ox, so the surplus over one-third is sufficient to compensate him.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讛讙专讜谞讬讗 讝讘讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讜讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诇讗专讬住讬讛 诪驻讟讬诐 诇讬讛 讜讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 讘讗讙专讬讛 讜讬讛讬讘 驻诇讙讗 专讜讜讞讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讚讘讬转讛讜 讗讬 诪砖转转驻转 讘讛讚讬讛 讬讛讬讘 诇讱 谞诪讬 讗诇讬转讗 讗讝诇 讝讘讬谉 讘讛讚讬讛 驻诇讬讙 诇讬讛 诪讗诇讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讗 谞驻诇讙讬讛 诇专讬砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 讻诪注讬拽专讗 谞诪讬 诇讗

The Gemara relates: Rav Elazar of Hagronya purchased an animal, and gave it to his sharecropper to fatten it, and gave him the head as his wages and gave him one-half of the profits. The sharecropper鈥檚 wife said to him: If you would have participated with him in the purchase of the animal he would have given you the tail also. The next time, the sharecropper went and purchased the calf with Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Elazar gave him one-half of the tail and then said to him: Let鈥檚 divide the head. The sharecropper said to him: Now will you not also give me as you did initially? Before, when I was not a partner in the animal but accepted it only in order to fatten it, you gave me the entire head. Now that I am a partner with you, are you going to give me only one-half of the head?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讚 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讝讜讝讬 讚讬讚讬 讛讜讜 讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讱 讟驻讬 驻讜专转讗 诪讬讞讝讬 讻专讘讬转 讛砖转讗 砖讜转驻讬 讗谞谉 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专转 讟专讞谞讗 讟驻讬 驻讜专转讗 讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 住转诐 讗专讬住讗 诇诪专讬 讗专注讗 拽诪砖注讘讚 谞驻砖讬讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诇讬讛 专注讬讗

Rabbi Elazar said to him: Until now the money was mine, and had I not given you a little more value as compensation for your efforts, it would have appeared to be like interest. But now that we are partners, what can you say? That you must exert a little more effort than I do to take the animal in and out of the pasture? As people say in a common adage: An ordinary sharecropper subjugates himself to the owner to bring him pasture. Sharecroppers are accustomed to expending extra effort on behalf of the owner of the field. Therefore we are equal partners and divide everything.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛砖诐 讘讛诪讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 注讚 诪转讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讟驻诇 讘讛 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 讘讗转讜谞讜转 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专 讞讚砖 讘讙讜讚专讜转 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讞讚砖 讜讗诐 讘讗 诇讞诇讜拽 讘转讜讱 讝诪谞讜 讞讘专讜 诪注讻讘 注诇讬讜 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 讟讬驻讜诇讛 砖诇 砖谞讛 讝讜 诇讟讬驻讜诇讛 砖诇 砖谞讛 讗讞专转

The Sages taught: With regard to one who appraises an animal for another to raise, how long is the other obligated to care for it if they did not stipulate this explicitly? Sumakhos says: For female donkeys, eighteen months; for flocks of sheep or goats, twenty-four months. And if one of them comes to divide, i.e., if he wishes to sell the animal and divide the profits, within the time, i.e., before the time for taking care of it has ended, the other can prevent him from doing so, but the effort involved in the care of the animal for this year is not comparable to the care of another year.

讗讘诇 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诇讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 讟讬驻讜诇讛 砖诇 砖谞讛 讝讜 诇讟讬驻讜诇讛 砖诇 砖谞讛 讗讞专转

The Gemara asks: With regard to the word but that was said here, what is it saying? It does not seem to belong in the statement. Rather, the text must be corrected as follows: Because the care of this year is not comparable to the care of another year. The profits are not necessarily divided evenly during the entire time of the animal鈥檚 growth, and therefore either party can insist that the contract be carried through to the end of the specified period.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讛砖诐 讘讛诪讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 注讚 诪转讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讟驻诇 讘讜诇讚讜转 讘讚拽讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讘讙住讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讬讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讚拽讛 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讟讬驻讜诇讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪讗讬 讟讬驻讜诇讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖砖讬谞讬讛 讚拽讜转 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 谞讜讟诇 诪讞爪讛 砖诇讜 讜讞爪讬 诪讞爪讛 讘砖诇 讞讘讬专讜

It is taught in another baraita: With regard to one who appraises an animal for another to raise, for how long is the latter obligated to care for the offspring that are born to it? For a species of small animals, he is obligated to care for the offspring for thirty days, and for a species of large animals, fifty days. Rabbi Yosei says: For a species of small animals, he is obligated to care for the offspring for three months, as it requires a lot of care. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: A lot of care? It means that due to the fact that its teeth are thin, its food has to be cut up for it, which is not necessary for a species of large animals. From this point forward, the one raising the animal takes one-half of the offspring as his share, since one-half of the animal is his, and he takes one-half of one-half of the other鈥檚 share of the offspring, i.e., one-fourth of the total, as wages for caring for the animal and raising it.

专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 讙讚讗 砖拽诇 诪讞爪讛 砖诇讜 讜讞爪讬 诪讞爪讛 讘砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 驻诇讙 诇讱 讜注讜讚 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讙讚诇 讛讜讗 讜转谞谉 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讙讚诇 讬讙讚讬诇讜

The Gemara relates: Rav Menashya bar Gadda accepted an animal to raise, and of the offspring he took his one-half and one-half of the other鈥檚 one-half. This matter came before Abaye. Abaye said to Rav Menashya bar Gadda: Who divided it for you? Since he did this on his own, there is a concern that he may not have divided it fairly. And furthermore, this place is a place where it is customary for the one raising the animal to raise the offspring, and we learned in a mishna (69b): In a place where it is customary to raise the offspring, they should be raised by the one raising the mother, and not divided between them.

讛谞讛讜 转专讬 讻讜转讗讬 讚注讘讜讚 注住拽讗 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗讝讬诇 讞讚 诪谞讬讬讛讜 驻诇讬讙 讝讜讝讬 讘诇讗 讚注转讬讛 讚讞讘专讬讛 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讝讜讝讬 讻诪讗谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪讜

The Gemara relates: There were these two Samaritans who entered into a joint venture with each other. One of them went and divided the money without the knowledge of the other. They came for judgment before Rav Pappa. Rav Pappa said to the plaintiff: What difference is there, meaning: What did you lose? This is what Rav Na岣an said: Money is considered as though it were already divided. It is not viewed as a single sum.

诇砖谞讛 讝讘讜谉 讞诪专讗 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽诐 讗讬讚讱 驻诇讬讙 诇讬讛 讘诇讗 讚注转讬讛 讚讞讘专讬讛 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 驻诇讙 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讗 讞讝讬谞讗 讚讘转专 讚讬讚讬 拽讗 讗转讬 诪专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗

The next year these same two purchased wine together, and the other one arose and divided the wine without the knowledge of the other. And again, they came for judgment before Rav Pappa. Rav Pappa said to the defendant: Who divided it for you? You did not act properly since you did not get your partner鈥檚 permission to divide the wine. The Samaritan said to him: I see that the Master pursues me in order to harass me, since last year, when we came with what appears to be essentially the same case, you gave a different ruling in favor of the other. Rav Pappa said:

讻讛讗讬 讙讜谞讗 讜讚讗讬 爪专讬讱 诇讗讜讚讜注讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诪讬 砖拽讬诇 讟讘讬 讜砖讘讬拽 讞住专讬

In a case like this it is certainly necessary to inform the litigant of the reasons for the decision. Although a judge is not always obligated to explain the reasons for his decision to the litigants, in a case like this, where there is room for suspicion, he must. Rav Pappa explained: Last year, when the other individual divided money, did he take the good coins and leave the deficient ones?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬讚注讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讘住讬诐 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讘住讬诐

The Samaritan said to him: No, he simply divided the money without any particular consideration, and that was acceptable, as there is no difference between one coin and another. Rav Pappa said to him: With regard to wine, everyone knows that there is wine that is sweet and there is wine that is not sweet, so it is not equitable to simply divide the barrels evenly. Therefore, I ruled that you were not entitled to divide the wine without your partner鈥檚 knowledge.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讝讜讝讬 讻诪讗谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讟讘讬 讜讟讘讬 转拽讜诇讬 讜转拽讜诇讬 讗讘诇 讟讘讬 讜转拽讜诇讬 诇讗

The Gemara now returns to discuss the matter itself: Rav Na岣an said: Money is considered as if it were already divided and there is no need to actually divide it in the presence of both of them. The Gemara comments: This matter applies when he divided between good dinars and good dinars, or heavy dinars and heavy dinars, as then there is no need for evaluation. But if some of the coins were good and some were heavy, it is not permitted for him to divide them without informing the other party, as either one may have a preference for a particular type of coin.

专讘 讞诪讗 讛讜讛 诪讜讙专 讝讜讝讬 讘驻砖讬讟讗 讘讬讜诪讗 讻诇讜 讝讜讝讬 讚专讘 讞诪讗 讛讜讗 住讘专 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诪专讗 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诪专讗 讛讚专讗 讘注讬谞讗 讜讬讚讬注 驻讞转讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇讗 讛讚专讬 讘注讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜诇讗 讬讚讬注 驻讞转讬讛

搂 The Gemara relates: Rav 岣ma would rent out dinars at a rate of one peshita, i.e., one-eighth of a dinar, per day for a dinar. He viewed this as rental of an item for use rather than as a loan. Ultimately, all of Rav 岣ma鈥檚 money was lost as divine punishment for violating the prohibition of interest (see 71a). The Gemara explains: He did this because he thought: In what way is it different from the rental of a hoe? He viewed the money as an item that can be rented for a fee. But that is not so, as the hoe returns to its owner as is, and its depreciation is known, but the dinars do not return as is, as a borrower does not return the same coins he borrowed, and their depreciation is not known. Therefore, this cannot be called a rental; it is a loan with interest.

讗诪专 专讘讗 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 讜讗讜讝驻讬讛 诇驻诇谞讬讗 讝讜讝讬 诇讗 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 专讘讬转 讛讘讗讛 诪诇讜讛 诇诪诇讜讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 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 砖拽讬诇 诇讱 讗专讘注讛 讝讜讝讬 讜讗诪讜专 诇讬讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 诇讗讜讝驻谉 讝讜讝讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖讻专 讗诪讬专讛 拽讗 砖拽讬诇

Rava said: It is permitted for a person to say to another: Here are four dinars; go and lend money to so-and-so. Even though the lender earns a profit from the loan, it is not prohibited because the Torah prohibited only interest that comes directly from the borrower to the lender, but not that which comes via a third party. And Rava said: It is permitted for a person to say to another: Take four dinars for yourself and tell so-and-so to lend me money. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? It is permitted because he takes payment for talking to the lender, as these four dinars are a fee for the brokerage in arranging the loan.

讻讬 讛讗 讚讗讘讗 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛讜讛 砖拽讬诇 讗讜讙谞讗 讚拽讬专讗 诪拽讬专讗讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讜讛 讗讜讝驻讬谞讛讜 讝讜讝讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讗讻讬诇 讘专讬讛 讚诪专 专讘讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 专讘讬转讗 谞讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 专讘讬转 讛讘讗讛 诪诇讜讛 诇诪诇讜讛 讛讻讗 砖讻专 讗诪讬专讛 拽讗 砖拽讬诇 讜砖专讬

This is similar to this situation where Abba Mar, son of Rav Pappa, would take pans of wax from wax manufacturers and tell his father: Lend them money. The Sages said to Rav Pappa: The Master鈥檚 son consumes interest, since the wax he receives is payment of interest for the loan. Rav Pappa said to them: We may consume any interest of this kind. It is totally permitted, as the Torah prohibited only interest that comes directly from the borrower to the lender. Here, he takes payment for talking, and this is permitted.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诪讬谉 驻专讛 讜讞诪讜专 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讜讗讜讻诇 诇诪讞爪讛 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讞诇讜拽 讗转 讛讜诇讚讜转 诪讬讚 讞讜诇拽讬谉 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讙讚诇 讬讙讚讬诇讜

MISHNA: One may appraise a cow or a donkey or any item that generates revenue while it eats and give it to another to feed it and take care of it in exchange for one-half the profits, with the one who cares for the animal benefiting from the profits it generates during the period in which he raises it. Afterward, they divide the profit that accrues due to appreciation in the value of the animal and due to the offspring it produces. In a place where it is customary to divide the offspring immediately upon their birth, they divide them, and in a place where it is customary for the one who cared for the mother to raise the offspring for an additional period of time before dividing them, he shall raise them.

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 讜诪驻专讬讝 注诇 砖讚讛讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬转

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may appraise a calf together with its mother or a foal with its mother even though these young animals do not generate revenue while they eat. The costs of raising the young animal need not be considered. And one may inflate [umafriz] the rental fee paid for his field, and he need not be concerned with regard to the prohibition of interest, as the Gemara will explain.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪驻专讬讝 注诇 砖讚讛讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬转 讻讬爪讚 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讘注砖专讛 讻讜专讬诐 讞讟讬谉 诇砖谞讛 讜讗讜诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讜讗驻专谞住谞讛 讜讗谞讬 讗注诇讛 诇讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讻讜专讬谉 诇砖谞讛 诪讜转专

GEMARA: The Sages taught: One may inflate the rental fee paid for his field, and he need not be concerned with regard to the prohibition of interest. How so? In the case of one who rents a field from another for the price of ten kor of wheat per year, and the renter says to the owner: Give me two hundred dinars as a loan and I will use it to cultivate the field and equip it by fertilizing it and hiring people to work in it, and then I will pay you twelve kor per year in addition to returning your two hundred dinars, this is permitted, as the two hundred dinars are viewed as a joint investment in improving the field, with the owner providing the capital and the renter providing the labor. The higher rental fee is therefore paid for a higher-quality field, and not as interest on the loan.

讗讘诇 讗讬谉 诪驻专讬讝 诇讗 注诇 讞谞讜转 讜诇讗 注诇 住驻讬谞讛

But one may not inflate the rental fee paid for a store or a ship. The renter cannot borrow money from the owner to purchase merchandise to sell in the store or transport in the ship and in return increase the rental fee. That is considered a loan with interest.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 驻注诪讬诐 砖诪驻专讬讝 注诇 讞谞讜转 诇爪讜专 讘讛 爪讜专讛 住驻讬谞讛 诇注砖讜转 诇讛 讗讬住拽专讬讗 讞谞讜转 诇爪讜专 讘讛 爪讜专转讗 讚爪讘讜 讘讛 讗讬谞砖讬 讜讛讜讬 讗讙专讗 讟驻讬 住驻讬谞讛 诇注砖讜转 诇讛 讗讬住拽专讬讗 讻讬讜谉 讚砖驻讬专讗 讗讬住拽专讬讗 讟驻讬 讗讙专讗 讟驻讬

Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh said: There are times when one may inflate the rental fee paid for a store, such as in a case where one needs money in order to paint a design on its walls, or in the case of a ship, where one needs money to fashion a new sail [iskarya]. The Gemara explains: It is permitted when the money is borrowed to invest in a store in order to paint a design on its walls, because people will want to come to the more attractive store to purchase, and the profits are thereby increased. Similarly, it is permitted when the money is to be used for a ship to fashion a sail, because the profits from the use of the ship are greater since the sail is improved. Therefore, in these cases the arrangement is an investment, similar to the case of the field, and not interest.

住驻讬谞转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讙专讗 讜驻讙专讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 讗讬 讗讙专讗 诇讗 驻讙专讗 讗讬 驻讙专讗 诇讗 讗讙专讗 砖转讬拽 专讘

Since the subject of a ship was raised, the Gemara mentions a related statement of Rav. Rav said: For a ship, it is permitted to conduct a transaction where someone pays rent for the use of the ship and is also liable to pay for any damage caused to the ship. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: If he receives rent, then he should not receive payment for damage, and if he receives payment for damage, then he should not receive rent, as, if the ship is the responsibility of the renter, it is a loan, and if he pays rent for such a loan, it is interest. Rav was silent, and it appeared that he could not answer this question.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖转讬拽 专讘 诇讗 砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 诪讬砖专讗诇 讗讘诇 诪拽讘诇讬谉 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 诪谉 讛谞讻专讬诐 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 讛砖诐 驻专讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 驻专转讱 注砖讜讬讛 注诇讬 讘砖诇砖讬诐 讚讬谞专 讜讗谞讬 讗注诇讛 诇讱 住诇注 讘讞讚砖 诪讜转专 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 注砖讗讛 讚诪讬诐

Rav Sheshet said: What is the reason that Rav was silent? Did he not hear that which is taught in a baraita: Even though the Sages said that one may not accept a guaranteed investment [tzon barzel] from a Jew, meaning one may not accept from a Jew animals to raise and receive one-half of the profits while also accepting full responsibility to pay the initial value of the animals in the event there is a loss, as this arrangement is deemed a loan with interest, but one may accept a guaranteed investment from gentiles, because there is no prohibition against paying them interest. But nevertheless, the Sages said: If one appraised a cow for another to raise and to divide the profits, and the one accepting the cow said to the cow鈥檚 owner: Your cow is evaluated for me at thirty dinars if I do not return it to you, and I will pay you a sela per month for the use of it, this is permitted, because he did not make it a matter of lending money.

讜诇讗 注砖讗讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗 注砖讗讛 讚诪讬诐 诪讞讬讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

The Gemara asks rhetorically: And did he not make it a matter of lending money? He most certainly did, as he obligated himself to pay for the cow if he does not return it, making the transaction into a loan, and therefore the payment of a sela per month should constitute interest. Rav Sheshet said: It means that he did not make it a matter of lending money while the cow was alive, meaning that he did not obligate himself to return this specific sum to him if the value of the cow decreased, but rather agreed to pay the set payment of thirty dinars only after its death. Therefore, the transaction was not a loan and the monthly payment is not interest. According to this baraita, the halakha should be the same in the case of a ship.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻转讗 住驻讬谞讛 讗讙专讗 讜驻讙专讗

Rav Pappa said: In fact, the halakha is that in the case of a ship it is permitted to collect rent and payment for damage.

  • 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 69

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 69

讗讬 驻诇讙讗 讘讛驻住讚 转专讬 转讬诇转讬 讘讗讙专

or it must have been that the other party accepted one-half of the loss and that Rav Ilish was entitled to two-thirds of the profit. Either way, the disparity in the terms served as payment to Rav Ilish for his effort, removing any concern about violation of the prohibition of interest.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专讬转讗 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬 讚诇诪讗 专讘 注讬诇讬砖 讟讜讘诇 注诪讜 讘爪讬专 讛讜讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬转诪专 讗诇讗 砖讬讟讛 讗讬转诪专

Rav Kahana said: I said this halakha before Rav Zevid of Neharde鈥檃 and he said to me: Why is it certain that the document included all the details of the transaction? Perhaps Rav Ilish immersed his bread in brine together with the other party? According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, this would suffice to avoid the prohibition of interest, and Rav Na岣an says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Kahana said to Rav Zevid: It was not stated by Rav Na岣an that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but rather it was stated that a single opinion is common to three Sages: Rabbi Yehuda; Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. This does not establish the halakha in accordance with their statements, but on the contrary, they all hold one common opinion that is not accepted as the halakha.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬讞砖讘 讜诇诪讬诪专 讛诇讻讛 讛诇讻讛 诇讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚诪讬拽诇 诪讻讜诇讛讜

The Gemara comments: This too stands to reason, as, if you do not say so, why did Rav Na岣an list them individually and say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of so-and-so, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of so-and-so? Instead let Rav Na岣an say simply: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as he is the most lenient of all of them, and their rulings can be derived from his. Since Rav Na岣an did not state this, it is reasonable to say that he was not issuing a ruling in accordance with their opinion, but simply clarifying that these three opinions are actually one.

讗诪专 专讘 诪讜转专 砖诇讬砖 讘砖讻专讱 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜转专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 诪爪讗 诪讜转专 砖诇讬砖 讬诇讱 诇讘讬转讜 专讬拽谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 拽讜爪抓 诇讜 讚讬谞专

Rav says: If one says to another: I am giving you a calf to fatten, and let us divide the profit between us when it is sold, and the surplus over one-third of its current value is your wages, meaning that they will split the profits up to one-third of the value of the calf, and any additional profits will belong exclusively to the one who fattened the animal and serve as his wages, this arrangement is permitted, because the one fattening the calf is compensated for his efforts, and there is therefore no interest on the part that is a loan. And Shmuel says: It is not permitted, because if there is no surplus over one-third and he goes home empty-handed, he will have worked for free, and this is considered interest. Rather, Shmuel says: The owner of the calf must set aside a dinar for the other, to compensate him for his efforts in the event that there is no surplus over one-third.

讜住讘专 专讘 讗讬谉 拽讜爪爪讬谉 诇讜 讚讬谞专 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 专讬砖 注讙诇讗 诇驻讟讜诪讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜转专 砖诇讬砖 讘砖讻专讱

The Gemara asks: And does Rav hold that he is not required to set aside a dinar for him? But doesn鈥檛 Rav say a different way to structure such an arrangement, that the head of the calf is given to the fattener, i.e., they may divide most of the profits evenly, but the head of the calf is given as a supplement to the one who does the fattening? What, is it not that he said to him: The surplus over one-third is your wages, and according to Rav the calf鈥檚 owner must nevertheless also give him the head in case there is no surplus?

诇讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪讜转专 砖诇讬砖 讗讬 专讬砖 注讙诇讗 诇驻讟讜诪讗 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 诪讜转专 砖诇讬砖 讘砖讻专讱 诪讜转专 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讘讛诪讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讙讘讬诇 诇转讜专讗 讙讘讬诇 诇转讜专讬

The Gemara refutes this: No, Rav was referring to a case where the owner of the calf said to him: Either he will receive the surplus over one-third, or the head of the calf will serve as wages to the fattener. Or if you wish, say instead: When Rav says that if the owner said to him: The surplus over one-third is your wages it is permitted, this was a case where the one fattening the calf already had his own animal to fatten, as people say in a common adage: Mix food for an ox, mix for oxen, meaning that since he already has to prepare food for one ox, it is not a big inconvenience and expense for him to add food for an additional ox, so the surplus over one-third is sufficient to compensate him.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讛讙专讜谞讬讗 讝讘讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讜讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诇讗专讬住讬讛 诪驻讟讬诐 诇讬讛 讜讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 讘讗讙专讬讛 讜讬讛讬讘 驻诇讙讗 专讜讜讞讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讚讘讬转讛讜 讗讬 诪砖转转驻转 讘讛讚讬讛 讬讛讬讘 诇讱 谞诪讬 讗诇讬转讗 讗讝诇 讝讘讬谉 讘讛讚讬讛 驻诇讬讙 诇讬讛 诪讗诇讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讗 谞驻诇讙讬讛 诇专讬砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 讻诪注讬拽专讗 谞诪讬 诇讗

The Gemara relates: Rav Elazar of Hagronya purchased an animal, and gave it to his sharecropper to fatten it, and gave him the head as his wages and gave him one-half of the profits. The sharecropper鈥檚 wife said to him: If you would have participated with him in the purchase of the animal he would have given you the tail also. The next time, the sharecropper went and purchased the calf with Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Elazar gave him one-half of the tail and then said to him: Let鈥檚 divide the head. The sharecropper said to him: Now will you not also give me as you did initially? Before, when I was not a partner in the animal but accepted it only in order to fatten it, you gave me the entire head. Now that I am a partner with you, are you going to give me only one-half of the head?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讚 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讝讜讝讬 讚讬讚讬 讛讜讜 讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讱 讟驻讬 驻讜专转讗 诪讬讞讝讬 讻专讘讬转 讛砖转讗 砖讜转驻讬 讗谞谉 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专转 讟专讞谞讗 讟驻讬 驻讜专转讗 讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 住转诐 讗专讬住讗 诇诪专讬 讗专注讗 拽诪砖注讘讚 谞驻砖讬讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诇讬讛 专注讬讗

Rabbi Elazar said to him: Until now the money was mine, and had I not given you a little more value as compensation for your efforts, it would have appeared to be like interest. But now that we are partners, what can you say? That you must exert a little more effort than I do to take the animal in and out of the pasture? As people say in a common adage: An ordinary sharecropper subjugates himself to the owner to bring him pasture. Sharecroppers are accustomed to expending extra effort on behalf of the owner of the field. Therefore we are equal partners and divide everything.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛砖诐 讘讛诪讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 注讚 诪转讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讟驻诇 讘讛 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 讘讗转讜谞讜转 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专 讞讚砖 讘讙讜讚专讜转 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讞讚砖 讜讗诐 讘讗 诇讞诇讜拽 讘转讜讱 讝诪谞讜 讞讘专讜 诪注讻讘 注诇讬讜 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 讟讬驻讜诇讛 砖诇 砖谞讛 讝讜 诇讟讬驻讜诇讛 砖诇 砖谞讛 讗讞专转

The Sages taught: With regard to one who appraises an animal for another to raise, how long is the other obligated to care for it if they did not stipulate this explicitly? Sumakhos says: For female donkeys, eighteen months; for flocks of sheep or goats, twenty-four months. And if one of them comes to divide, i.e., if he wishes to sell the animal and divide the profits, within the time, i.e., before the time for taking care of it has ended, the other can prevent him from doing so, but the effort involved in the care of the animal for this year is not comparable to the care of another year.

讗讘诇 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诇讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 讟讬驻讜诇讛 砖诇 砖谞讛 讝讜 诇讟讬驻讜诇讛 砖诇 砖谞讛 讗讞专转

The Gemara asks: With regard to the word but that was said here, what is it saying? It does not seem to belong in the statement. Rather, the text must be corrected as follows: Because the care of this year is not comparable to the care of another year. The profits are not necessarily divided evenly during the entire time of the animal鈥檚 growth, and therefore either party can insist that the contract be carried through to the end of the specified period.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讛砖诐 讘讛诪讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 注讚 诪转讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讟驻诇 讘讜诇讚讜转 讘讚拽讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讘讙住讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讬讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讚拽讛 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讟讬驻讜诇讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪讗讬 讟讬驻讜诇讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖砖讬谞讬讛 讚拽讜转 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 谞讜讟诇 诪讞爪讛 砖诇讜 讜讞爪讬 诪讞爪讛 讘砖诇 讞讘讬专讜

It is taught in another baraita: With regard to one who appraises an animal for another to raise, for how long is the latter obligated to care for the offspring that are born to it? For a species of small animals, he is obligated to care for the offspring for thirty days, and for a species of large animals, fifty days. Rabbi Yosei says: For a species of small animals, he is obligated to care for the offspring for three months, as it requires a lot of care. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: A lot of care? It means that due to the fact that its teeth are thin, its food has to be cut up for it, which is not necessary for a species of large animals. From this point forward, the one raising the animal takes one-half of the offspring as his share, since one-half of the animal is his, and he takes one-half of one-half of the other鈥檚 share of the offspring, i.e., one-fourth of the total, as wages for caring for the animal and raising it.

专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 讙讚讗 砖拽诇 诪讞爪讛 砖诇讜 讜讞爪讬 诪讞爪讛 讘砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 驻诇讙 诇讱 讜注讜讚 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讙讚诇 讛讜讗 讜转谞谉 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讙讚诇 讬讙讚讬诇讜

The Gemara relates: Rav Menashya bar Gadda accepted an animal to raise, and of the offspring he took his one-half and one-half of the other鈥檚 one-half. This matter came before Abaye. Abaye said to Rav Menashya bar Gadda: Who divided it for you? Since he did this on his own, there is a concern that he may not have divided it fairly. And furthermore, this place is a place where it is customary for the one raising the animal to raise the offspring, and we learned in a mishna (69b): In a place where it is customary to raise the offspring, they should be raised by the one raising the mother, and not divided between them.

讛谞讛讜 转专讬 讻讜转讗讬 讚注讘讜讚 注住拽讗 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗讝讬诇 讞讚 诪谞讬讬讛讜 驻诇讬讙 讝讜讝讬 讘诇讗 讚注转讬讛 讚讞讘专讬讛 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讝讜讝讬 讻诪讗谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪讜

The Gemara relates: There were these two Samaritans who entered into a joint venture with each other. One of them went and divided the money without the knowledge of the other. They came for judgment before Rav Pappa. Rav Pappa said to the plaintiff: What difference is there, meaning: What did you lose? This is what Rav Na岣an said: Money is considered as though it were already divided. It is not viewed as a single sum.

诇砖谞讛 讝讘讜谉 讞诪专讗 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽诐 讗讬讚讱 驻诇讬讙 诇讬讛 讘诇讗 讚注转讬讛 讚讞讘专讬讛 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 驻诇讙 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讗 讞讝讬谞讗 讚讘转专 讚讬讚讬 拽讗 讗转讬 诪专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗

The next year these same two purchased wine together, and the other one arose and divided the wine without the knowledge of the other. And again, they came for judgment before Rav Pappa. Rav Pappa said to the defendant: Who divided it for you? You did not act properly since you did not get your partner鈥檚 permission to divide the wine. The Samaritan said to him: I see that the Master pursues me in order to harass me, since last year, when we came with what appears to be essentially the same case, you gave a different ruling in favor of the other. Rav Pappa said:

讻讛讗讬 讙讜谞讗 讜讚讗讬 爪专讬讱 诇讗讜讚讜注讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诪讬 砖拽讬诇 讟讘讬 讜砖讘讬拽 讞住专讬

In a case like this it is certainly necessary to inform the litigant of the reasons for the decision. Although a judge is not always obligated to explain the reasons for his decision to the litigants, in a case like this, where there is room for suspicion, he must. Rav Pappa explained: Last year, when the other individual divided money, did he take the good coins and leave the deficient ones?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬讚注讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讘住讬诐 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讘住讬诐

The Samaritan said to him: No, he simply divided the money without any particular consideration, and that was acceptable, as there is no difference between one coin and another. Rav Pappa said to him: With regard to wine, everyone knows that there is wine that is sweet and there is wine that is not sweet, so it is not equitable to simply divide the barrels evenly. Therefore, I ruled that you were not entitled to divide the wine without your partner鈥檚 knowledge.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讝讜讝讬 讻诪讗谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讟讘讬 讜讟讘讬 转拽讜诇讬 讜转拽讜诇讬 讗讘诇 讟讘讬 讜转拽讜诇讬 诇讗

The Gemara now returns to discuss the matter itself: Rav Na岣an said: Money is considered as if it were already divided and there is no need to actually divide it in the presence of both of them. The Gemara comments: This matter applies when he divided between good dinars and good dinars, or heavy dinars and heavy dinars, as then there is no need for evaluation. But if some of the coins were good and some were heavy, it is not permitted for him to divide them without informing the other party, as either one may have a preference for a particular type of coin.

专讘 讞诪讗 讛讜讛 诪讜讙专 讝讜讝讬 讘驻砖讬讟讗 讘讬讜诪讗 讻诇讜 讝讜讝讬 讚专讘 讞诪讗 讛讜讗 住讘专 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诪专讗 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诪专讗 讛讚专讗 讘注讬谞讗 讜讬讚讬注 驻讞转讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇讗 讛讚专讬 讘注讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜诇讗 讬讚讬注 驻讞转讬讛

搂 The Gemara relates: Rav 岣ma would rent out dinars at a rate of one peshita, i.e., one-eighth of a dinar, per day for a dinar. He viewed this as rental of an item for use rather than as a loan. Ultimately, all of Rav 岣ma鈥檚 money was lost as divine punishment for violating the prohibition of interest (see 71a). The Gemara explains: He did this because he thought: In what way is it different from the rental of a hoe? He viewed the money as an item that can be rented for a fee. But that is not so, as the hoe returns to its owner as is, and its depreciation is known, but the dinars do not return as is, as a borrower does not return the same coins he borrowed, and their depreciation is not known. Therefore, this cannot be called a rental; it is a loan with interest.

讗诪专 专讘讗 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 讜讗讜讝驻讬讛 诇驻诇谞讬讗 讝讜讝讬 诇讗 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 专讘讬转 讛讘讗讛 诪诇讜讛 诇诪诇讜讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 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 砖拽讬诇 诇讱 讗专讘注讛 讝讜讝讬 讜讗诪讜专 诇讬讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 诇讗讜讝驻谉 讝讜讝讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖讻专 讗诪讬专讛 拽讗 砖拽讬诇

Rava said: It is permitted for a person to say to another: Here are four dinars; go and lend money to so-and-so. Even though the lender earns a profit from the loan, it is not prohibited because the Torah prohibited only interest that comes directly from the borrower to the lender, but not that which comes via a third party. And Rava said: It is permitted for a person to say to another: Take four dinars for yourself and tell so-and-so to lend me money. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? It is permitted because he takes payment for talking to the lender, as these four dinars are a fee for the brokerage in arranging the loan.

讻讬 讛讗 讚讗讘讗 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛讜讛 砖拽讬诇 讗讜讙谞讗 讚拽讬专讗 诪拽讬专讗讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讜讛 讗讜讝驻讬谞讛讜 讝讜讝讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讗讻讬诇 讘专讬讛 讚诪专 专讘讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 专讘讬转讗 谞讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 专讘讬转 讛讘讗讛 诪诇讜讛 诇诪诇讜讛 讛讻讗 砖讻专 讗诪讬专讛 拽讗 砖拽讬诇 讜砖专讬

This is similar to this situation where Abba Mar, son of Rav Pappa, would take pans of wax from wax manufacturers and tell his father: Lend them money. The Sages said to Rav Pappa: The Master鈥檚 son consumes interest, since the wax he receives is payment of interest for the loan. Rav Pappa said to them: We may consume any interest of this kind. It is totally permitted, as the Torah prohibited only interest that comes directly from the borrower to the lender. Here, he takes payment for talking, and this is permitted.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诪讬谉 驻专讛 讜讞诪讜专 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讜讗讜讻诇 诇诪讞爪讛 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讞诇讜拽 讗转 讛讜诇讚讜转 诪讬讚 讞讜诇拽讬谉 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讙讚诇 讬讙讚讬诇讜

MISHNA: One may appraise a cow or a donkey or any item that generates revenue while it eats and give it to another to feed it and take care of it in exchange for one-half the profits, with the one who cares for the animal benefiting from the profits it generates during the period in which he raises it. Afterward, they divide the profit that accrues due to appreciation in the value of the animal and due to the offspring it produces. In a place where it is customary to divide the offspring immediately upon their birth, they divide them, and in a place where it is customary for the one who cared for the mother to raise the offspring for an additional period of time before dividing them, he shall raise them.

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 讜诪驻专讬讝 注诇 砖讚讛讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬转

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may appraise a calf together with its mother or a foal with its mother even though these young animals do not generate revenue while they eat. The costs of raising the young animal need not be considered. And one may inflate [umafriz] the rental fee paid for his field, and he need not be concerned with regard to the prohibition of interest, as the Gemara will explain.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪驻专讬讝 注诇 砖讚讛讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬转 讻讬爪讚 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讘注砖专讛 讻讜专讬诐 讞讟讬谉 诇砖谞讛 讜讗讜诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讜讗驻专谞住谞讛 讜讗谞讬 讗注诇讛 诇讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讻讜专讬谉 诇砖谞讛 诪讜转专

GEMARA: The Sages taught: One may inflate the rental fee paid for his field, and he need not be concerned with regard to the prohibition of interest. How so? In the case of one who rents a field from another for the price of ten kor of wheat per year, and the renter says to the owner: Give me two hundred dinars as a loan and I will use it to cultivate the field and equip it by fertilizing it and hiring people to work in it, and then I will pay you twelve kor per year in addition to returning your two hundred dinars, this is permitted, as the two hundred dinars are viewed as a joint investment in improving the field, with the owner providing the capital and the renter providing the labor. The higher rental fee is therefore paid for a higher-quality field, and not as interest on the loan.

讗讘诇 讗讬谉 诪驻专讬讝 诇讗 注诇 讞谞讜转 讜诇讗 注诇 住驻讬谞讛

But one may not inflate the rental fee paid for a store or a ship. The renter cannot borrow money from the owner to purchase merchandise to sell in the store or transport in the ship and in return increase the rental fee. That is considered a loan with interest.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 驻注诪讬诐 砖诪驻专讬讝 注诇 讞谞讜转 诇爪讜专 讘讛 爪讜专讛 住驻讬谞讛 诇注砖讜转 诇讛 讗讬住拽专讬讗 讞谞讜转 诇爪讜专 讘讛 爪讜专转讗 讚爪讘讜 讘讛 讗讬谞砖讬 讜讛讜讬 讗讙专讗 讟驻讬 住驻讬谞讛 诇注砖讜转 诇讛 讗讬住拽专讬讗 讻讬讜谉 讚砖驻讬专讗 讗讬住拽专讬讗 讟驻讬 讗讙专讗 讟驻讬

Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh said: There are times when one may inflate the rental fee paid for a store, such as in a case where one needs money in order to paint a design on its walls, or in the case of a ship, where one needs money to fashion a new sail [iskarya]. The Gemara explains: It is permitted when the money is borrowed to invest in a store in order to paint a design on its walls, because people will want to come to the more attractive store to purchase, and the profits are thereby increased. Similarly, it is permitted when the money is to be used for a ship to fashion a sail, because the profits from the use of the ship are greater since the sail is improved. Therefore, in these cases the arrangement is an investment, similar to the case of the field, and not interest.

住驻讬谞转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讙专讗 讜驻讙专讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 讗讬 讗讙专讗 诇讗 驻讙专讗 讗讬 驻讙专讗 诇讗 讗讙专讗 砖转讬拽 专讘

Since the subject of a ship was raised, the Gemara mentions a related statement of Rav. Rav said: For a ship, it is permitted to conduct a transaction where someone pays rent for the use of the ship and is also liable to pay for any damage caused to the ship. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: If he receives rent, then he should not receive payment for damage, and if he receives payment for damage, then he should not receive rent, as, if the ship is the responsibility of the renter, it is a loan, and if he pays rent for such a loan, it is interest. Rav was silent, and it appeared that he could not answer this question.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖转讬拽 专讘 诇讗 砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 诪讬砖专讗诇 讗讘诇 诪拽讘诇讬谉 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 诪谉 讛谞讻专讬诐 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 讛砖诐 驻专讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 驻专转讱 注砖讜讬讛 注诇讬 讘砖诇砖讬诐 讚讬谞专 讜讗谞讬 讗注诇讛 诇讱 住诇注 讘讞讚砖 诪讜转专 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 注砖讗讛 讚诪讬诐

Rav Sheshet said: What is the reason that Rav was silent? Did he not hear that which is taught in a baraita: Even though the Sages said that one may not accept a guaranteed investment [tzon barzel] from a Jew, meaning one may not accept from a Jew animals to raise and receive one-half of the profits while also accepting full responsibility to pay the initial value of the animals in the event there is a loss, as this arrangement is deemed a loan with interest, but one may accept a guaranteed investment from gentiles, because there is no prohibition against paying them interest. But nevertheless, the Sages said: If one appraised a cow for another to raise and to divide the profits, and the one accepting the cow said to the cow鈥檚 owner: Your cow is evaluated for me at thirty dinars if I do not return it to you, and I will pay you a sela per month for the use of it, this is permitted, because he did not make it a matter of lending money.

讜诇讗 注砖讗讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗 注砖讗讛 讚诪讬诐 诪讞讬讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

The Gemara asks rhetorically: And did he not make it a matter of lending money? He most certainly did, as he obligated himself to pay for the cow if he does not return it, making the transaction into a loan, and therefore the payment of a sela per month should constitute interest. Rav Sheshet said: It means that he did not make it a matter of lending money while the cow was alive, meaning that he did not obligate himself to return this specific sum to him if the value of the cow decreased, but rather agreed to pay the set payment of thirty dinars only after its death. Therefore, the transaction was not a loan and the monthly payment is not interest. According to this baraita, the halakha should be the same in the case of a ship.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻转讗 住驻讬谞讛 讗讙专讗 讜驻讙专讗

Rav Pappa said: In fact, the halakha is that in the case of a ship it is permitted to collect rent and payment for damage.

Scroll To Top