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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 5, 2016 | 讛壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Metzia 70

More types of investments are discussed and in what situations and with what stipulations are they allowed. 聽There are certain things allowed to orphans that are forbidden to others. 聽What exactly these are are a matter of discussion in the gemara. 聽Suggestions are given as to how best to deal with an orphan’s money. 聽Is it considered a good thing to take interest from non Jews or is it frowned upon, despite the fact that it is permitted by Torah law?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜谞讛讙讜 讘谞讬 讻讜驻专讗 讗讙专讗 讘砖注转 诪砖讬讻讛 驻讙专讗 讘砖注转 砖讘讬专讛 讗讟讜 讘诪谞讛讙讗 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讬讗 诪谞讛讙讗

And the men of pitch [benei kufera], i.e., sailors, are accustomed to paying rent at the time of pulling and paying for damage at the time of breakage. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that this matter depends on custom? Is there no halakha with regard to this issue? The Gemara answers: Because the baraita taught this, it is an acceptable custom and therefore permitted.

讗诪专 专讘 注谞谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪注讜转 砖诇 讬转讜诪讬诐 诪讜转专 诇讛诇讜讜转谉 讘专讘讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬转诪讬 谞讬谞讛讜 住驻讬谞讗 诇讛讜 讗讬住讜专讗 讬转诪讬 讚讗讻诇讬 讚诇讗讜 讚讬讚讛讜 诇讬讝诇讜 讘转专 砖讘拽讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬 讗讬讝讜 讙讜驻讗 讚注讜讘讚讗 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讛

Rav Anan says that Shmuel says: It is permitted to lend with interest money belonging to orphans. Since the orphans are minors and exempt from mitzvot, the prohibition against taking interest does not apply to them. Rav Na岣an said to him: Because they are orphans we may feed them prohibited items? In harsher language, he added: Orphans that consume that which is not theirs will follow their deceased parent to the graveyard. It cannot be that this was Shmuel鈥檚 intention. Therefore, Rav Na岣an said to Rav Anan: Say to me now, what was the actual incident? What exactly did you hear Shmuel say?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讚讜讚讗 讚讘谞讬 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讚讛讜讛 讘讬 诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转拽讬诇 讜讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 转拽讬诇 讜砖拽讬诇 诇讬讛 砖拽讬诇 讗讙专讗 讜砖拽讬诇 驻讞转讗 讗讬 讗讙专讗 诇讗 驻讞转讗 讜讗讬 驻讞转讗 诇讗 讗讙专讗

Rav Anan said to him: There was a certain kettle that belonged to the children of Mar Ukva, who were minor orphans, and this kettle was in the house of Mar Shmuel, who would rent it out on behalf of the orphans. Mar Shmuel would weigh it and then give it out, and when the renter returned it Mar Shmuel would weigh it and take it back, and he would take a rental fee for use of the kettle and would also take payment for depreciation of the kettle due to the reduction in the weight of the metal. In general, the halakha is that if he takes a rental fee, he should not take payment for depreciation, and if he takes payment for depreciation, this means the kettle was a loan, and therefore he should not take a rental fee, as by taking both, it is interest. Nevertheless, Mar Shmuel did so with the kettle belonging to Mar Ukva鈥檚 children, which means he rendered it permitted for the orphans to take interest.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚拽谞谞讬 谞诪讬 砖专讬 诇诪讬注讘讚 讚讛讗 诪拽讘诇讬 注诇讬讬讛讜 讞讜住讻讗 讚谞讞砖讗 讚讻诪讛 讚诪拽诇讬 谞讞砖讗 讘爪讬专 讚诪讬讛

Rav Na岣an said to him: There is no proof from a case like this, as even for bearded ones, i.e., adults, it is permitted to act in this manner, as the owners accept upon themselves the depreciation of the copper, as the more the copper is burned, the more the value of the pot is diminished. Since this is so, the renters pay for the visible depreciation as measured by the reduction in the weight of the vessel, and therefore this arrangement is certainly permitted.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪注讜转 砖诇 讬转讜诪讬诐 诪讜转专 诇讛诇讜讜转谉 拽专讜讘 诇砖讻专 讜专讞讜拽 诇讛驻住讚

Rabba bar Sheila says that Rav 岣sda says, and some say that Rabba bar Yosef bar 岣ma says that Rav Sheshet says: It is permitted to lend the money of orphans to be invested in a business venture that is close to profit and far from loss. Since this is only a hint of interest (see 64b), the relevant prohibition is a matter of rabbinic law, and the Sages rendered it permitted in the case of minor orphans, in order that their inheritance be preserved for them.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 拽专讜讘 诇砖讻专 讜专讞讜拽 诇讛驻住讚 专砖注 拽专讜讘 诇讛驻住讚 讜专讞讜拽 诇砖讻专 讞住讬讚 拽专讜讘 诇讝讛 讜诇讝讛 专讞讜拽 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 诪讚转 讻诇 讗讚诐

The Sages taught: If there is a joint venture in which the conditions for the investor are close to profit and far from loss, then the investor is a wicked person, as this is similar to a loan with interest. If the conditions for the investor are close to loss and far from profit, then he is a pious person, as he accepts additional restrictions upon himself in order to be absolutely sure he is not taking interest. If it is close to this and to that or far from this and from that, this is the quality of every person who acts in accordance with halakha.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讛谞讬 讝讜讝讬 讚讬转诪讬 讛讬讻讬 注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜转讘讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讝讜讝讗 讝讜讝讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 拽讗 讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗

Rabba said to Rav Yosef: When we are entrusted with this money belonging to orphans, what do we do with it? What is the halakhically appropriate way to manage these funds on behalf of the orphans so that they do not squander or lose their inheritance? Rav Yosef said to him: We set up a special court that holds the money for them, and we instruct the court to give it to them dinar by dinar, according to their needs. Rabba said to him: But if the estate is managed in that manner, the principal, meaning the estate itself, will be depleted, and therefore the court will not be acting as suitable guardians for the orphans, as they will not be properly administering their estate.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讚拽讬谞谉 讙讘专讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚讛讘讗 驻专讬讻讗 讜谞拽讟讬谞谉 讚讛讘讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 拽专讜讘 诇砖讻专 讜专讞讜拽 诇讛驻住讚 讗讘诇 讚讘专 诪住讜讬诐 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 驻拽讚讜谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗转讬 诪专讬讛 讬讛讬讘 住讬诪谞讬谉 讜砖拽讬诇 诇讬讛

Rav Yosef said to him: What does the Master do in such a case? Rabba said to him: We look for a man who has scraps of gold, and we purchase the gold from him and then we give it back to him in a joint business venture with terms that are close to profit and far from loss. The Gemara explains what Rabba says: We specifically buy scraps of gold, but we do not buy a specific item, meaning a finished gold item, as perhaps it is a deposit in the possession of the one holding it and the owner will come and provide distinguishing marks and take it, and then the orphans will suffer a loss.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 转讬谞讞 讗讬 诪砖转讻讞 讙讘专讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚讛讘讗 驻专讬讻讗 讗讬 诇讗 诪砖转讻讞 讙讘专讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚讛讘讗 驻专讬讻讗 谞讬讻诇讜 讝讜讝讬 讚讬转诪讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讝讬谞谉 讙讘专讗 讚诪砖驻讜 谞讻住讬讛 讜诪讛讬诪谉 讜砖诪注 讚讬谞讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诇讗 诪拽讘诇 砖诪转讗 讚专讘谞谉 讜讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讘讘讬 讚讬谞讗

Rav Ashi said: This works out well if a man is found who has scraps of gold. But if no man is found who has scraps of gold, shall the money of the orphans be depleted? There is a possibility that the extra precaution taken to avoid the appearance of interest may lead to a loss for the orphans. Rather, Rav Ashi said: We look for a man whose properties are quiet, meaning that there is no claim disputing his ownership of them, and who is a trustworthy individual who listens to and obeys the laws of the Torah and is not subject to excommunication by the Sages, meaning that he is known as one who obeys the court鈥檚 instructions willingly without having to be coerced, and we give him this money in court as a joint business venture with terms that are close to profit and far from loss, and in this way the orphans鈥 money can be invested in a safe and profitable manner.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 诪讬砖专讗诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 专讘讬转 讗讘诇 诪拽讘诇讬谉 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 诪谉 讛谞讻专讬诐

MISHNA: One may not accept from a Jew sheep to raise or other items to care for as a guaranteed investment, in which the terms of the transaction dictate that the one accepting the item takes upon himself complete responsibility to repay its value in the event of depreciation or loss, but receives only part of the profit. This is because it is a loan, as the principal is fixed and always returned to the owner, and any additional sum the owner receives is interest. But one may accept a guaranteed investment from gentiles, as there is no prohibition of interest in transactions with them.

讜诇讜讬谉 诪讛谉 讜诪诇讜讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘专讘讬转 讜讻谉 讘讙专 转讜砖讘 诪诇讜讛 讬砖专讗诇 诪注讜转讬讜 砖诇 谞讻专讬 诪讚注转 讛谞讻专讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讚注转 讬砖专讗诇

And one may borrow money from them and one may lend money to them with interest. And similarly, with regard to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav], one may borrow money from him with interest and lend money to him with interest, since he is not a Jew. Also, a Jew may serve as a middleman and lend a gentile鈥檚 money to another Jew with the knowledge of the gentile, but not with the knowledge of a Jew, i.e., the middleman himself, as the Gemara will explain.

讙诪壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讘专砖讜转讗 讚诪拽讘诇 拽讬讬诪讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛诪拽讘诇 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 诪谉 讛谞讻专讬诐 讜诇讚讜转 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛

GEMARA: With regard to the ruling that a guaranteed investment is considered a loan with interest, the Gemara asks: Is this to say that the guaranteed investment stands in the possession of the recipient, i.e., the recipient is viewed as its owner? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Bekhorot 16a): In the case of one who accepts from gentiles an animal as a guaranteed investment, the offspring are exempt from the halakhot of a firstborn. This exemption apparently proves that the sheep still legally belong to the gentile owner.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讛 讗讜谞住讗 讜讝讜诇讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 讗讜谞住讗 讜讝讜诇讗

Abaye said: This is not difficult. That case, referring to the mishna in Bekhorot, is where the gentile owner of the sheep accepts upon himself the responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation in the market value, and that is why the sheep are considered to still belong to him. And this case, referring to the mishna here, is where the owner did not accept upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation. Therefore, the guaranteed investment stands in the possession of the recipient.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬 讚拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 诪专讛 讗讜谞住讗 讜讝讜诇讗 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 拽专讬转 诇讬讛

Rava said to Abaye: If the owner accepted upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation, can you call it a guaranteed investment? This case is not a guaranteed investment, as the owner is not guaranteed to receive what he had given, but rather it is a type of joint business venture that is permitted between two Jews.

讜注讜讚 讗讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 诪拽讘诇讬谉 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 诪谉 讛谞讻专讬诐 诇讬驻诇讜讙 讘讚讬讚讬讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讚诇讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 讗讜谞住讗 讜讝讜诇讗 讗讘诇 拽讘讬诇 诪专讛 讗讜谞住讗 讜讝讜诇讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

Rava continues: And furthermore, even if one will grant that this arrangement can be called a guaranteed investment, there is another difficulty. Instead of the tanna teaching in the latter clause of the mishna: But one may accept a guaranteed investment from gentiles, let the tanna distinguish within the case itself, that of accepting a guaranteed investment from a Jew. He should have taught: In what case is this statement, i.e., that one may not accept from a Jew sheep to raise or other items to care for as a guaranteed investment, said? It is said in a case when the owner did not accept upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation, but if the owner accepted upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation, one may well enter into such an arrangement.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讚诇讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 诪专讛 讗讜谞住讗 讜讝讜诇讗 讜讙讘讬 讘讻讜专讜转 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诐 讚讜诇讚讜转 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 讗转讬 谞讻专讬 转驻讬住 诇讛 诇讘讛诪讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪砖讻讞 诇讛 诇讘讛诪讛 转驻讬住 诇讛讜 诇讜诇讚讜转 讜讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讬讚 谞讻专讬 讘讗诪爪注

Rather, Rava rejected this explanation and said: Both this case in the mishna here and that case with regard to the firstborn animal are discussing a situation where the owner did not accept upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation. And with regard to the firstborn, this is the reason that the offspring are exempt from the halakhot of a firstborn: Since, if for some reason the recipient does not give the money due to the gentile, the gentile will come and seize the animal, and if he does not find the animal he will seize the offspring; this means that the hand of a gentile is in the middle, i.e., the gentile has some degree of ownership of the bodies of the offspring.

讜讻诇 讬讚 谞讻专讬 讘讗诪爪注 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛

And there is a halakha: In every case where the hand of a gentile is in the middle, the animal is exempt from the halakhot of a firstborn. By contrast, in the case of the mishna concerning the halakhot of interest, the animal is entirely in the possession of the recipient.

诪专讘讛 讛讜谞讜 讘谞砖讱 讜转专讘讬转 诇讞讜谞谉 讚诇讬诐 讬拽讘爪谞讜 诪讗讬 诇讞讜谞谉 讚诇讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖讘讜专 诪诇讻讗

搂 Apropos the discussion concerning the halakhot of interest, the Gemara cites several aggadic statements on the subject. The verse states: 鈥淗e who augments his substance by interest [beneshekh] and increase [vetarbit] gathers it for him who has pity on the poor鈥 (Proverbs 28:8). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase 鈥渉im who has pity on the poor鈥? How does this money ultimately reach someone who has pity on the poor? Rav said: This is referring to one such as King Shapur, for ultimately the money will reach the king, who provides for the poor from the possessions of the one who lends with interest.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬转 讚谞讻专讬 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇谞讻专讬 转砖旨讈讬讱 诪讗讬 转砖旨讈讬讱 诇讗讜 转砖旨讈讜讱 诇讗 转砖旨讈讬讱

Rav Na岣an said: Rav Huna said to me that this verse is necessary only to state that even interest that a Jew took from a gentile will ultimately reach the government treasury, and the one who took it will not be successful. Rava raised an objection to the statement of Rav Na岣an: The verse states: 鈥淯nto a gentile tashikh (Deuteronomy 23:21), which indicates that it is permitted for a Jew to take interest from a gentile, as what is the meaning of tashikh鈥? Doesn鈥檛 it mean the same as tishokh, take interest, thereby teaching that one may take interest from a gentile? The Gemara refutes this claim: No, it means to pay interest, meaning that you must pay him interest.

诇讗 住讙讬 讚诇讗讜 讛讻讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讗讞讬讱 讚诇讗

The Gemara asks: Is it not sufficient without this? In other words, can the verse actually require Jews to borrow money from a gentile and to pay him interest? This cannot be. The Gemara answers: It does not mean that borrowing money with interest is a mitzva; rather, the verse mentions paying interest to a gentile in order to exclude your brother, to teach that although one may pay interest to a gentile, one may not pay interest to a Jew.

讗讞讬讱 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讘 讘讬讛 讜诇讗讞讬讱 诇讗 转砖旨讈讬讱 诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛

The Gemara challenges this explanation of the verse: The prohibition against paying interest to your brother is written explicitly in the continuation of that same verse in Deuteronomy: 鈥淯nto your brother you shall not lend with interest.鈥 Consequently, there is no need to learn this halakha from an inference. The Gemara responds: It is necessary in order to teach that if one pays interest to a Jew he violates both the positive mitzva to pay interest to a gentile but not to a Jew, and the prohibition against paying interest to a Jew.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 诇讜讬谉 诪讛谉 讜诪诇讜讬谉 讗讜转诐 讘专讘讬转 讜讻谉 讘讙专 转讜砖讘 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗

Rava raised an objection to the statement of Rav Na岣an based on another difficulty in the mishna, which teaches: One may borrow money from them and one may lend money to them with interest. And similarly, with regard to a ger toshav, one may borrow money from him and lend money to him with interest, since he is not a Jew. The mishna indicates that a Jew may lend money with interest to a gentile ab initio. Rav 岣yya, son of Rav Huna, said: This ruling of the mishna is necessary only

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 70

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 70

讜谞讛讙讜 讘谞讬 讻讜驻专讗 讗讙专讗 讘砖注转 诪砖讬讻讛 驻讙专讗 讘砖注转 砖讘讬专讛 讗讟讜 讘诪谞讛讙讗 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讬讗 诪谞讛讙讗

And the men of pitch [benei kufera], i.e., sailors, are accustomed to paying rent at the time of pulling and paying for damage at the time of breakage. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that this matter depends on custom? Is there no halakha with regard to this issue? The Gemara answers: Because the baraita taught this, it is an acceptable custom and therefore permitted.

讗诪专 专讘 注谞谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪注讜转 砖诇 讬转讜诪讬诐 诪讜转专 诇讛诇讜讜转谉 讘专讘讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬转诪讬 谞讬谞讛讜 住驻讬谞讗 诇讛讜 讗讬住讜专讗 讬转诪讬 讚讗讻诇讬 讚诇讗讜 讚讬讚讛讜 诇讬讝诇讜 讘转专 砖讘拽讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬 讗讬讝讜 讙讜驻讗 讚注讜讘讚讗 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讛

Rav Anan says that Shmuel says: It is permitted to lend with interest money belonging to orphans. Since the orphans are minors and exempt from mitzvot, the prohibition against taking interest does not apply to them. Rav Na岣an said to him: Because they are orphans we may feed them prohibited items? In harsher language, he added: Orphans that consume that which is not theirs will follow their deceased parent to the graveyard. It cannot be that this was Shmuel鈥檚 intention. Therefore, Rav Na岣an said to Rav Anan: Say to me now, what was the actual incident? What exactly did you hear Shmuel say?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讚讜讚讗 讚讘谞讬 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讚讛讜讛 讘讬 诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转拽讬诇 讜讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 转拽讬诇 讜砖拽讬诇 诇讬讛 砖拽讬诇 讗讙专讗 讜砖拽讬诇 驻讞转讗 讗讬 讗讙专讗 诇讗 驻讞转讗 讜讗讬 驻讞转讗 诇讗 讗讙专讗

Rav Anan said to him: There was a certain kettle that belonged to the children of Mar Ukva, who were minor orphans, and this kettle was in the house of Mar Shmuel, who would rent it out on behalf of the orphans. Mar Shmuel would weigh it and then give it out, and when the renter returned it Mar Shmuel would weigh it and take it back, and he would take a rental fee for use of the kettle and would also take payment for depreciation of the kettle due to the reduction in the weight of the metal. In general, the halakha is that if he takes a rental fee, he should not take payment for depreciation, and if he takes payment for depreciation, this means the kettle was a loan, and therefore he should not take a rental fee, as by taking both, it is interest. Nevertheless, Mar Shmuel did so with the kettle belonging to Mar Ukva鈥檚 children, which means he rendered it permitted for the orphans to take interest.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚拽谞谞讬 谞诪讬 砖专讬 诇诪讬注讘讚 讚讛讗 诪拽讘诇讬 注诇讬讬讛讜 讞讜住讻讗 讚谞讞砖讗 讚讻诪讛 讚诪拽诇讬 谞讞砖讗 讘爪讬专 讚诪讬讛

Rav Na岣an said to him: There is no proof from a case like this, as even for bearded ones, i.e., adults, it is permitted to act in this manner, as the owners accept upon themselves the depreciation of the copper, as the more the copper is burned, the more the value of the pot is diminished. Since this is so, the renters pay for the visible depreciation as measured by the reduction in the weight of the vessel, and therefore this arrangement is certainly permitted.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪注讜转 砖诇 讬转讜诪讬诐 诪讜转专 诇讛诇讜讜转谉 拽专讜讘 诇砖讻专 讜专讞讜拽 诇讛驻住讚

Rabba bar Sheila says that Rav 岣sda says, and some say that Rabba bar Yosef bar 岣ma says that Rav Sheshet says: It is permitted to lend the money of orphans to be invested in a business venture that is close to profit and far from loss. Since this is only a hint of interest (see 64b), the relevant prohibition is a matter of rabbinic law, and the Sages rendered it permitted in the case of minor orphans, in order that their inheritance be preserved for them.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 拽专讜讘 诇砖讻专 讜专讞讜拽 诇讛驻住讚 专砖注 拽专讜讘 诇讛驻住讚 讜专讞讜拽 诇砖讻专 讞住讬讚 拽专讜讘 诇讝讛 讜诇讝讛 专讞讜拽 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 诪讚转 讻诇 讗讚诐

The Sages taught: If there is a joint venture in which the conditions for the investor are close to profit and far from loss, then the investor is a wicked person, as this is similar to a loan with interest. If the conditions for the investor are close to loss and far from profit, then he is a pious person, as he accepts additional restrictions upon himself in order to be absolutely sure he is not taking interest. If it is close to this and to that or far from this and from that, this is the quality of every person who acts in accordance with halakha.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讛谞讬 讝讜讝讬 讚讬转诪讬 讛讬讻讬 注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜转讘讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讝讜讝讗 讝讜讝讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 拽讗 讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗

Rabba said to Rav Yosef: When we are entrusted with this money belonging to orphans, what do we do with it? What is the halakhically appropriate way to manage these funds on behalf of the orphans so that they do not squander or lose their inheritance? Rav Yosef said to him: We set up a special court that holds the money for them, and we instruct the court to give it to them dinar by dinar, according to their needs. Rabba said to him: But if the estate is managed in that manner, the principal, meaning the estate itself, will be depleted, and therefore the court will not be acting as suitable guardians for the orphans, as they will not be properly administering their estate.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讚拽讬谞谉 讙讘专讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚讛讘讗 驻专讬讻讗 讜谞拽讟讬谞谉 讚讛讘讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 拽专讜讘 诇砖讻专 讜专讞讜拽 诇讛驻住讚 讗讘诇 讚讘专 诪住讜讬诐 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 驻拽讚讜谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗转讬 诪专讬讛 讬讛讬讘 住讬诪谞讬谉 讜砖拽讬诇 诇讬讛

Rav Yosef said to him: What does the Master do in such a case? Rabba said to him: We look for a man who has scraps of gold, and we purchase the gold from him and then we give it back to him in a joint business venture with terms that are close to profit and far from loss. The Gemara explains what Rabba says: We specifically buy scraps of gold, but we do not buy a specific item, meaning a finished gold item, as perhaps it is a deposit in the possession of the one holding it and the owner will come and provide distinguishing marks and take it, and then the orphans will suffer a loss.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 转讬谞讞 讗讬 诪砖转讻讞 讙讘专讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚讛讘讗 驻专讬讻讗 讗讬 诇讗 诪砖转讻讞 讙讘专讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚讛讘讗 驻专讬讻讗 谞讬讻诇讜 讝讜讝讬 讚讬转诪讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讝讬谞谉 讙讘专讗 讚诪砖驻讜 谞讻住讬讛 讜诪讛讬诪谉 讜砖诪注 讚讬谞讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诇讗 诪拽讘诇 砖诪转讗 讚专讘谞谉 讜讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讘讘讬 讚讬谞讗

Rav Ashi said: This works out well if a man is found who has scraps of gold. But if no man is found who has scraps of gold, shall the money of the orphans be depleted? There is a possibility that the extra precaution taken to avoid the appearance of interest may lead to a loss for the orphans. Rather, Rav Ashi said: We look for a man whose properties are quiet, meaning that there is no claim disputing his ownership of them, and who is a trustworthy individual who listens to and obeys the laws of the Torah and is not subject to excommunication by the Sages, meaning that he is known as one who obeys the court鈥檚 instructions willingly without having to be coerced, and we give him this money in court as a joint business venture with terms that are close to profit and far from loss, and in this way the orphans鈥 money can be invested in a safe and profitable manner.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 诪讬砖专讗诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 专讘讬转 讗讘诇 诪拽讘诇讬谉 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 诪谉 讛谞讻专讬诐

MISHNA: One may not accept from a Jew sheep to raise or other items to care for as a guaranteed investment, in which the terms of the transaction dictate that the one accepting the item takes upon himself complete responsibility to repay its value in the event of depreciation or loss, but receives only part of the profit. This is because it is a loan, as the principal is fixed and always returned to the owner, and any additional sum the owner receives is interest. But one may accept a guaranteed investment from gentiles, as there is no prohibition of interest in transactions with them.

讜诇讜讬谉 诪讛谉 讜诪诇讜讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘专讘讬转 讜讻谉 讘讙专 转讜砖讘 诪诇讜讛 讬砖专讗诇 诪注讜转讬讜 砖诇 谞讻专讬 诪讚注转 讛谞讻专讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讚注转 讬砖专讗诇

And one may borrow money from them and one may lend money to them with interest. And similarly, with regard to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav], one may borrow money from him with interest and lend money to him with interest, since he is not a Jew. Also, a Jew may serve as a middleman and lend a gentile鈥檚 money to another Jew with the knowledge of the gentile, but not with the knowledge of a Jew, i.e., the middleman himself, as the Gemara will explain.

讙诪壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讘专砖讜转讗 讚诪拽讘诇 拽讬讬诪讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛诪拽讘诇 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 诪谉 讛谞讻专讬诐 讜诇讚讜转 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛

GEMARA: With regard to the ruling that a guaranteed investment is considered a loan with interest, the Gemara asks: Is this to say that the guaranteed investment stands in the possession of the recipient, i.e., the recipient is viewed as its owner? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Bekhorot 16a): In the case of one who accepts from gentiles an animal as a guaranteed investment, the offspring are exempt from the halakhot of a firstborn. This exemption apparently proves that the sheep still legally belong to the gentile owner.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讛 讗讜谞住讗 讜讝讜诇讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 讗讜谞住讗 讜讝讜诇讗

Abaye said: This is not difficult. That case, referring to the mishna in Bekhorot, is where the gentile owner of the sheep accepts upon himself the responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation in the market value, and that is why the sheep are considered to still belong to him. And this case, referring to the mishna here, is where the owner did not accept upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation. Therefore, the guaranteed investment stands in the possession of the recipient.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬 讚拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 诪专讛 讗讜谞住讗 讜讝讜诇讗 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 拽专讬转 诇讬讛

Rava said to Abaye: If the owner accepted upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation, can you call it a guaranteed investment? This case is not a guaranteed investment, as the owner is not guaranteed to receive what he had given, but rather it is a type of joint business venture that is permitted between two Jews.

讜注讜讚 讗讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 诪拽讘诇讬谉 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 诪谉 讛谞讻专讬诐 诇讬驻诇讜讙 讘讚讬讚讬讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讚诇讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 讗讜谞住讗 讜讝讜诇讗 讗讘诇 拽讘讬诇 诪专讛 讗讜谞住讗 讜讝讜诇讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

Rava continues: And furthermore, even if one will grant that this arrangement can be called a guaranteed investment, there is another difficulty. Instead of the tanna teaching in the latter clause of the mishna: But one may accept a guaranteed investment from gentiles, let the tanna distinguish within the case itself, that of accepting a guaranteed investment from a Jew. He should have taught: In what case is this statement, i.e., that one may not accept from a Jew sheep to raise or other items to care for as a guaranteed investment, said? It is said in a case when the owner did not accept upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation, but if the owner accepted upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation, one may well enter into such an arrangement.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讚诇讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 诪专讛 讗讜谞住讗 讜讝讜诇讗 讜讙讘讬 讘讻讜专讜转 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诐 讚讜诇讚讜转 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 讗转讬 谞讻专讬 转驻讬住 诇讛 诇讘讛诪讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪砖讻讞 诇讛 诇讘讛诪讛 转驻讬住 诇讛讜 诇讜诇讚讜转 讜讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讬讚 谞讻专讬 讘讗诪爪注

Rather, Rava rejected this explanation and said: Both this case in the mishna here and that case with regard to the firstborn animal are discussing a situation where the owner did not accept upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation. And with regard to the firstborn, this is the reason that the offspring are exempt from the halakhot of a firstborn: Since, if for some reason the recipient does not give the money due to the gentile, the gentile will come and seize the animal, and if he does not find the animal he will seize the offspring; this means that the hand of a gentile is in the middle, i.e., the gentile has some degree of ownership of the bodies of the offspring.

讜讻诇 讬讚 谞讻专讬 讘讗诪爪注 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛

And there is a halakha: In every case where the hand of a gentile is in the middle, the animal is exempt from the halakhot of a firstborn. By contrast, in the case of the mishna concerning the halakhot of interest, the animal is entirely in the possession of the recipient.

诪专讘讛 讛讜谞讜 讘谞砖讱 讜转专讘讬转 诇讞讜谞谉 讚诇讬诐 讬拽讘爪谞讜 诪讗讬 诇讞讜谞谉 讚诇讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖讘讜专 诪诇讻讗

搂 Apropos the discussion concerning the halakhot of interest, the Gemara cites several aggadic statements on the subject. The verse states: 鈥淗e who augments his substance by interest [beneshekh] and increase [vetarbit] gathers it for him who has pity on the poor鈥 (Proverbs 28:8). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase 鈥渉im who has pity on the poor鈥? How does this money ultimately reach someone who has pity on the poor? Rav said: This is referring to one such as King Shapur, for ultimately the money will reach the king, who provides for the poor from the possessions of the one who lends with interest.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬转 讚谞讻专讬 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇谞讻专讬 转砖旨讈讬讱 诪讗讬 转砖旨讈讬讱 诇讗讜 转砖旨讈讜讱 诇讗 转砖旨讈讬讱

Rav Na岣an said: Rav Huna said to me that this verse is necessary only to state that even interest that a Jew took from a gentile will ultimately reach the government treasury, and the one who took it will not be successful. Rava raised an objection to the statement of Rav Na岣an: The verse states: 鈥淯nto a gentile tashikh (Deuteronomy 23:21), which indicates that it is permitted for a Jew to take interest from a gentile, as what is the meaning of tashikh鈥? Doesn鈥檛 it mean the same as tishokh, take interest, thereby teaching that one may take interest from a gentile? The Gemara refutes this claim: No, it means to pay interest, meaning that you must pay him interest.

诇讗 住讙讬 讚诇讗讜 讛讻讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讗讞讬讱 讚诇讗

The Gemara asks: Is it not sufficient without this? In other words, can the verse actually require Jews to borrow money from a gentile and to pay him interest? This cannot be. The Gemara answers: It does not mean that borrowing money with interest is a mitzva; rather, the verse mentions paying interest to a gentile in order to exclude your brother, to teach that although one may pay interest to a gentile, one may not pay interest to a Jew.

讗讞讬讱 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讘 讘讬讛 讜诇讗讞讬讱 诇讗 转砖旨讈讬讱 诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛

The Gemara challenges this explanation of the verse: The prohibition against paying interest to your brother is written explicitly in the continuation of that same verse in Deuteronomy: 鈥淯nto your brother you shall not lend with interest.鈥 Consequently, there is no need to learn this halakha from an inference. The Gemara responds: It is necessary in order to teach that if one pays interest to a Jew he violates both the positive mitzva to pay interest to a gentile but not to a Jew, and the prohibition against paying interest to a Jew.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 诇讜讬谉 诪讛谉 讜诪诇讜讬谉 讗讜转诐 讘专讘讬转 讜讻谉 讘讙专 转讜砖讘 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗

Rava raised an objection to the statement of Rav Na岣an based on another difficulty in the mishna, which teaches: One may borrow money from them and one may lend money to them with interest. And similarly, with regard to a ger toshav, one may borrow money from him and lend money to him with interest, since he is not a Jew. The mishna indicates that a Jew may lend money with interest to a gentile ab initio. Rav 岣yya, son of Rav Huna, said: This ruling of the mishna is necessary only

Scroll To Top