Bava Metzia 70

ונהגו בני כופרא אגרא בשעת משיכה פגרא בשעת שבירה אטו במנהגא תליא מילתא משום דמתניתא תניא מנהגא

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.

אמר רב ענן אמר שמואל מעות של יתומים מותר להלוותן ברבית אמר ליה רב נחמן משום דיתמי נינהו ספינא להו איסורא יתמי דאכלי דלאו דידהו ליזלו בתר שבקייהו אמר ליה אימא לי איזו גופא דעובדא היכי הוה

§ 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 Naḥman 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’s intention. Therefore, Rav Naḥman said to Rav Anan: Say to me now, what was the actual incident? What exactly did you hear Shmuel say?

אמר ליה ההוא דודא דבני מר עוקבא דהוה בי מר שמואל תקיל ויהיב ליה תקיל ושקיל ליה שקיל אגרא ושקיל פחתא אי אגרא לא פחתא ואי פחתא לא אגרא

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’s children, which means he rendered it permitted for the orphans to take interest.

אמר ליה כי הא אפילו בדקנני נמי שרי למיעבד דהא מקבלי עלייהו חוסכא דנחשא דכמה דמקלי נחשא בציר דמיה

Rav Naḥman 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.

אמר רבה בר שילא אמר רב חסדא ואמרי לה אמר רבה בר יוסף בר חמא אמר רב ששת מעות של יתומים מותר להלוותן קרוב לשכר ורחוק להפסד

Rabba bar Sheila says that Rav Ḥisda says, and some say that Rabba bar Yosef bar Ḥama 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.

תנו רבנן קרוב לשכר ורחוק להפסד רשע קרוב להפסד ורחוק לשכר חסיד קרוב לזה ולזה רחוק מזה ומזה זו היא מדת כל אדם

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.

אמר ליה רבה לרב יוסף הני זוזי דיתמי היכי עבדינן להו אמר ליה מותבינן להו בי דינא ויהבינן להו זוזא זוזא אמר ליה והא קא כליא קרנא

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.

אמר ליה מר היכי עביד אמר ליה בדקינן גברא דאית ליה דהבא פריכא ונקטינן דהבא מיניה ויהבינן להו ניהליה קרוב לשכר ורחוק להפסד אבל דבר מסוים לא דלמא פקדון נינהו ואתי מריה יהיב סימנין ושקיל ליה

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.

אמר רב אשי תינח אי משתכח גברא דאית ליה דהבא פריכא אי לא משתכח גברא דאית ליה דהבא פריכא ניכלו זוזי דיתמי אלא אמר רב אשי חזינן גברא דמשפו נכסיה ומהימן ושמע דינא דאורייתא ולא מקבל שמתא דרבנן ויהבינן להו ניהליה בבי דינא

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’s 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’ money can be invested in a safe and profitable manner.

מתני׳ אין מקבלין צאן ברזל מישראל מפני שהוא רבית אבל מקבלין צאן ברזל מן הנכרים

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.

ולוין מהן ומלוין אותן ברבית וכן בגר תושב מלוה ישראל מעותיו של נכרי מדעת הנכרי אבל לא מדעת ישראל

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’s 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.

גמ׳ למימרא דברשותא דמקבל קיימא ורמינהו המקבל צאן ברזל מן הנכרים ולדות פטורין מן הבכורה

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.

אמר אביי לא קשיא הא דמקבל עליה אונסא וזולא הא דלא קביל עליה אונסא וזולא

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.

אמר ליה רבא אי דקביל עליה מרה אונסא וזולא צאן ברזל קרית ליה

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.

ועוד אדתני סיפא אבל מקבלין צאן ברזל מן הנכרים ליפלוג בדידיה במה דברים אמורים דלא קביל עליה אונסא וזולא אבל קביל מרה אונסא וזולא שפיר דמי

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.

אלא אמר רבא אידי ואידי דלא קביל עליה מרה אונסא וזולא וגבי בכורות היינו טעם דולדות פטורין מן הבכורה כיון דאי לא יהיב זוזי אתי נכרי תפיס לה לבהמה ואי לא משכח לה לבהמה תפיס להו לולדות והוי ליה יד נכרי באמצע

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.

וכל יד נכרי באמצע פטור מן הבכורה

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.

מרבה הונו בנשך ותרבית לחונן דלים יקבצנו מאי לחונן דלים אמר רב כגון שבור מלכא

§ Apropos the discussion concerning the halakhot of interest, the Gemara cites several aggadic statements on the subject. The verse states: “He who augments his substance by interest [beneshekh] and increase [vetarbit] gathers it for him who has pity on the poor” (Proverbs 28:8). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase “him who has pity on the poor”? 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.

אמר רב נחמן אמר לי הונא לא נצרכא אלא דאפילו רבית דנכרי איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן לנכרי תשּׁיך מאי תשּׁיך לאו תשּׁוך לא תשּׁיך

Rav Naḥman 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 Naḥman: The verse states: “Unto 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”? Doesn’t 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.

לא סגי דלאו הכי לאפוקי אחיך דלא

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.

אחיך בהדיא כתב ביה ולאחיך לא תשּׁיך לעבור עליו בעשה ולא תעשה

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: “Unto your brother you shall not lend with interest.” 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.

איתיביה לוין מהן ומלוין אותם ברבית וכן בגר תושב אמר רב חייא בריה דרב הונא לא נצרכא אלא

Rava raised an objection to the statement of Rav Naḥman 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 Ḥiyya, son of Rav Huna, said: This ruling of the mishna is necessary only