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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 7, 2016 | 讝壮 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 72

Cases are discussed relating to converts paying interest after they converted or taking interest from a loan they had lent before they converted. 聽Various cases are brought in which something about the shtar (document) is invalid (i.e. it was a loan with interest) – does it invalidate the entire document or can the part that is true/good, still be valid. 聽 Differences between the different cases are analyzed. 聽The mishna discusses the halachot about buying produce up front in the beginning of the season but only to receive the produce later – in what circumstances is this forbidden because it may be interest (if the produce goes up in value) and in what circumstances is it permitted (if the seller has the produce in his property at the time of the sale or the market value has already been set).

讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝讻讬讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

nevertheless, he has the power, by rabbinic law, to acquire an item by means of an act of acquisition performed by another? Here, also, it is not different; the Jew can perform an act of acquisition on behalf of the gentile even though there is no agency for gentiles.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讬砖专讗诇 讗转讬 诇讻诇诇 砖诇讬讞讜转 谞讻专讬 诇讗 讗转讬 诇讻诇诇 砖诇讬讞讜转

The Gemara rejects this comparison: But that is not so. A minor Jew will eventually reach the stage of eligibility for agency, but a gentile will not reach eligibility for agency. Consequently, the Sages did not establish the power for gentiles to acquire an item by means of an act of acquisition performed by a Jew.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬砖专讗诇 砖诇讜讛 诪注讜转 诪谉 讛谞讻专讬 讘专讘讬转 讜讝拽驻谉 注诇讬讜 讘诪诇讜讛 讜谞转讙讬讬专 讗诐 拽讜讚诐 砖谞转讙讬讬专 讝拽驻谉 注诇讬讜 讘诪诇讜讛 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛专讘讬转 讜讗诐 诇讗讞专 砖谞转讙讬讬专 讝拽驻谉 注诇讬讜 讘诪诇讜讛 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛专讘讬转

The Sages taught: In the case of a Jew who borrowed money with interest from a gentile, and the gentile lender established the interest as a loan for the Jewish borrower, i.e., he added the amount of interest to the principal and consolidated it into a single debt, and then the gentile converted, the halakha depends on the circumstances. If the gentile established it as a loan for him before he converted, he may collect the principal from the borrower and he may also collect the interest. Since it had already been consolidated into a single debt, it is as though he already collected the interest while he was still a gentile. But if he established it as a loan for him after he converted, he may collect the principal but may not collect the interest, as it still had the status of interest when he became a Jew.

讜讻谉 谞讻专讬 砖诇讜讛 诪注讜转 诪讬砖专讗诇 讘专讘讬转 讜讝拽驻谉 注诇讬讜 讘诪诇讜讛 讜谞转讙讬讬专 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞转讙讬讬专 讝拽驻谉 注诇讬讜 讘诪诇讜讛 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛专讘讬转 讗诐 诪砖谞转讙讬讬专 讝拽驻谉 注诇讬讜 讘诪诇讜讛 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛专讘讬转

And similarly, in the case of a gentile who borrowed money with interest from a Jew and the Jewish lender established the interest as a loan for the gentile borrower, and then the gentile borrower converted, if he established it as a loan before he converted, the Jew may collect the principal and may also collect the interest. If he established it as a loan for the gentile after he converted, he may collect the principal but may not collect the interest, as it still had the status of interest when he became a Jew.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 谞讻专讬 砖诇讜讛 诪注讜转 诪讬砖专讗诇 讘专讘讬转 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛专讘讬转 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 讘砖讘讬诇 诪注讜转讬讜 谞转讙讬讬专 讝讛

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yosei says: If a gentile borrowed money with interest from a Jew and converted, whether in this circumstance or whether in that circumstance, i.e., regardless of when the lender consolidated the interest and principal into a single debt, the Jewish lender may collect the principal and he may also collect the interest. Rava says that Rav 岣sda says that Rav Huna says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rava says: What is the reasoning behind the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? What is the justification for collecting interest from a Jew? It is in order that people will not say: This individual converted due to concern for his money. People will suspect that he converted in order to avoid paying the interest.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讟专 砖讻转讜讘 讘讜 专讘讬转 拽讜谞住讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诇讗 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜诇讗 讗转 讛专讘讬转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛专讘讬转 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 拽谞住讬谞谉 讛转讬专讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讬住讜专讗 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 拽谞住讬谞谉 讛转讬专讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讬住讜专讗

The Sages taught: In the case of a promissory note in which the details of a loan with interest were written, we penalize the lender, and therefore he may not collect the principal and may not collect the interest; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He may collect the principal but he may not collect the interest. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Meir holds: We penalize him with regard to that which is permitted due to that which is prohibited, and the Rabbis hold: We do not penalize him with regard to that which is permitted due to that which is prohibited.

转谞谉 讛转诐 砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 讛诪讜拽讚诪讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讛诪讗讜讞专讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 诪讜拽讚诪讬谉 讗诪讗讬 驻住讜诇讬谉 谞讛讬 讚诇讗 讙讘讜 诪讝诪谉 专讗砖讜谉 谞讬讙讘讜 诪讝诪谉 砖谞讬

We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Shevi鈥檌t 10:5): Antedated promissory notes, in which the date written in the document is earlier than the date the loan was actually transacted, are not valid, but postdated promissory notes are valid. The Gemara asks: Why are antedated documents not valid? Granted, they cannot be used to collect from the first date, the date written in them, because this could cause loss to people who purchased land from the borrower in the time between the date written on the promissory note and the time the loan was actually granted. The land they purchased would be subject to a lien when it fact it should not be. But at least they should be able to be used to collect from the second date, when the loan was actually granted.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讘诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞讜讬讛 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讙讘讛 诪讝诪谉 专讗砖讜谉

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: This mishna is subject to dispute, and it is taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said that the lender is penalized with regard to that which is permitted due to that which is prohibited. Here too, since he wrote an incorrect date, the entire document is invalidated as a penalty. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: You may even say that this halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as here there is a rabbinic decree invalidating the document lest he collect from the first date. If the document is not invalidated, the lender will depend on it and will come to collect repayment according to the date written on it.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚诪砖讻讬谉 诇讬讛 驻专讚讬住讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 讗讻诇讛 转诇转 砖谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪讝讘讬谞转 诇讛 谞讬讛诇讬 诪讜讟讘 讜讗讬 诇讗 讻讘讬砖谞讗 诇讛 诇砖讟专 诪砖讻谞转讗 讜讗诪讬谞讗 诇拽讜讞讛 讛讬讗 讘讬讚讬

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who mortgaged his orchard to another as security for a loan, and the lender consumed the produce of the orchard for three years. At the end of this time the lender said to the borrower: If you sell me the orchard, that is good. But if not, I will hide the document of the mortgage and I will say: It is purchased, and that is why it is in my possession, meaning I will claim I purchased the field and lost the deed. Since the land has been in my possession for three years I do not have to bring any other proof, as the halakha is that after three years of use of a field there is a presumption of ownership for the one who uses it (see Bava Batra 29b).

讗讝诇 拽诐 讗拽谞讬讬讛 诇讘谞讜 拽讟谉 讜讛讚专 讝讘谞讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛

When the borrower saw that he could not protect himself against the ruse, he devised a scheme: He went and transferred ownership of the field to his minor son by means of a deed of gift, and afterward sold the field to the lender. Subsequently, he demanded that the sale be annulled, since when he sold the field, it was not his.

讝讘讬谞讬 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讝讘讬谞讬 讝讜讝讬 讻诪诇讜讛 讘砖讟专 讚诪讜 讜讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讚诪讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘讬 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬

The Gemara clarifies the halakha: The sale was certainly not a sale, since the field was not his to sell, but the question is: Are the dinars that the buyer paid similar to a loan with a promissory note, and therefore the buyer can collect the money he paid even from liened property that has been sold? Or perhaps it is similar to a loan by oral agreement, and therefore he cannot collect it from liened property that has been sold. Abaye said: Is this question not the same as that of Rabbi Asi? As Rabbi Asi says:

诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐

In the case of a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor is not required to ratify it in court in order to collect the debt, and he can therefore use the document to collect the debt even from liened property that has been sold. In the present case as well, the seller admits that he received the money; therefore the document of sale should enable the buyer to collect his money from liened property.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 谞讬转谉 诇讛讻转讘 讛讻讗 诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讛讻转讘

Rava said to him: Are these cases comparable? There, the matter detailed in the document may be written, as it is a substantive matter; the document attests to true events and it is therefore possible to use the promissory note to collect the debt. But here, the matter detailed in the document may not be written, as the entire sale was not genuine since it was done against the will of the seller. Consequently, this document is completely invalid and cannot be used to collect from liened property.

讬转讬讘 诪专讬诪专 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇诪专讬诪专 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讙讘讛 诪讝诪谉 专讗砖讜谉 谞讬诪讗 诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讬讻转讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 谞讛讬 讚诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讬讻转讘 诪讝诪谉 专讗砖讜谉 讗讘诇 谞讬转谉 诇讬讻转讘 诪讝诪谉 砖谞讬 讛讻讗 诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讬讻转讘 讻诇诇

Mareimar sat and stated this halakha. Ravina said to Mareimar: But if Rava鈥檚 answer is accepted, then with regard to that which Rabbi Yo岣nan said concerning an antedated loan document, that there is a rabbinic decree invalidating the document lest he collect from the first date, let us say that there is a better rationale, as Rava stated: The antedated document is invalid, as it may not be written. Mareimar said to him: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the antedated document, granted, it may not be written from the first date, but it may be written from the second date. Here, it may not be written at all.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇砖讘讞 拽专拽注讜转 讻讬爪讚 讛专讬 砖讙讝诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜诪讻专讛 诇讗讞专 讜讛砖讘讬讞讛 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讜砖讘讞 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 谞讬诪讗 诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讬讻转讘

The Gemara further asks: But how does one understand that which is taught in a baraita: What is the case in which one appropriates property for the enhancement of land? It is a case where one robbed another of a field and sold it to another and that buyer enhanced it, and it is appropriated by the court from his possession. When the buyer collects payment from the robber, he collects the principal, i.e., the money he paid for the field itself, even from liened property that the robber had sold in the interim, and he collects the value of the enhancement from the robber鈥檚 unsold property. Let us say there also that this illegal sale of the field was a transaction that is may not be written, and therefore he should not be allowed to collect even the principal from liened property.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讗讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 谞讬拽专讬讬讛 讙讝诇谞讗 讗讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讬拽讜诐 讘讛讬诪谞讜转讬讛 诪驻讬讬住 诇讬讛 诇诪专讬讛 讜诪讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 诇砖讟专讬讛 讛讻讗 诇讗讘专讜讞讬 诪讬谞讬讛 拽诪讻讜讬谉 砖讟专讗 诪拽讬讬诐 诇讬讛

The Gemara refutes this suggestion: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the field purchased from a robber, the deed of sale is meaningful either according to the one who says that it is preferable for the robber not to be called a robber by the buyer, or according to the one who says that it is preferable for the robber to maintain his reliability, i.e., to be considered an honest person; and therefore, the robber will appease the owner of the field by paying him for it and will attempt to ratify his document so that it is valid. But here, where the one who sold the field under duress intends to remove the buyer from it, will he then ratify his document?

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 注诇 讛驻讬专讜转 注讚 砖讬爪讗 讛砖注专 讬爪讗 讛砖注专 驻讜住拽讬谉 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讝讛 讬砖 诇讝讛

MISHNA: One may not set a price with a buyer for the future delivery of produce until the market rate is publicized, as, if he is paid for supplying produce at a later date in advance of the publication of the market rate for that type of produce, he may set a price that is too low. The money paid in advance is deemed a loan, and if the initial payment was lower than the later market value, delivery of the produce will constitute interest on the loan. Once the market rate is publicized, the seller may set a price, even if the produce is not yet in his possession. The reason for this is that even though this one, i.e., the seller, does not have any of the produce, that one, someone else, has it, and the seller could theoretically acquire the produce now at the price he set.

讛讬讛 讛讜讗 转讞讬诇讛 诇拽讜爪专讬诐 驻讜住拽 注诪讜 注诇 讛讙讚讬砖 讜注诇 讛注讘讬讟 砖诇 注谞讘讬诐 讜注诇 讛诪注讟谉 砖诇 讝讬转讬诐 讜注诇 讛讘讬爪讬诐 砖诇 讬讜爪专 讜注诇 讛住讬讚 诪砖砖拽注讜 讘讻讘砖谉

If the seller was first among the reapers, having harvested his crop before the market rate was set, he may set a price with a buyer as he wishes for a stack of grain that is already in his possession, or for a large basket of grapes prepared for pressing into wine, or for a vat [hama鈥檃tan] of olives prepared for pressing into oil, or for the clumps [habeitzim] of clay prepared for use by a potter, or for plaster nearing the end of the manufacturing process at the point after he has sunk it, i.e., baked it, in the kiln. Although the market rate has yet to be set, the seller may nevertheless set a price now for their eventual delivery.

讜驻讜住拽 注诪讜 注诇 讛讝讘诇 讻诇 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 注诇 讛讝讘诇 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讝讘诇 讘讗砖驻讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪转讬专讬诐

The mishna continues: And he may set a price with a buyer for manure on any of the days of the year, as the manure will certainly be available and it is therefore viewed as if it is ready. Rabbi Yosei says: One may set the price of manure only if he already had a pile of manure in his dunghill to which the sale can immediately be applied, but the Rabbis permit it in all cases.

讜驻讜住拽 注诪讜 讘砖注专 讛讙讘讜讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 驻住拽 注诪讜 讘砖注专 讛讙讘讜讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 转谉 诇讬 讻讝讛 讗讜 转谉 诇讬 讗转 诪注讜转讬

And one may also set a price with a buyer at the highest rate, i.e., a large amount of produce sold for the lowest price, stipulating with the seller that the sale price match the lowest market rate for this product during the course of the year. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if he did not set a price with him beforehand at the highest rate, the buyer may say to the seller: Give me the produce at this rate or give me back my money. Since he did not formally acquire the produce, if the price changed he may withdraw from the transaction.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 注诇 讛砖注专 砖讘砖讜拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讚讜专诪讜住 讛讝讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇讗 讘砖讜拽 砖诇 注讬讬专讜转 讚诇讗 拽讘讬注讬 转专注讬讬讛讜

GEMARA: Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: One may not set a price for the future delivery of produce at the current market rate because the market is not sufficiently stable. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Does Rabbi Yo岣nan state this ruling even with regard to the rate of this large central market [dormus]? Rabbi Asi said to him: Rabbi Yo岣nan stated this ruling only with regard to the small-town markets, since their rates are not fixed, as smaller markets have greater sensitivity to fluctuations in price.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚住诇讬拽 讗讚注转讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讚讜专诪讜住 讛讝讛 讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 注诇 讛驻讬专讜转 注讚 砖讬爪讗 讛砖注专 讬爪讗 讛砖注专 驻讜住拽讬谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讞讬讟讬 讚讗讻诇讘讬 讜讗专讘讬 讚诪砖讜讱 转专注讬讛 讟驻讬

The Gemara asks: And according to what we thought initially, that Rabbi Yo岣nan stated this ruling even with regard to this large central market, but then there is a difficulty with the mishna, which teaches: One may not set a price with a buyer for the future delivery of produce until the market rate is publicized. By inference, once the market rate is publicized, one may set a price. If Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 ruling applies even to large central markets, how can you find these circumstances? The Gemara answers: The mishna may be speaking about wheat that comes from large warehouses and from ships, as their rate lasts longer, since this merchandise comes to market in very large quantities.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 注诇 讛驻讬专讜转 注讚 砖讬爪讗 讛砖注专 讬爪讗 讛砖注专 驻讜住拽讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讝讛 讬砖 诇讝讛 讛讬讜 讞讚砖讜转 诪讗专讘注 讜讬砖谞讜转 诪砖诇砖 讗讬谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 注讚 砖讬爪讗 讛砖注专 诇讞讚砖 讜诇讬砖谉

The Sages taught: One may not set a price with a buyer for the future delivery of produce until the market rate is publicized. Once the market rate is publicized, the seller may set a price, even if the produce is not yet in his possession. The reason for this is that even though this one, the seller, does not have any of the produce, that one, someone else, has it, and the seller could theoretically acquire the produce now at the price he set. If the new grain was selling at the rate of four se鈥檃 for a sela and the old grain was selling at three, one may not set the price according to the price of the new grain until the market rate is publicized both for the new and for the old grain. By the time payment is made, the new grain will not be entirely new and its price will be the same as that of the old grain.

讛讬讜 诇拽讜讟讜转 诪讗专讘注 讜诇讻诇 讗讚诐 诪砖诇砖 讗讬谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 注讚 砖讬爪讗 讛砖注专 诇诇讜拽讟 讜诇诪讜讻专

Similarly, if the produce sold by gleaners who gather wheat from various fields, the quality of which is low, is selling at the rate of four se鈥檃 of wheat for a sela and that of every other person is selling at the rate of three se鈥檃 of wheat for a sela, one may not set a price at the gleaners鈥 rate until the market rate is publicized both for wheat sold by a gleaner and for wheat sold by an ordinary seller.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 诇诇拽讜讟讜转 讻砖注专 讛诇拽讜讟讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇讜拽讟 讚讗讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讬讝讬祝 诪诇拽讜讟 讞讘专讬讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 谞诪讬 讬讝讬祝 诪诇拽讜讟 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讝讬诇讗 讘讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪讬讝祝 诪诇拽讜讟 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗驻讬专讬 砖驻讬专讬 讬讛讬讘

Rav Na岣an said: One may set a price for gleaners to deliver produce in the future at the gleaners鈥 rate. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: What is different about a gleaner, who you hold can immediately set his price at the gleaners鈥 rate? As, if he has no produce he can borrow it from another gleaner, and therefore it is viewed as though it were in his possession. A homeowner as well should be able to set a price at the gleaners鈥 rate, as, if he has no grain he can borrow from a gleaner. Rav Na岣an said to him: It is degrading for a homeowner to borrow from a gleaner. Consequently, there is a need to establish a market rate for ordinary sellers. And if you wish, say instead: One who gives money to a homeowner to buy his grain gives the money in return for quality produce, and he does not want the inferior produce the homeowner could borrow from gleaners.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谉 诇讜讬谉 注诇 砖注专 砖讘砖讜拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 诇专讘 砖砖转 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘 砖砖转 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛谞讬 讘谞讬 讘讬 专讘 讚讬讝驻讬 讘转砖专讬 讜驻专注讬 讘讟讘转 砖专讬 讗讜 讗住讬专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讗 讞讬讟讬 讘讛讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讞讬讟讬 讘砖讬诇讬 讗讬 讘注讬 讝讘谞讬 讜驻专注讬 诇讬讛

Rav Sheshet says that Rav Huna says: One may not borrow produce based on the market rate, meaning that one may not purchase produce on credit with an agreement to pay for it later at the future market price, even though there is grain sold at this price in another location. Rav Yosef bar 岣ma said to Rav Sheshet, and some say that it was Rav Yosei bar Abba who said to Rav Sheshet: And did Rav Huna say this? But didn鈥檛 it occur that the Sages asked Rav Huna: With regard to those students of Torah who borrow food in the month of Tishrei and pay for it in Tevet at the rate in effect then, is this permitted or prohibited? Rav Huna said to them: There is wheat in the town called Hini and there is wheat in the town called Shili, and if the students want to they can buy wheat there and pay the lender immediately, and since they can pay at any time, it is permitted.

诪注讬拽专讗 住讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谉 诇讜讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚砖诪注讛 诇讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讜讬谉 讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 诇讜讬谉

The Gemara answers: Initially, Rav Huna thought that one may not borrow produce in this manner, but when he heard that Rabbi Shmuel bar 岣yya says that Rabbi Elazar says: One may borrow produce in this manner, he retracted his previously stated opinion and he also said that one may borrow produce in this manner.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讜诇讬讱 讞讘讬诇讛 诪诪拽讜诐 诇诪拽讜诐 诪爪讗讜 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 转谞讛 诇讬 讜讗谞讬 讗注诇讛 诇讱 讻讚专讱 砖诪注诇讬谉 诇讱 讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐

The Sages taught: With regard to one who transports a package of goods from one place, where he bought it inexpensively, to another place, where the price is higher, in order to sell it at a profit, and another found him on the way and said to him: Give me the package, and I will pay you in the manner that they pay you in that place to which you are going,

  • 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 72

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 72

讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝讻讬讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

nevertheless, he has the power, by rabbinic law, to acquire an item by means of an act of acquisition performed by another? Here, also, it is not different; the Jew can perform an act of acquisition on behalf of the gentile even though there is no agency for gentiles.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讬砖专讗诇 讗转讬 诇讻诇诇 砖诇讬讞讜转 谞讻专讬 诇讗 讗转讬 诇讻诇诇 砖诇讬讞讜转

The Gemara rejects this comparison: But that is not so. A minor Jew will eventually reach the stage of eligibility for agency, but a gentile will not reach eligibility for agency. Consequently, the Sages did not establish the power for gentiles to acquire an item by means of an act of acquisition performed by a Jew.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬砖专讗诇 砖诇讜讛 诪注讜转 诪谉 讛谞讻专讬 讘专讘讬转 讜讝拽驻谉 注诇讬讜 讘诪诇讜讛 讜谞转讙讬讬专 讗诐 拽讜讚诐 砖谞转讙讬讬专 讝拽驻谉 注诇讬讜 讘诪诇讜讛 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛专讘讬转 讜讗诐 诇讗讞专 砖谞转讙讬讬专 讝拽驻谉 注诇讬讜 讘诪诇讜讛 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛专讘讬转

The Sages taught: In the case of a Jew who borrowed money with interest from a gentile, and the gentile lender established the interest as a loan for the Jewish borrower, i.e., he added the amount of interest to the principal and consolidated it into a single debt, and then the gentile converted, the halakha depends on the circumstances. If the gentile established it as a loan for him before he converted, he may collect the principal from the borrower and he may also collect the interest. Since it had already been consolidated into a single debt, it is as though he already collected the interest while he was still a gentile. But if he established it as a loan for him after he converted, he may collect the principal but may not collect the interest, as it still had the status of interest when he became a Jew.

讜讻谉 谞讻专讬 砖诇讜讛 诪注讜转 诪讬砖专讗诇 讘专讘讬转 讜讝拽驻谉 注诇讬讜 讘诪诇讜讛 讜谞转讙讬讬专 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞转讙讬讬专 讝拽驻谉 注诇讬讜 讘诪诇讜讛 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛专讘讬转 讗诐 诪砖谞转讙讬讬专 讝拽驻谉 注诇讬讜 讘诪诇讜讛 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛专讘讬转

And similarly, in the case of a gentile who borrowed money with interest from a Jew and the Jewish lender established the interest as a loan for the gentile borrower, and then the gentile borrower converted, if he established it as a loan before he converted, the Jew may collect the principal and may also collect the interest. If he established it as a loan for the gentile after he converted, he may collect the principal but may not collect the interest, as it still had the status of interest when he became a Jew.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 谞讻专讬 砖诇讜讛 诪注讜转 诪讬砖专讗诇 讘专讘讬转 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛专讘讬转 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 讘砖讘讬诇 诪注讜转讬讜 谞转讙讬讬专 讝讛

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yosei says: If a gentile borrowed money with interest from a Jew and converted, whether in this circumstance or whether in that circumstance, i.e., regardless of when the lender consolidated the interest and principal into a single debt, the Jewish lender may collect the principal and he may also collect the interest. Rava says that Rav 岣sda says that Rav Huna says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rava says: What is the reasoning behind the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? What is the justification for collecting interest from a Jew? It is in order that people will not say: This individual converted due to concern for his money. People will suspect that he converted in order to avoid paying the interest.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讟专 砖讻转讜讘 讘讜 专讘讬转 拽讜谞住讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诇讗 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜诇讗 讗转 讛专讘讬转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛专讘讬转 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 拽谞住讬谞谉 讛转讬专讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讬住讜专讗 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 拽谞住讬谞谉 讛转讬专讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讬住讜专讗

The Sages taught: In the case of a promissory note in which the details of a loan with interest were written, we penalize the lender, and therefore he may not collect the principal and may not collect the interest; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He may collect the principal but he may not collect the interest. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Meir holds: We penalize him with regard to that which is permitted due to that which is prohibited, and the Rabbis hold: We do not penalize him with regard to that which is permitted due to that which is prohibited.

转谞谉 讛转诐 砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 讛诪讜拽讚诪讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讛诪讗讜讞专讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 诪讜拽讚诪讬谉 讗诪讗讬 驻住讜诇讬谉 谞讛讬 讚诇讗 讙讘讜 诪讝诪谉 专讗砖讜谉 谞讬讙讘讜 诪讝诪谉 砖谞讬

We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Shevi鈥檌t 10:5): Antedated promissory notes, in which the date written in the document is earlier than the date the loan was actually transacted, are not valid, but postdated promissory notes are valid. The Gemara asks: Why are antedated documents not valid? Granted, they cannot be used to collect from the first date, the date written in them, because this could cause loss to people who purchased land from the borrower in the time between the date written on the promissory note and the time the loan was actually granted. The land they purchased would be subject to a lien when it fact it should not be. But at least they should be able to be used to collect from the second date, when the loan was actually granted.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讘诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞讜讬讛 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讙讘讛 诪讝诪谉 专讗砖讜谉

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: This mishna is subject to dispute, and it is taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said that the lender is penalized with regard to that which is permitted due to that which is prohibited. Here too, since he wrote an incorrect date, the entire document is invalidated as a penalty. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: You may even say that this halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as here there is a rabbinic decree invalidating the document lest he collect from the first date. If the document is not invalidated, the lender will depend on it and will come to collect repayment according to the date written on it.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚诪砖讻讬谉 诇讬讛 驻专讚讬住讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 讗讻诇讛 转诇转 砖谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪讝讘讬谞转 诇讛 谞讬讛诇讬 诪讜讟讘 讜讗讬 诇讗 讻讘讬砖谞讗 诇讛 诇砖讟专 诪砖讻谞转讗 讜讗诪讬谞讗 诇拽讜讞讛 讛讬讗 讘讬讚讬

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who mortgaged his orchard to another as security for a loan, and the lender consumed the produce of the orchard for three years. At the end of this time the lender said to the borrower: If you sell me the orchard, that is good. But if not, I will hide the document of the mortgage and I will say: It is purchased, and that is why it is in my possession, meaning I will claim I purchased the field and lost the deed. Since the land has been in my possession for three years I do not have to bring any other proof, as the halakha is that after three years of use of a field there is a presumption of ownership for the one who uses it (see Bava Batra 29b).

讗讝诇 拽诐 讗拽谞讬讬讛 诇讘谞讜 拽讟谉 讜讛讚专 讝讘谞讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛

When the borrower saw that he could not protect himself against the ruse, he devised a scheme: He went and transferred ownership of the field to his minor son by means of a deed of gift, and afterward sold the field to the lender. Subsequently, he demanded that the sale be annulled, since when he sold the field, it was not his.

讝讘讬谞讬 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讝讘讬谞讬 讝讜讝讬 讻诪诇讜讛 讘砖讟专 讚诪讜 讜讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讚诪讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘讬 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬

The Gemara clarifies the halakha: The sale was certainly not a sale, since the field was not his to sell, but the question is: Are the dinars that the buyer paid similar to a loan with a promissory note, and therefore the buyer can collect the money he paid even from liened property that has been sold? Or perhaps it is similar to a loan by oral agreement, and therefore he cannot collect it from liened property that has been sold. Abaye said: Is this question not the same as that of Rabbi Asi? As Rabbi Asi says:

诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐

In the case of a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor is not required to ratify it in court in order to collect the debt, and he can therefore use the document to collect the debt even from liened property that has been sold. In the present case as well, the seller admits that he received the money; therefore the document of sale should enable the buyer to collect his money from liened property.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 谞讬转谉 诇讛讻转讘 讛讻讗 诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讛讻转讘

Rava said to him: Are these cases comparable? There, the matter detailed in the document may be written, as it is a substantive matter; the document attests to true events and it is therefore possible to use the promissory note to collect the debt. But here, the matter detailed in the document may not be written, as the entire sale was not genuine since it was done against the will of the seller. Consequently, this document is completely invalid and cannot be used to collect from liened property.

讬转讬讘 诪专讬诪专 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇诪专讬诪专 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讙讘讛 诪讝诪谉 专讗砖讜谉 谞讬诪讗 诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讬讻转讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 谞讛讬 讚诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讬讻转讘 诪讝诪谉 专讗砖讜谉 讗讘诇 谞讬转谉 诇讬讻转讘 诪讝诪谉 砖谞讬 讛讻讗 诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讬讻转讘 讻诇诇

Mareimar sat and stated this halakha. Ravina said to Mareimar: But if Rava鈥檚 answer is accepted, then with regard to that which Rabbi Yo岣nan said concerning an antedated loan document, that there is a rabbinic decree invalidating the document lest he collect from the first date, let us say that there is a better rationale, as Rava stated: The antedated document is invalid, as it may not be written. Mareimar said to him: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the antedated document, granted, it may not be written from the first date, but it may be written from the second date. Here, it may not be written at all.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇砖讘讞 拽专拽注讜转 讻讬爪讚 讛专讬 砖讙讝诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜诪讻专讛 诇讗讞专 讜讛砖讘讬讞讛 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讜砖讘讞 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 谞讬诪讗 诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讬讻转讘

The Gemara further asks: But how does one understand that which is taught in a baraita: What is the case in which one appropriates property for the enhancement of land? It is a case where one robbed another of a field and sold it to another and that buyer enhanced it, and it is appropriated by the court from his possession. When the buyer collects payment from the robber, he collects the principal, i.e., the money he paid for the field itself, even from liened property that the robber had sold in the interim, and he collects the value of the enhancement from the robber鈥檚 unsold property. Let us say there also that this illegal sale of the field was a transaction that is may not be written, and therefore he should not be allowed to collect even the principal from liened property.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讗讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 谞讬拽专讬讬讛 讙讝诇谞讗 讗讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讬拽讜诐 讘讛讬诪谞讜转讬讛 诪驻讬讬住 诇讬讛 诇诪专讬讛 讜诪讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 诇砖讟专讬讛 讛讻讗 诇讗讘专讜讞讬 诪讬谞讬讛 拽诪讻讜讬谉 砖讟专讗 诪拽讬讬诐 诇讬讛

The Gemara refutes this suggestion: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the field purchased from a robber, the deed of sale is meaningful either according to the one who says that it is preferable for the robber not to be called a robber by the buyer, or according to the one who says that it is preferable for the robber to maintain his reliability, i.e., to be considered an honest person; and therefore, the robber will appease the owner of the field by paying him for it and will attempt to ratify his document so that it is valid. But here, where the one who sold the field under duress intends to remove the buyer from it, will he then ratify his document?

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 注诇 讛驻讬专讜转 注讚 砖讬爪讗 讛砖注专 讬爪讗 讛砖注专 驻讜住拽讬谉 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讝讛 讬砖 诇讝讛

MISHNA: One may not set a price with a buyer for the future delivery of produce until the market rate is publicized, as, if he is paid for supplying produce at a later date in advance of the publication of the market rate for that type of produce, he may set a price that is too low. The money paid in advance is deemed a loan, and if the initial payment was lower than the later market value, delivery of the produce will constitute interest on the loan. Once the market rate is publicized, the seller may set a price, even if the produce is not yet in his possession. The reason for this is that even though this one, i.e., the seller, does not have any of the produce, that one, someone else, has it, and the seller could theoretically acquire the produce now at the price he set.

讛讬讛 讛讜讗 转讞讬诇讛 诇拽讜爪专讬诐 驻讜住拽 注诪讜 注诇 讛讙讚讬砖 讜注诇 讛注讘讬讟 砖诇 注谞讘讬诐 讜注诇 讛诪注讟谉 砖诇 讝讬转讬诐 讜注诇 讛讘讬爪讬诐 砖诇 讬讜爪专 讜注诇 讛住讬讚 诪砖砖拽注讜 讘讻讘砖谉

If the seller was first among the reapers, having harvested his crop before the market rate was set, he may set a price with a buyer as he wishes for a stack of grain that is already in his possession, or for a large basket of grapes prepared for pressing into wine, or for a vat [hama鈥檃tan] of olives prepared for pressing into oil, or for the clumps [habeitzim] of clay prepared for use by a potter, or for plaster nearing the end of the manufacturing process at the point after he has sunk it, i.e., baked it, in the kiln. Although the market rate has yet to be set, the seller may nevertheless set a price now for their eventual delivery.

讜驻讜住拽 注诪讜 注诇 讛讝讘诇 讻诇 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 注诇 讛讝讘诇 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讝讘诇 讘讗砖驻讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪转讬专讬诐

The mishna continues: And he may set a price with a buyer for manure on any of the days of the year, as the manure will certainly be available and it is therefore viewed as if it is ready. Rabbi Yosei says: One may set the price of manure only if he already had a pile of manure in his dunghill to which the sale can immediately be applied, but the Rabbis permit it in all cases.

讜驻讜住拽 注诪讜 讘砖注专 讛讙讘讜讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 驻住拽 注诪讜 讘砖注专 讛讙讘讜讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 转谉 诇讬 讻讝讛 讗讜 转谉 诇讬 讗转 诪注讜转讬

And one may also set a price with a buyer at the highest rate, i.e., a large amount of produce sold for the lowest price, stipulating with the seller that the sale price match the lowest market rate for this product during the course of the year. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if he did not set a price with him beforehand at the highest rate, the buyer may say to the seller: Give me the produce at this rate or give me back my money. Since he did not formally acquire the produce, if the price changed he may withdraw from the transaction.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 注诇 讛砖注专 砖讘砖讜拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讚讜专诪讜住 讛讝讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇讗 讘砖讜拽 砖诇 注讬讬专讜转 讚诇讗 拽讘讬注讬 转专注讬讬讛讜

GEMARA: Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: One may not set a price for the future delivery of produce at the current market rate because the market is not sufficiently stable. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Does Rabbi Yo岣nan state this ruling even with regard to the rate of this large central market [dormus]? Rabbi Asi said to him: Rabbi Yo岣nan stated this ruling only with regard to the small-town markets, since their rates are not fixed, as smaller markets have greater sensitivity to fluctuations in price.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚住诇讬拽 讗讚注转讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讚讜专诪讜住 讛讝讛 讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 注诇 讛驻讬专讜转 注讚 砖讬爪讗 讛砖注专 讬爪讗 讛砖注专 驻讜住拽讬谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讞讬讟讬 讚讗讻诇讘讬 讜讗专讘讬 讚诪砖讜讱 转专注讬讛 讟驻讬

The Gemara asks: And according to what we thought initially, that Rabbi Yo岣nan stated this ruling even with regard to this large central market, but then there is a difficulty with the mishna, which teaches: One may not set a price with a buyer for the future delivery of produce until the market rate is publicized. By inference, once the market rate is publicized, one may set a price. If Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 ruling applies even to large central markets, how can you find these circumstances? The Gemara answers: The mishna may be speaking about wheat that comes from large warehouses and from ships, as their rate lasts longer, since this merchandise comes to market in very large quantities.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 注诇 讛驻讬专讜转 注讚 砖讬爪讗 讛砖注专 讬爪讗 讛砖注专 驻讜住拽讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讝讛 讬砖 诇讝讛 讛讬讜 讞讚砖讜转 诪讗专讘注 讜讬砖谞讜转 诪砖诇砖 讗讬谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 注讚 砖讬爪讗 讛砖注专 诇讞讚砖 讜诇讬砖谉

The Sages taught: One may not set a price with a buyer for the future delivery of produce until the market rate is publicized. Once the market rate is publicized, the seller may set a price, even if the produce is not yet in his possession. The reason for this is that even though this one, the seller, does not have any of the produce, that one, someone else, has it, and the seller could theoretically acquire the produce now at the price he set. If the new grain was selling at the rate of four se鈥檃 for a sela and the old grain was selling at three, one may not set the price according to the price of the new grain until the market rate is publicized both for the new and for the old grain. By the time payment is made, the new grain will not be entirely new and its price will be the same as that of the old grain.

讛讬讜 诇拽讜讟讜转 诪讗专讘注 讜诇讻诇 讗讚诐 诪砖诇砖 讗讬谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 注讚 砖讬爪讗 讛砖注专 诇诇讜拽讟 讜诇诪讜讻专

Similarly, if the produce sold by gleaners who gather wheat from various fields, the quality of which is low, is selling at the rate of four se鈥檃 of wheat for a sela and that of every other person is selling at the rate of three se鈥檃 of wheat for a sela, one may not set a price at the gleaners鈥 rate until the market rate is publicized both for wheat sold by a gleaner and for wheat sold by an ordinary seller.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 诇诇拽讜讟讜转 讻砖注专 讛诇拽讜讟讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇讜拽讟 讚讗讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讬讝讬祝 诪诇拽讜讟 讞讘专讬讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 谞诪讬 讬讝讬祝 诪诇拽讜讟 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讝讬诇讗 讘讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪讬讝祝 诪诇拽讜讟 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗驻讬专讬 砖驻讬专讬 讬讛讬讘

Rav Na岣an said: One may set a price for gleaners to deliver produce in the future at the gleaners鈥 rate. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: What is different about a gleaner, who you hold can immediately set his price at the gleaners鈥 rate? As, if he has no produce he can borrow it from another gleaner, and therefore it is viewed as though it were in his possession. A homeowner as well should be able to set a price at the gleaners鈥 rate, as, if he has no grain he can borrow from a gleaner. Rav Na岣an said to him: It is degrading for a homeowner to borrow from a gleaner. Consequently, there is a need to establish a market rate for ordinary sellers. And if you wish, say instead: One who gives money to a homeowner to buy his grain gives the money in return for quality produce, and he does not want the inferior produce the homeowner could borrow from gleaners.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谉 诇讜讬谉 注诇 砖注专 砖讘砖讜拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 诇专讘 砖砖转 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘 砖砖转 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛谞讬 讘谞讬 讘讬 专讘 讚讬讝驻讬 讘转砖专讬 讜驻专注讬 讘讟讘转 砖专讬 讗讜 讗住讬专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讗 讞讬讟讬 讘讛讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讞讬讟讬 讘砖讬诇讬 讗讬 讘注讬 讝讘谞讬 讜驻专注讬 诇讬讛

Rav Sheshet says that Rav Huna says: One may not borrow produce based on the market rate, meaning that one may not purchase produce on credit with an agreement to pay for it later at the future market price, even though there is grain sold at this price in another location. Rav Yosef bar 岣ma said to Rav Sheshet, and some say that it was Rav Yosei bar Abba who said to Rav Sheshet: And did Rav Huna say this? But didn鈥檛 it occur that the Sages asked Rav Huna: With regard to those students of Torah who borrow food in the month of Tishrei and pay for it in Tevet at the rate in effect then, is this permitted or prohibited? Rav Huna said to them: There is wheat in the town called Hini and there is wheat in the town called Shili, and if the students want to they can buy wheat there and pay the lender immediately, and since they can pay at any time, it is permitted.

诪注讬拽专讗 住讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谉 诇讜讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚砖诪注讛 诇讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讜讬谉 讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 诇讜讬谉

The Gemara answers: Initially, Rav Huna thought that one may not borrow produce in this manner, but when he heard that Rabbi Shmuel bar 岣yya says that Rabbi Elazar says: One may borrow produce in this manner, he retracted his previously stated opinion and he also said that one may borrow produce in this manner.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讜诇讬讱 讞讘讬诇讛 诪诪拽讜诐 诇诪拽讜诐 诪爪讗讜 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 转谞讛 诇讬 讜讗谞讬 讗注诇讛 诇讱 讻讚专讱 砖诪注诇讬谉 诇讱 讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐

The Sages taught: With regard to one who transports a package of goods from one place, where he bought it inexpensively, to another place, where the price is higher, in order to sell it at a profit, and another found him on the way and said to him: Give me the package, and I will pay you in the manner that they pay you in that place to which you are going,

Scroll To Top