Bava Metzia 73

ברשות מוכר מותר ברשות לוקח אסור

then, if the package remains in the possession of the seller, i.e., the seller accepts upon himself responsibility for any accidental damage that occurs along the way, it is permitted, as the transaction is not a loan. But if it is in the possession of the buyer, meaning that the buyer accepts responsibility for accidental damage, then the transaction is prohibited, as it is considered a loan with interest.

המוליך פירות ממקום למקום מצאו חבירו ואמר לו תנם לי ואני אעלה לך פירות שיש לי באותו מקום אם יש לו פירות באותו מקום מותר ואם לאו אסור והחמרין מעלים במקום היוקר כבמקום הזול ואינן חוששין

With regard to one who transports produce from one place to another place, if another finds him and says to him: Give the produce to me now and I will repay you with produce that I have in that place to which you are going, then, if he actually has produce in that place, it is permitted, but if not, it is prohibited. But donkey drivers who transport merchandise from one place to another may accept money and set prices in a place where goods are sold at expensive prices according to the rate in effect in another place, where goods are sold at inexpensive prices, and need not be concerned, as this practice is permitted.

מאי טעמא רב פפא אמר ניחא להו דמגלו להו תרעא רב אחא בריה דרב איקא אמר ניחא להו דמוזלי גבייהו

The Gemara asks: What is the reason this is permitted? Rav Pappa says: It is satisfactory to them to sell merchandise at a discounted rate, because by doing so the gates to the new market are opened for them, as in this way they begin to do business in this area and gain new customers. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: It is satisfactory to them because the prices are reduced for them in the places where they make their purchases. Since the sellers there hear that the donkey drivers will need to resell the merchandise at a lower price, the sellers give a discount to the donkey drivers. According to either opinion, the donkey drivers provide the additional produce to the customer not as interest on the loan but as a discount to promote their business.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו תגרא חדתא

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these two reasons to allow this practice? The Gemara answers: The difference between them concerns a merchant who is new in the area. According to the one who holds that the reason he may sell the produce is in order to open the market for him, it applies especially to a merchant in this situation. But according to the one who holds that the reason is that he can procure his merchandise inexpensively, the sellers will not believe him if he is new to his trade, and they will not sell it to him at a discount.

בסורא אזלי ארבעה ארבעה בכפרי אזלן שיתא שיתא יהיב רב זוזי לחמרי וקביל עליה אונסא דאורחא ושקיל מינייהו חמשה ונשקול שיתא אדם חשוב שאני

The Gemara relates: In Sura, four se’a of wheat were going for a sela, and in the nearby town of Kafri they were going for six se’a for a sela. Rav gave money to donkey drivers to purchase wheat in Kafri and accepted upon himself responsibility for any accident that might happen on the way, rendering it permitted for him to set a price according to the rate in effect in Kafri, and he accepted five se’a of wheat for one sela from them. The Gemara challenges: Since he accepted responsibility for damage that might occur as a result of an accident, the produce was his at the time it was purchased, and therefore there was no loan. Consequently, he should have accepted six se’a for a sela. The Gemara explains: An important person is different, as he has to be more stringent with himself and more careful to avoid the appearance of interest.

בעא מיניה רבי אסי מרבי יוחנן מהו לעשות בגרוטאות כן אמר ליה ביקש רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי לעשות כן בכלי פשתן ולא הניחו רבי איכא דאמרי ביקש רבי לעשות בגרוטאות כן ולא הניחו רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי

Rabbi Asi asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: What is the halakha about doing so with metal scraps [bigerutaot]? Is it permitted to make an agreement to purchase metal scraps at the low rate in effect elsewhere, just as it is permitted with wheat and other produce? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, wanted to do so with linen garments and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not allow him to do so. There are those who say a different version of this exchange: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi wanted to do so with metal scraps, and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, did not permit him to do so.

פרדיסא רב אסר ושמואל שרי רב אסר כיון דלקמיה שויא טפי מתחזי כי אגר נטר ליה ושמואל שרי כיון דהוי ביה תיוהא לא מיחזי כי אגר נטר ליה

With regard to one who wants to purchase the produce of an entire orchard, in advance of the harvest, at a cheaper price, Rav prohibits this practice and Shmuel permits it. The Gemara explains: Rav prohibits it because in the future the produce will be worth more, so it appears that the seller is paying interest to the buyer for waiting before receiving the produce, and that has the appearance of interest. And Shmuel permits it, as, since there can be spoilage in the produce of the orchard and the buyer took upon himself responsibility for any losses, it does not appear that the seller is paying interest to the buyer for waiting before receiving the produce, as the buyer may either gain or lose.

אמר רב שימי בר חייא ומודי רב בתורי דנפיש פסידייהו

Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya said: Rav concedes to Shmuel that an arrangement like this would be permitted in a case where one arranges to purchase young oxen at a later date, as their loss is likely to be great. Since it is common for one to incur a discernible loss when raising oxen, as some may die, this arrangement is regarded as an investment.

אמר להו שמואל להנהו דשבשי שבשא הפוכו בארעא כי היכי דקני לכו גופא דארעא ואי לא הויא לכו כהלואה ואסור

Shmuel said to those who purchase branches of grapevines and pay in advance for the vine shoots that will be harvested later: Since the risk in this transaction is small, it has the appearance of interest and therefore you should turn over a bit of the land yourselves, i.e., perform some labor in farming the orchard, so that you acquire some of the land itself for yourselves, and by doing this you become partners with the owner. And this action is necessary because if you do not do this it will be like a loan for you and it will be prohibited for you to accept the branches.

אמר להו רבא להנהו דמנטרי באגי פוקו הפוכו בבי דרי כי היכי דלא תשתלם שכירות דידכו עד ההיא שעתא דשכירות אינה משתלמת אלא בסוף וההיא שעתא אוזולי דקא מוזלי גבייכו

Similarly, Rava said to those who guard fields [bagei] until the harvest is complete and receive their wages from the crops when the harvest is over: Go out and turn over some of the crops in the threshing floor, and thereby assist the owners in their work in order that the wages for your hire are not payable until that time. If you assist in the actual farming work, the halakhic period of your employment will continue until the processing of the grain is complete, and according to the halakha that the obligation to pay a person’s wage is incurred only at the end of the period for which he was hired, it is then that the owners make a reduction for the guards by giving them the crops at a reduced rate, and it is not payment of interest for delaying the wages that they should have been paid earlier. Consequently, such an arrangement is permitted.

אמרו ליה רבנן לרבא קא אכיל מר רבית דכולי עלמא שקלי ארבעה ומסלקי לאריסא בניסן מר נטר להו עד אייר ושקיל שיתא

The Rabbis said to Rava: The Master, meaning Rava, consumes interest. They explained: Everyone else who leases his field to a sharecropper receives four kor of grain as payment, and the owners accept this payment and remove the sharecropper from the field in the month of Nisan. But the Master waits until the month of Iyar and then takes six kor from them. Consequently, they accused Rava of accepting an additional payment for waiting an extra month to take back his field.

אמר להו אתון קא עבדיתון שלא כדין ארעא לאריס משתעבד אי אתון מסלקיתו להו בניסן מפסידתו להו בכמה אנא נטרנא להו עד אייר ומרווחנא להו בכמה

Rava said to them: On the contrary, you are the ones who are acting unlawfully, as in truth all of the land is liened to the sharecropper until he finishes working it and harvests all that he can from it. If you remove sharecroppers from the field in Nisan you cause them to lose a great deal, as they do not have enough time to harvest all the produce from the field. I wait for them until Iyyar, and in this way I enable them to profit a great deal. Consequently, I act in accordance with halakha and receive a suitable payment for leasing the field for the proper length of time, whereas you deprive the sharecroppers of what is due to them, even though you receive less direct remuneration.

רב מרי בר רחל משכן ליה ההוא נכרי ביתא הדר זבנה לרבא נטר תריסר ירחי שתא שקל אגר ביתא אמטי ליה לרבא אמר ליה האי דלא אמטאי למר אגר ביתא עד האידנא דסתם משכנתא שתא אי בעי נכרי לסלקי לא הוה מצי מסלק לי השתא לשקול מר אגר ביתא

The Gemara relates: A certain gentile mortgaged a house to Rav Mari bar Raḥel for a loan that Rav Mari had provided him. Afterward, the gentile sold the house to Rava. Rav Mari waited for twelve months of the year to pass, took the amount of money necessary to pay rent for the house and brought it to Rava, who was now the owner of the house. Rav Mari said to Rava: This fact that I did not bring the rental fee for the house to the Master until now is because an unspecified mortgage is in effect for a period of one year. If that gentile wanted to remove me from the house by paying back the loan, he could not remove me from it until now. Consequently, the house actually belonged to me for that year, and I was not required to pay rent. Now, since the gentile can remove me from the house by repaying the loan, the house belongs to you. Therefore, let the Master now take the rental fee for the house for the coming year.

אמר ליה אי הוה ידענא דהוה ממושכן ליה למר לא הוה זביננא ליה השתא כדיניהם עבדינן לך כל אימת דלא מסלקי בזוזי לא שקיל אגר ביתא אנא נמי לא שקילנא מינך אגר ביתא עד דמסלקנא לך בזוזי

Rava said to him: Had I known that this house was mortgaged to the Master, I would not have purchased it at all, as I would have given you the chance to purchase it first. Now, therefore, I will act toward you according to the law of the gentiles, as I assumed the rights previously held by the gentile. According to gentile law, as long as the borrower does not remove the lender by paying back the money, he also does not take a rental fee for the house, as there is no prohibition against a gentile paying or receiving interest. Therefore, I too will not take a rental fee for the house from you until I remove you by forcing the gentile to pay the money that is owed to you.

אמר ליה רבא מברניש לרב אשי חזי מר רבנן דקא אכלי רביתא דיהבי זוזי אחמרא בתשרי ומבחרי לה בטבת

The Gemara relates: Rava of Barnish said to Rav Ashi: The Master sees the Sages who consume interest, as they give people money for wine in the month of Tishrei, and they select the wine later, in the month of Tevet. Had they taken the wine immediately upon payment, there is a chance that it would have spoiled. Now, in return for paying for the wine in advance, they receive the benefit of guaranteeing that the wine they receive will not be spoiled. Rava of Barnish understood that this benefit, received in exchange for advance payment, is a form of interest.

אמר ליה אינהו נמי אחמרא קא יהבי אחלא לא קא יהבי מעיקרא דחמרא חמרא דחלא חלא ההיא שעתא הוא דקמבחרי

Rav Ashi said to him: They too gave the money at the outset for wine, but they did not give it for vinegar. That which was wine at the outset is still wine, and that which became vinegar was vinegar when they paid for it but they did not know it. It was at that time of selection that they merely selected the wine that they had paid for previously. Since they agreed to buy wine, not vinegar, the benefit of actually receiving wine does not constitute interest.

רבינא הוה יהיב זוזי לבני אקרא דשנוותא ושפכי ליה טפי כופיתא אתא לקמיה דרב אשי אמר ליה מי שרי אמר ליה אין אחולי הוא דקא מחלי גבך

The Gemara relates: Ravina would give money in advance to the people of the fortress [akra] at the river Shanvata in order to buy wine to be supplied after the grape harvest, and when they supplied the wine they would pour an extra jug [kufita] of wine for him as a gift, although there was no stipulation between them requiring this. Ravina came before Rav Ashi to ask whether this involved interest. Ravina said to him: Is it permitted to do this? Rav Ashi said to him: Yes, it is permitted, as they forgo payment for the extra wine to your benefit in order to maintain good relations with you. Since the additional wine is not provided as consideration for the advance payment, there is no problem of interest.

אמר ליה הא ארעא לאו דידהו היא אמר ליה ארעא לטסקא משעבדא ומלכא אמר מאן דיהיב טסקא ליכול ארעא

Ravina said to him: But the land is not theirs. The people of the fortress at Shanvata worked land belonging to others who abandoned their fields because they could not pay the real estate taxes. The people of the fortress paid the taxes and were therefore able to use the fields. Ravina was concerned that perhaps they did not own the grapes and were therefore unable to forgo payment for the additional amount as it did not belong to them. Rav Ashi said to him: The land is liened to the king as payment for the taxes [letaska], and the king says: Whoever pays the tax may consume the produce of the land. Consequently, the ones who pay the taxes have ownership of the wine by dint of the law of the kingdom.

אמר ליה רב פפא לרבא חזי מר הני רבנן דיהבי זוזי אכרגא דאינשי ומשעבדי בהו טפי אמר ליה השתא איכו שכיבא לא אמרי לכו הא מילתא הכי אמר רב ששת מוהרקייהו דהני בטפסא דמלכא מנח ומלכא אמר מאן דלא יהיב כרגא לשתעביד למאן דיהיב כרגא

The Gemara relates that Rav Pappa said to Rava: Let the Master see these Sages who pay money for the tax [akarga] on behalf of other people and afterward make them work more than is reasonable for the amount of money they paid. Rava said to him: Now, if I were dead I could not say the explanation of this matter to you, so it is good that you asked me while I am still alive, as I know that this is what Rav Sheshet said: The document [moharkayyhu] of servitude of these people lies in the treasury of the king, i.e., all of his subjects are considered his servants, and the king said: The one who does not pay the head tax shall serve the one who does pay the head tax, and consequently, by dint of the law of the kingdom they can have them work as much as they want.

רב סעורם אחוה דרבא הוה תקיף אינשי דלא מעלו ומעייל להו בגוהרקא דרבא אמר ליה רבא שפיר קא עבדת דתנינא ראית שאינו נוהג כשורה מנין שאתה רשאי להשתעבד בו תלמוד לומר לעולם בהם תעבדו ובאחיכם יכול אפילו נוהג כשורה תלמוד לומר ובאחיכם בני ישראל איש באחיו וגו׳

The Gemara relates: Rav Se’oram, the brother of Rava, would forcefully seize people who were not acting properly and have them carry Rava’s sedan chair. Rava said to him: You acted correctly, as we learn: If you see a Jew who does not behave properly, from where is it derived that you are permitted to have him work as a slave? The verse states: “Of them you may take your slaves forever; and over your brothers” (Leviticus 25:46). It is derived from the conjunctive “and” linking the two clauses of the verse that there are circumstances where it is permitted to treat a fellow Jew as if he were a slave. One might have thought that this is the halakha even if a Jew acts properly. To counter this, the verse states in the continuation: “And over your brothers the children of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with rigor.”

אמר רב חמא האי מאן דיהיב זוזי לחבריה למיזבן ליה חמרא ופשע ולא זבין ליה משלם ליה כדקא אזיל אפרוותא דזולשפט

Rav Ḥama said: With regard to one who gave money to another to purchase wine for him, and the other, i.e., the agent, was negligent and did not purchase it for him, the agent must pay the one who gave him the money according to the going rate of wine in the port city of Zolshefat, where the main wine market was located, and he must purchase the wine according to the price in that market even if it is more expensive than the amount he was given initially.

אמר אמימר אמריתא לשמעתא קמיה דרב זביד מנהרדעא אמר כי קאמר רב חמא הני מילי ביין סתם אבל ביין זה לא מי יימר דמזבני ליה ניהליה

Ameimar said: I said this halakha before Rav Zevid of Neharde’a, and when he heard it he said: When Rav Ḥama said this, he said that statement in a case where the buyer asked the agent to purchase wine without specification concerning exactly which wine he wanted. But if he said to the agent: Buy this specific wine for me, the agent who neglected to buy the wine is not obligated to buy it at a higher price later, as when he was sent to buy it initially, who says that the owner would have sold it to him? The one who gave the money to the agent was aware of the fact that the agent may not be able to successfully purchase that specific wine. Consequently, the obligation of the agent is simply to return the money, and nothing may be added to that sum, due to the prohibition of interest.

רב אשי אמר אפילו סתם נמי לא מאי טעמא אסמכתא היא ואסמכתא לא קניא

Rav Ashi said: Even if he asked the agent to buy wine without specification, the agent is also not obligated to buy wine later for more than the amount he was given. What is the reason for this? The implicit obligation that the agent accepted upon himself, to pay the one who hired him with wine of a higher value than the amount of money he received, is a transaction with inconclusive consent [asmakhta], as any situation where one will have to pay more money than he received is similar to the payment of a fine, and the acceptance of an asmakhta does not effect acquisition, as his acceptance is assumed to be insincere.

ולרב אשי מאי שנא מהא דתנן אם אוביר ולא אעביד אשלם במיטבא התם בידו

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav Ashi, in what way is this case different from that which we learned in a mishna (104a) concerning a rental agreement for land, in which a sharecropper agreed to cultivate a field in return for a share of the produce and wrote: If I let the field lie fallow and do not cultivate it, I will pay with the best-quality produce? In that case, the sharecropper agreed to pay the amount he caused the owner to lose due to his lack of activity, and it was not ruled an asmakhta. The Gemara answers: There, the matter is in his power, as he can decide whether to work the field or not to work it.