בבא מציעא סד

בבא מציעא סד

בְּעִישּׂוּרְיָיתָא וְחוּמְשְׁיָיתָא.

For example, if the money was given in units of tens or fives, it can be assumed that the owner of the money counted the coins in groups of tens or fives and erred in his count.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְאִי אִינִישׁ תַּקִּיפָא הוּא דְּלָא יָהֵיב מַתָּנָה, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְמָא מִיגְזָל גַּזְלֵיהּ וְאַבְלַע לֵיהּ בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן. דְּתַנְיָא: הַגּוֹזֵל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ וְהִבְלִיעַ לוֹ בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן – יָצָא.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: And if the one who gave the money is a harsh person, who is not accustomed to giving gifts, what is the halakha? Should it be assumed that he made a mistake? Rav Ashi said to him: Perhaps that person once robbed the recipient, and now he included in the calculation the amount he stole, in order to return the stolen money without informing him of the theft. As it is taught in a baraita: One who robs another and then returns the stolen money by including it in the calculation of money paid for another item has fulfilled his obligation to return the stolen money.

וְאִי אִינִישׁ דְּאָתֵי מֵעָלְמָא, דְּלָא שָׁקֵיל וְטָרֵי בַּהֲדֵיהּ, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְמָא אִינִישׁ אַחֲרִינָא גַּזְלֵיהּ, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: כִּי יָזֵיף פְּלוֹנִי פְּשִׁיטֵי מִינָּךְ – אַבְלַע לֵיהּ בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, asked Rav Ashi: And if the giver was a person from the outside, with whom the recipient had never conducted business, what is the halakha? Should it be assumed that the additional money was given in error? Rav Ashi said to him: Perhaps another person, an acquaintance of the giver’s, robbed the recipient and said to the giver: When so-and-so borrows money from you, include it in the calculation. It is possible that the one who robbed the recipient chose this manner of restoring the latter’s money in order to be spared any shame.

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: הֲוָה יָתֵיבְנָא בְּשִׁילְהֵי פִּרְקֵי דְּרַב, וּשְׁמַעִית דְּקָאָמַר ״קָרֵי קָרֵי״ וְלָא יָדַעְנָא מַאי קָאָמַר. בָּתַר דְּקָם רַב, אָמְרִי לְהוּ: מַאי ״קָרֵי קָרֵי״ דְּקָאָמַר רַב?

§ Rav Kahana said: I was sitting at the far end of Rav’s house of study, and I heard him say: Gourds, gourds, but I did not know what he was saying, as I did not hear the entire discussion. After Rav arose and left, I said to the students: What is this statement concerning gourds, gourds, that Rav was saying?

אֲמַרוּ לִי, הָכִי קָאָמַר רַב: הַאי מַאן דְּיָהֵיב זוּזֵי לְגִינָּאָה אַקָּרֵי, וְקָא אָזְלִי עֲשָׂרָה קָרֵי בְּנֵי זַרְתָּא, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: יָהֵבְינָא לָךְ בְּנֵי גַרְמִידָא, אִיתַנְהוּ – שְׁרֵי, לֵיתַנְהוּ – אָסוּר.

They said to me: This is what Rav was saying: If someone gave money to a gardener to purchase gourds from him, and they were going for the price of ten gourds of the length of a span, i.e., the distance between the thumb and the little finger, for a dinar, and the gardener said to the buyer: If you pay me the money now, I will give you gourds a cubit in length at a later point in time, the halakha depends on the circumstances. If gourds of this larger kind are in the possession of the seller, this type of sale is permitted. If they are not in his possession, it is prohibited, as, if he gives him larger gourds at a later date for the price of small gourds, this constitutes interest.

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּמִמֵּילָא קָא רָבוּ – שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? What is the novelty in Rav’s statement? The Gemara answers: The statement is necessary, lest you say: Since they increase in and of themselves it is permitted, as the gardener does not perform any action, but simply waits for the gourds to grow larger before supplying them. Rav therefore teaches us that this is also classified as interest.

כְּמַאן – כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא. דְּתַנְיָא: הַהוֹלֵךְ לַחְלוֹב אֶת עִזָּיו, וְלִגְזוֹז אֶת רְחֵלָיו, וְלִרְדּוֹת אֶת כַּוַּורְתּוֹ, מְצָאוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ: מַה שֶּׁעִזַּי חוֹלְבוֹת מָכוּר לָךְ, מַה שֶּׁרְחֵלַי גּוֹזְזוֹת מָכוּר לָךְ, מַה שֶּׁכַּוַּורְתִּי רוֹדָה מָכוּר לָךְ – מוּתָּר.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rav rule? He ruled in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who went to milk his goats, or shear his sheep, or extract the honey from his hives, if another found him and the farmer said to him: Whatever milk my goats produce is sold to you, or whatever wool will be sheared from my sheep is sold to you, or whatever honey will be extracted from my hive is sold to you, this is permitted. It is permitted despite the fact that the farmer did not specify precisely how much he is selling, and the buyer may receive more of the product than the current market value would dictate due to his paying for it in advance, as he may also receive less of the product than the current market value would dictate.

אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ: מַה שֶּׁעִזַּי חוֹלְבוֹת כָּךְ וְכָךְ מָכוּר לָךְ, מַה שֶּׁרְחֵלַי גּוֹזְזוֹת כָּךְ וְכָךְ מָכוּר לָךְ, מַה שֶּׁכַּוַּורְתִּי רוֹדָה כָּךְ וְכָךְ מָכוּר לָךְ – אָסוּר. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּמִמֵּילָא קָא רָבוּ, כֵּיוָן דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ בְּהַהִיא שַׁעְתָּא – אָסוּר.

The baraita continues: But if the farmer said to him: Such and such an amount of milk from what my goats produce is sold to you, or such and such an amount of wool from what will be sheared from my sheep is sold to you, or such and such an amount of honey from what will be extracted from my hive is sold to you, a transaction of this kind is prohibited, as the farmer is selling him more of the product than the current market value would dictate due to his paying for it in advance. The Gemara states its question: And one sees in this baraita that even though these products increased in value in and of themselves, since they are not in existence at the time of the sale, the practice is forbidden.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רָבָא: כֵּיוָן דְּמִמֵּילָא קָא רָבוּ – שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. וְהָתַנְיָא: כָּךְ וְכָךְ – אָסוּר!

The Gemara records another version of this discussion: There are those who say that Rava said: The halakha is that since the sold items grow by themselves it is permitted, as it does not constitute interest. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that if he specifies: Such and such an amount, it is forbidden?

הָתָם לָאו מִינֵּיהּ קָא רָבוּ, דְּשָׁקְלִי לֵיהּ לְהַאי וְאָתֵי אַחֲרִינָא בְּדוּכְתֵּיהּ. הָכָא מִינֵּיהּ קָא רָבוּ, דְּכִי שָׁקְלִי לֵיהּ לְהַאי – לָא אָתֵי אַחֲרִינָא בְּדוּכְתֵּיהּ.

The Gemara answers that there is a difference between the two cases: There, with regard to milk and wool, they do not increase in and of themselves. This is evident from the fact that if they remove this milk from the goat, other milk replaces it. Therefore, the milk or wool that is generated after the sale is not an extension of the milk or wool that was present at the time of the sale. Conversely, here, in the case of the gourds, they increase in and of themselves, as the same gourds continue to grow. This is evident from the fact that when they remove this gourd from the ground, no other will replace it. Consequently, if he sells him gourds now, any additional growth belongs to the buyer, as the gourds are in his possession from the moment of acquisition.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שָׁרֵי לֵיהּ לְאִינִישׁ לְמֵימַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ, הֵילָךְ אַרְבְּעָה זוּזֵי אַחָבִיתָא דְחַמְרָא, אִי תָּקְפָה – בִּרְשׁוּתָךְ, אִי יָקְרָא אִי זִילָא – בִּרְשׁוּתַי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שֵׁרֵבְיָא לְאַבָּיֵי:

§ Abaye said: It is permitted for a person to say to another: Take these four dinars for the future delivery of a barrel of wine; if it sours, it is in your possession and you are responsible, but if it appreciates or depreciates in value, it is in my possession, as I accept any loss that results from a change in price. Rav Sherevya said to Abaye:

הַאי קָרוֹב לְשָׂכָר וְרָחוֹק לְהֶפְסֵד הוּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ כֵּיוָן דִּמְקַבֵּל עֲלֵיהּ זוֹלָא, קָרוֹב לָזֶה וְלָזֶה הוּא.

This transaction is close to a gain and far from a loss for the seller, as he accepts upon himself the risk that the wine may go sour. An arrangement of this sort constitutes interest by rabbinic law. Abaye said to him: Since the buyer accepts upon himself the potential loss if the price depreciates, it is considered a transaction that is close to both this and that, as there is the possibility of both gain and loss. The transaction is therefore permitted.

מַתְנִי׳: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ לֹא יָדוּר בַּחֲצֵרוֹ חִנָּם, וְלֹא יִשְׂכּוֹר מִמֶּנּוּ בְּפָחוֹת – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא רִבִּית.

MISHNA: One who lends another money may not reside in the borrower’s courtyard free of charge, nor may he rent living quarters from him at less than the going rate, because this is interest. The benefit he receives from living on the borrower’s property constitutes the equivalent of an additional payment as interest on the loan.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַדָּר בַּחֲצַר חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ – אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַעֲלוֹת לוֹ שָׂכָר. הִלְוָהוּ וְדָר בַּחֲצֵירוֹ – צָרִיךְ לְהַעֲלוֹת לוֹ שָׂכָר. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ לֹא יָדוּר בַּחֲצֵירוֹ חִנָּם, וְלֹא יִשְׂכּוֹר מִמֶּנּוּ בְּפָחוֹת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא רִבִּית!

GEMARA: Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says: Even though the Sages said that one who resides in another’s courtyard without his knowledge does not have to pay him rent if the owner of the courtyard does not suffer any loss from the arrangement, nevertheless, if he lent money to the owner of a courtyard and then resides in his courtyard, the lender must pay him rent. The Gemara poses a question: What is Rav Naḥman teaching us by this statement? We learn this explicitly in the mishna: One who lends money to another may not reside in the borrower’s courtyard free of charge, nor may he rent living quarters from him at less than the going rate, because this is interest.

אִי מִמַּתְנִיתִין, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּחָצֵר דְּקַיְימָא לְאַגְרָא, וְגַבְרָא דַּעֲבִיד לְמֵיגַר. אֲבָל חָצֵר דְּלָא קָיְימָא לְאַגְרָא, וְגַבְרָא דְּלָא עֲבִיד לְמֵיגַר – אֵימָא לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara refutes this claim: If this halakha is learned from the mishna alone, I would say that this matter applies only to a situation with a courtyard that stands to be rented out and a man who usually rents a place of residence that would otherwise need to find a place to reside. But with regard to a courtyard that does not stand to be rented out and a man who does not usually rent a place of residence, as he has another place where he could reside, the owner of the courtyard appears to have lost nothing and the resident appears to have gained nothing, so you might say that he should not have to pay at all. Rav Naḥman therefore teaches us that even in that case he must pay rent in order to prevent the appearance of interest.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַדָּר בַּחֲצַר חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ – אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַעֲלוֹת לוֹ שָׂכָר. ״הַלְוֵינִי וְדוּר בַּחֲצֵרִי״ – צָרִיךְ לְהַעֲלוֹת לוֹ שָׂכָר.

There are those who say a different version of this discussion: Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says: Even though the Sages said that one who resides in another’s courtyard without his knowledge does not have to pay him rent, if the courtyard owner says to another: Lend me money and you may reside in my courtyard, the lender must pay him rent.

מַאן דְּאָמַר הִלְוָהוּ – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן הַלְוֵינִי. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר הַלְוֵינִי – אֲבָל הִלְוָהוּ לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא – כֵּיוָן דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לָאו אַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי אוֹזְפֵיהּ – לֵית לַן בַּהּ.

The Gemara analyzes the difference between the two versions. According to the one who said that the lender must pay rent to the courtyard owner if he lent him money without the courtyard owner’s stipulating any conditions, all the more so would he hold that the lender must pay rent to the courtyard owner if the courtyard owner explicitly stated: Lend me money and you may reside in my courtyard, as this indicates a condition obligating the borrower to pay interest. According to the one who said that the arrangement is forbidden if he says: Lend me money and you may reside in my courtyard, it is forbidden only in such a case. But if he merely lent him money without any stipulation about the courtyard, it is not forbidden. What is the reason for the more lenient ruling? Since initially he did not lend him the money with this intention, we have no problem with it, as it is possible that there is no connection between the loan and his residing in the courtyard.

רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא תָּקֵיף עַבְדֵי דְאִינָשֵׁי דְּמַסֵּיק בְּהוּ זוּזֵי, וְעָבֵיד בְּהוּ עֲבִידְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא בְּרֵיהּ: מַאי טַעְמָא עָבֵיד מָר הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא כְּרַב נַחְמָן סְבִירָא לִי, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: עַבְדָּא, נְהוֹם כְּרֵיסֵיהּ לָא שָׁוֵי.

The Gemara relates: Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, Rava’s father, would seize the slaves of people who owed him money, and he would work them against the will of their owners. Rava, son of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, said to him: What is the reason that the Master does this, i.e., seizes and uses these slaves? Rav Yosef bar Ḥama said to him: I maintain that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman said: A slave is not worth even the bread in his stomach. When the slaves work for me and eat in my home, I am not causing the owners any monetary loss.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵימוֹר דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן כְּגוֹן דָּארוּ עַבְדֵּיהּ דִּמְרַקֵּיד בֵּי כוּבֵי, עַבְדֵי אַחֲרִינֵי מִי אָמַר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא, כִּי הָא דְּרַב דָּנִיאֵל בַּר רַב קַטִּינָא אָמַר רַב סְבִירָא לִי. דְּאָמַר: הַתּוֹקֵף עַבְדּוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ וְעָשָׂה בּוֹ מְלָאכָה – פָּטוּר.

Rava said to him: I will say that Rav Naḥman said this with regard to specific slaves, such as his slave Dari, who only dances among the wine barrels [khuvei] and does not perform any labor. Did he say this concerning other slaves? All other slaves perform labor, and their labor is worth more than their board. His father said to him: I maintain that the halakha is in accordance with this statement said by Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina that Rav says, as he says: One who seizes another’s slave and has him perform labor is exempt from paying the master for the labor of the slave,