Bava Metzia 61b (סא:) — the Talmud in English

And

the prohibition of “You shall not rob”

is written in the context of “a hired laborer.”

As it is stated: [Leviticus 19:

“You shall not oppress, and you shall not rob.” The withholding of a hired laborer’s wages is what the Torah calls “oppression.” Therefore, the additional prohibition is needed to include one who withholds a hired laborer’s wages, but not interest and exploitation.

Until now, we discussed why the prohibition of “robbery” is necessary—that is, seizing money in the presence of its owner—and why the Torah states concerning it: “You shall not oppress, and you shall not rob.” For the prohibition could seemingly be derived from interest and exploitation.

Now the Gemara asks about the prohibition of “theft,” stated earlier [verse 11]. Theft means taking money without the owner’s knowledge—for example, at night.

And this is how we raise the objection:

“You shall not steal,” which the Merciful One wrote

[Leviticus 19, verse 11] to prohibit monetary theft,

why do I need it?

Could we not derive the prohibition against diminishing another’s property from interest and exploitation?

And we answer: The verse “You shall not steal” was written in order to include additional forms of robbery, which are also prohibited.

And

as it was taught

from the fact that the Torah wrote

“You shall not steal”

in the plural, we learn that the prohibition of theft applies in every situation, even when the thief’s intention was not to benefit himself, but rather

in order to cause distress,

in order to distress the victim.

Likewise, the prohibition of

“You shall not steal”

applies even when the thief’s intention was for the benefit of the victim. For example,

in order to pay

him

double payment. That is, in a case where the thief knows that his fellow would not agree to accept gifts from him. Therefore, he went and stole money from him in order to become obligated to pay him a “double payment,” thereby benefiting him. Even this theft the Torah prohibited.

The Torah states [Leviticus 19, verse 35]: “You shall not commit a wrong in judgment, in measurement, in weight, or in measure.” That is, the Torah prohibited a seller or buyer from falsifying weights in a manner that causes the buyer or seller a loss.

He said to him

He said to him:

He objected:

Rav Yeimar to Rav Ashi:

The prohibition

that the Merciful One wrote concerning weights—why do I need it?

After all, a seller or buyer who falsifies his weights is unlawfully diminishing another’s money, and the Torah has already stated prohibitions against robbery and exploitation.

He said to him:

The prohibition is necessary only to include the prohibition against

hiding one’s weights in salt.

A buyer who hides the weight in salt, thereby adding weight to it, causes the seller an unlawful loss. And he raises an objection to him: Hiding one’s weights—is this the case that requires an additional inclusion?

It is outright robbery!

What novelty is there in its prohibition? In this case, the buyer is actively robbing the seller.

And he answers him:

To make him transgress it,

the novelty of the Torah’s prohibition is to teach that one who hides his weights in salt transgresses immediately

from the moment of the act.

Even if in the end he did not weigh with this weight, and did not diminish his fellow’s property, or if he repaired it, nevertheless he transgresses a prohibition merely for the act of “hiding” it.

The Sages taught:

The Torah states:

“You shall not commit a wrong in judgment, in measurement, in weight, or in measure.”

And the Sages interpreted it as follows:

“In measurement”

this is a measurement of land.

The Torah warned one who measures land

not to measure

for two brothers who come to divide a field [or for two purchasers who come to divide a field ], each under different conditions. For example, he should not measure for

one

of the brothers

during the summer,

when the measuring rope is dry and shorter,

and for the other

[the second brother] he should measure

during the rainy season,

when the rope expands because of the moisture and becomes longer. For as a result, the division is not equitable: the one measured in the summer will receive a larger field than the one measured in the winter.

“In weight”—this means

that one may not hide his weights in salt,

as we learned above, for one who hides them transgresses a prohibition merely by hiding them.

“And in measure”

means

that one may not cause it to foam,

that the seller may not hurry when pouring wine into the “measure”

the vessel in which wine is measured—in a manner that causes the wine to foam, making it appear as though the vessel is already full.

And is this not a kal va-chomer,

for it can be learned by a kal va-chomer.

If a measure,

the small vessel whose capacity

is one-thirty-sixth

of a log,

the Torah was particular about it

that one may not cause wine to foam in it, even though the volume of the foam is so small [less than one-hundredth of a log],

all the more so

with regard to larger measuring vessels, such as

a hin,

or even

half a hin, one-third of a hin, or one-quarter of a hin.

And it is a kal va-chomer descended from a kal va-chomer with regard to genuinely large measures, such as

a log, half a log, or one-quarter of a log,

in which it is certainly prohibited to cause the liquid to foam.

Rava said: Why did the Merciful One need to write

Why did the Torah see fit to mention

“the Exodus from Egypt”

at the end of the section concerning

interest

[in Leviticus, chapter 25, verse 38]?

Likewise, why did the Torah write about

“the Exodus from Egypt” in the

section concerning

ritual fringes

[in Numbers, chapter 15, verse 41]?

And likewise, why did the Torah write about

“the Exodus from Egypt”

in the section concerning the prohibition against

weights

[in Leviticus, chapter 19, verse 35]?

And Rava explains: The reason that the Exodus from Egypt is mentioned in these three places is to testify and say that this is what

the Holy One, blessed be He, said:

I am the One who discerned in Egypt

at the time of the plague of the firstborn

between a drop that produced a firstborn and a drop that did not produce a firstborn.

In every Egyptian family, in addition to the eldest son born to his father, the Holy One, blessed be He, discerned which other sons were firstborn through illicit relations—a matter that human eyes could not discern—and He killed them.

Likewise,

I am the One who will ultimately exact punishment

[to demand punishment]

from one who attributes his money to a gentile.

A Jew who lies about his money and says that it belongs to a gentile, and through this lie

lends it to a Jew at interest . The Holy One, blessed be He, who discerns and knows that the money is his, will ultimately demand punishment from him for lending his money at interest and for causing his fellow to stumble and misleading him with regard to the prohibition of interest.

This is also why “the Exodus from Egypt” is mentioned in the passage concerning weights: to teach us that God will eventually exact punishment

This is also the reason that “the Exodus from Egypt” is mentioned in the section concerning weights: to teach us that God will ultimately exact punishment

from one who hides

secretly

his weights in salt

in order to make them heavier and thereby deceive the seller. Although human eyes do not discern his deceit, the Holy One, blessed be He, knows and will punish him.

And therefore the Exodus from Egypt was also mentioned concerning ritual fringes, to teach that God will ultimately exact punishment

from one who attaches

[ties] a ritual-fringe thread of a color resembling tekhelet, called

kela ilan, to his garment,

and lies,

saying

in his heart that

it is tekhelet—

as though fulfilling what the Torah stated: “upon a thread of tekhelet.” The Holy One, blessed be He, who examines the hearts, will ultimately exact punishment from him for the act of tying itself, even if in the end he did not wear the garment.

Ravina happened to come

[he happened to arrive]

at Sura on the Euphrates,

the city of Sura near the Euphrates, and there he met Rav Ḥanina.

Rav Ḥanina of Sura on the Euphrates said to Ravina,

He asked him as follows:

The Exodus from Egypt, which the Merciful One wrote with regard to creeping creatures,

after the laws of impure creeping creatures at the end of the section of Shemini, it states: “For I am the Lord who brought you up from the land of Egypt”—

why do I need it?

What is the relevance of the Exodus from Egypt there?

He said to him:

Ravina said to Rav Ḥanina of Sura: The mention of the Exodus from Egypt there comes to tell you:

The Holy One, blessed be He, said: I am the One

who

discerned

at the time of the plague of the firstborn

between a drop that produced a firstborn

to kill him,

, and between

a

drop that did not produce a firstborn

not to kill him. It was not only the eldest in the household who died; the Holy One, blessed be He, also killed firstborn children born through illicit relations, a matter that the human eye cannot discern.

Likewise,

I will ultimately exact punishment

to demand punishment

from one who mixes the entrails

[the intestines of]

impure fish

which are inexpensive,

with

the

entrails

[the intestines of]

pure fish

which are expensive, and in this deceitful mixture he

sells them to a Jew.

He thereby causes him to violate the prohibition, and the Holy One, blessed be He, who knows his thoughts, will ultimately exact punishment from him.

He said to him:

Rav Ḥanina of Sura said to Ravina,

I

did not intend in my question to ask why the Exodus from Egypt is mentioned in connection with the prohibition against creeping creatures. Rather, it is the change in the Torah’s wording that I meant:

“Who brought you up”

[“I am the Lord who brought you up”]—

that is what is difficult to me!

The substance of the question is:

What is different here, that “who brought you up” is what the Merciful One wrote?

What is unique about the section concerning creeping creatures, in which the Torah used the expression “who brought you up,” rather than “who brought you out,” as it says elsewhere?

He said to him:

Ravina said: The expression “who brought you up” stated there is

in accordance with that which was taught in the school of Rabbi Ishmael.

For it was taught in the school of Rabbi Ishmael: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Had I brought Israel up from Egypt only for this matter—that they should not defile themselves by eating creeping creatures—it would have been sufficient.

themselves

by

eating

creeping creatures.

It would have been worthwhile to bring them up for this virtue alone. This is the meaning of the expression “who brought you up,” from the language of elevation and greatness.

He said to him

[Rav Ḥanina]:

Is their reward really so great?

Is the reward of one who refrains from eating creeping creatures really so great

more

[than the reward of one who refrains from the prohibitions of

interest, and

the reward of one who wears

ritual fringes

and is careful with

weights,

that you would say that the Exodus from Egypt was worthwhile only for the virtue of refraining from creeping creatures, whereas it would not have been worthwhile to bring Israel out of Egypt for the mitzvot of interest and weights?

He said to him

[Ravina]:

Although their reward is not greater,

although we do not find that the reward of one who refrains from eating creeping creatures is greater, nevertheless,

they are more repulsive to eat.

Eating creeping creatures is more repulsive in the eyes of God than interest and dishonest weights.

Therefore, the virtue of the Children of Israel who purify themselves from eating creeping creatures is great, and their exodus from Egypt was worthwhile for this virtue alone:

We learned in the Mishna:

“And what is ‘increase’? One who increases the produce. How so? He took wheat from him for one gold dinar, and so on.”

The wording of the Mishna implies that only “one who increases the produce” is defined as “increase,” whereas the case we learned earlier is not.

And we ask:

Is it so that all those cases that we have stated until now

namely, the first clause of the Mishna: What is neshekh? One who lends a sela for five dinars, and likewise two se’a for three se’a—

are they not interest?

Rabbi Abbahu said:

Certainly, the law of the first clause is also included under interest; rather, the division of the Mishna is as follows:

Until here

the tanna spoke about

interest from the Torah; from here onward,

from the section beginning “What is increase” and onward, the tanna speaks only about interest

by rabbinic decree

[which is prohibited only by rabbinic enactment].

And so Rava said

in explaining the words of the Mishna:

Until here

that is, in the first clause, “What is neshekh,” the tanna speaks about interest

from the Torah,

from here onward

“What is increase,” the tanna speaks about interest

by rabbinic decree.

Rava further clarified the division of the Mishna on the basis of a verse in Job [chapter 27, verse 17].

That verse speaks of the ways of the wicked. It says: “He may prepare it, but the righteous shall wear it, and the innocent shall divide the silver.”

The Sages explained in the Tosefta that this verse speaks of “one who lends at interest.”

This is the meaning of the verse: The wicked person who took interest is obligated to return the interest to the borrower. But his son, who inherits from him, “shall wear the righteous one’s garment”—that is, he is permitted to benefit from the interest and is not obligated to return it to the borrower.

In this manner, the distinction between the first clause and the latter clause is interpreted:

Until here

that is, until “What is increase”—the tanna spoke about interest by Torah law, and the verse

“The wicked shall prepare it, and the righteous shall wear it”

is fulfilled in this case: His sons are not obligated to return the interest.

And immediately the Gemara asks:

“Until here, and no farther?”

Is the exemption of the heirs from returning the interest stated only with regard to interest by Torah law, and not with regard to interest prohibited by rabbinic decree?

On the contrary, the rabbinic prohibition is more lenient, and all the more so the sons should not be obligated to return the interest!

Rather,

Rava’s intention must be:

“Even”

until here—

that is, even with regard to the more severe case of interest by Torah law, the lender and his sons have different laws: The lender himself is obligated to return the interest, whereas the heirs are exempt from returning it. This is as stated in the verse:

“The wicked shall prepare it, and the righteous shall wear it.”

But all this applies “until here,” that is, with regard to interest by Torah law.

But from here onward—that is, with regard to the dust of interest—even the wicked person himself “shall wear” the interest and is not obligated to return it at all, as will be explained later in the sugya.

The Gemara brings another explanation of the tanna’s wording, “And what is increase,” although we had asked: Did we not also discuss interest until now?

And we answer:

Until here

we discussed

“fixed interest,”

such as one who lends a sela for five dinars, where the lender fixed the amount with the borrower from the time of the loan. But

from here onward

the tanna speaks of

“the dust of interest,”

that is, interest that was not fixed in advance, but arises automatically through fluctuations in prices, and the tanna called all such dust of interest “increase.”

Rabbi Elazar said: Fixed interest,

which is prohibited by Torah law, if the lender collected it unlawfully, then it

is extracted by the courts.

The court compels the lender [personally] to return to the borrower the additional interest that he took from him.

But

the dust of interest,

which is prohibited only by rabbinic decree,

is not extracted by the courts.

This is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even fixed interest

which is prohibited by Torah law

also

[even it]

is not extracted by the courts.

And the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yohanan has its source in the following verses:

Rabbi Yitzhak said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yohanan’s opinion

How does he know that fixed interest is collected through the court?

And he explains:

As the verse states

It is stated in Ezekiel 18,

“He who gives at interest and takes increase and shall not live; he has committed all these abominations,”

from this we learn that the punishment for one who takes interest

is death, and not restitution.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

Rabbi Yohanan also has a source from the Torah:

The verse states

It is stated in Leviticus 25:

“You shall not take from him interest or increase, and you shall fear your God.”

And it is precise

from the words of the verse that one who violates the prohibition against interest is only

for fear

[to fear] of the punishment of the Holy One, blessed be He,

given over, and not for restitution.

From this Rabbi Yohanan learned that there is no monetary punishment for one who violates the prohibition against interest, as there is for one who violates the prohibition against robbery.

Rabbi Yitzhak earlier interpreted the verse in Ezekiel, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan’s opinion that fixed interest is collected through the court.

Rava said:

Even without the inference from “and shall not live,”

from the body of the verse itself

from the continuation of the verse

he learned it,

Rabbi Yohanan learned his ruling, as it is stated later in the verse:

“He shall surely be put to death; his blood shall be upon him.”

Now, the expression “his blood shall be upon him” is stated concerning “one who sheds blood,” whom the prophet Ezekiel mentioned earlier, in verse 10. Thus,

the lenders at interest

who cause their fellow people poverty and thereby cause them to die of hunger

were equated with those who shed blood

[actual murderers],

just as those who shed blood are not subject to restitution,

they have no possibility of rectifying matters by restoring the situation to its original state.

so too, lenders at interest are not subject to restitution,

and they are not told that they must make restitution, as one who commits robbery is.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzhak said: What is the reason for Rabbi Elazar’s opinion

that “fixed interest is not collected through the court”?

And he explains that his source is from what

the verse states

[Leviticus 25]: “You shall not give him your money at interest or your food for increase, etc.,”