Bava Metzia 61b — the Talmud in English

And

the prohibition of “You shall not rob”

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

As it is stated: [Leviticus 19:13] “You shall not oppress, and you shall not rob.” And withholding a hired worker’s wages is what is called in the Torah “oppression”; therefore, from the extra wording it is necessary to include an additional prohibition for one who withholds a hired worker’s wages, but not for interest and exploitation.

Until now we discussed why the prohibition of “robbery,” which is snatching the money in the presence of the owners, is needed, and it is stated concerning it [Leviticus 19:13], “You shall not oppress and you shall not rob.” For it would have been possible to learn the prohibition from interest and exploitation.

Now the Gemara asks about the prohibition of “theft,” stated earlier [verse 11]. And theft means taking the money not in the presence of the owners—for example, at night.

And this is how we ask:

“

‘You shall not steal’ that the Merciful One wrote [Leviticus 19, verse 11] to prohibit monetary theft,

why is it needed?

Why do I need it?

After all, we can learn a prohibition against diminishing another’s money from interest and exploitation!”

And we answer: The verse “You shall not steal” was written in order to include additional forms of robbery that 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 manner, even when the intention of the theft was not for the thief’s own benefit, but rather

in order to cause distress,

in order to cause pain to the robbed person.

Likewise, the prohibition

“You shall not steal”

exists even if the thief’s intention was for the benefit of the robbed person. For example,

in order to pay

him

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

It is stated in the Torah [Leviticus 19:35], “You shall not commit wrong in judgment, in measure and in weight.” That is, the Torah prohibited a seller or buyer from lying with the weights in a manner that would cause a loss to the buyer or seller through this.

He said to him

he challenged

Rav Yemar to Rav Ashi:

The prohibition

of the prohibition that the Merciful One wrote concerning weights, why is it needed?

After all, a seller or buyer who lies with his weights is unlawfully diminishing his fellow’s money, and the Torah already stated a prohibition concerning robbery and exploitation?

He said to him:

The prohibition is needed only to include the prohibition

of hiding his weights in salt.

A buyer who hides the weight in salt, whereby hiding it in salt adds weight to the weight, and unlawfully causes the buyer to lose to the seller.

And he challenges him: Hiding his weights! Does this require an inclusion? It is outright robbery!

What innovation is there in its prohibition? After all, in this the buyer robs the seller directly.

And he answers him:

In order to violate it,

the Torah’s innovation in this prohibition is to say that the one who hides his weights in salt immediately

from the time of the act

violates.

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

The Sages taught:

It is written in the Torah

“You shall not commit wrong in judgment, in measure, in weight, and in measure.”

And the Sages interpreted it as follows:

“In measure”—

this is a measure of land.

The Torah warned the land measurer

not to measure

for two brothers who come to divide the field [or for two customers who come to divide a field], for each one in a different condition. For example,

for one

of the brothers he should measure

in the summer days,

when the rope is dry and shorter,

and for one—

[for the second brother] he should measure

in the rainy season

when the rope expands because of the moisture and becomes longer. For through this the division is not correct, because the one for whom they measured in summer will receive a larger field than the one for whom they measured in winter.

“In weight”—its meaning is

that he should not hide his weights in salt,

as we learned above, that the one who hides them violates a prohibition for the very act of hiding.

“And in measure”—

its meaning is

that he should not cause it to foam,

that he should not hurry in pouring the wine into “the measure”—

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

And are these not matters subject to a kal va-chomer,

this can be learned by a kal va-chomer.

And as for a measure,

the small vessel whose measure

is one-thirtieth

[and one-thirty-sixth]

of a log—the Torah was particular concerning it

that he should not cause wine to foam in it, despite the fact that the measure of the foam is so small [less than one-hundredth of a log].

A kal va-chomer

for larger measuring vessels, such as

a hin,

or even

half a hin, a third of a hin, and a quarter of a hin.

And it is a kal va-chomer the son of the son of a kal va-chomer for truly large measures, such as

a log, half a log, and a quarter of a log,

in which causing it to foam is certainly prohibited.

Rava said: Why do I need that the Merciful One wrote,

why did the Torah see fit to mention

“the Exodus from Egypt”

at the end of the section of

interest ?

Likewise, why did the Torah write the matter of

“the Exodus from Egypt” in the

section of

fringes

[tzitzit] [Numbers, chapter 15, verse 41]?

And likewise, why did the Torah write the matter of

“the Exodus from Egypt”

in the section concerning the prohibition of

weights

[Leviticus, chapter 19, verse 35]?

And Rava explains: The reason for mentioning the Exodus from Egypt in these three places comes to testify and say that thus

said the Holy One, blessed is He:

I am the One who distinguished in Egypt

at the time of the plague of the firstborn

between a drop belonging to a firstborn and a drop not belonging to a firstborn.

In every family in Egypt, besides the eldest son of his father, the Holy One, blessed is He, discerned which other sons were “firstborn” through illicit relations—a matter that human eyes would not discern—and killed him.

Likewise,

I am the One who will in the future exact punishment

[demand punishment]

from one who hangs his money on a gentile.

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

lends it to a Jew with interest , and the Holy One, blessed is He, who discerns and knows that it is his, will in the future demand punishment from him for lending his money with interest, and for causing his fellow to stumble and deceiving him concerning the prohibition of interest.

lends it to a Jew at interest . The Holy One, blessed be He, knows and discerns that the money belongs to him, and will eventually punish him for lending his own money at interest and for causing his fellow to stumble and misleading him with regard to the prohibition of interest.

And this is also the reason that “the Exodus from Egypt” was mentioned in the section of weights: to teach us that God will in the future exact punishment

from one who hides in secret

his weights in salt

in order to make the weight heavier and thereby deceive the seller. Even though human eyes do not discern his deceit, the Holy One, blessed is He, knows and will punish.

And therefore the Exodus from Egypt was also mentioned in “fringes,” to teach: God will in the future exact punishment

from one who hangs

[ties]

a fringe thread of a color resembling tehelet, called

“kela ilan,” in his garment,

and lies

and says

in his heart that

it is tehelet—as though to fulfill what the Torah said, “upon a thread of tehelet.” And the Holy One, blessed is He, who examines hearts, will in the future exact punishment from him for the tying itself, even if in the end he did not wear the garment.

it is tekhelet—as though to fulfill the Torah’s instruction concerning “a thread of tekhelet.” The One who examines hearts will eventually punish him for the act of tying it itself, even if in the end he did not wear the garment.

Ravina happened to come

[he happened to arrive] to Sura of the Euphrates,

the city of Sura adjacent to the Euphrates, and met Rav Hanina there.

Rav Hanina of Sura of the Euphrates said to Ravina,

he asked him as follows:

The Exodus from Egypt, which the Merciful One wrote concerning creeping creatures,

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

why is it needed,

what is the relevance of the Exodus from Egypt there?

He said to him

Ravina to Rav Hanina of Sura: The mention of the Exodus from Egypt there comes to say to you:

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

who

distinguished

at the time of the plague of the firstborn

between a drop belonging to a firstborn

to kill him,

, and

between

a drop not belonging to a firstborn

not to kill him; and it was not only the eldest in the household who died, but the Holy One, blessed is He, also killed firstborns through illicit relations, a matter that the human eye does not know how to distinguish.

Likewise,

I will in the future exact punishment

to demand punishment

from one who mixes the entrails

[intestines of]

impure fish

which are inexpensive

with

together with

the entrails

[intestines of]

pure fish,

which are expensive, and in this false mixture he

sells them to Jews.

It is found that he causes them to violate a prohibition through this; the Holy One, blessed is He, who knows thoughts, will in the future exact punishment from him.

He said to him

Rav Hanina of the Euphrates to Ravina,

I,

I did not intend in my question to ask why the Exodus from Egypt is mentioned in connection with the prohibition of creeping creatures at all. Rather, concerning what the Torah changed its wording:

“who brings up”

[“I am the Lord who brings you up”]—

this is what is difficult to me!

And the content of the question is:

What is different here, “who brings up,” that the Merciful One wrote?

What distinguishes the section of creeping creatures, in which the Torah used the expression “who brings you up,” and not “who brings you out,” as it says in other places?

He said to him

Ravina: What is stated there, using the expression “who brings up,” is

as in that which was taught in the school of Rabbi Ishmael.

For the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: The Holy One, blessed is He, said: Had I brought Israel up from Egypt only for this matter—that they do not render themselves impure

through

eating creeping creatures, it would have been enough.

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

He said to him

[Rav Hanina]:

And is their reward so great?

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

more

than the reward of one who abstains from the prohibitions of

interest, and from

the reward of one who wears

fringes

and is careful

concerning weights,

to the point that you say that only for the virtue of one who abstains from creeping creatures was the Exodus from Egypt worthwhile, whereas for the mitzvot of interest and weights it was not worthwhile to bring Israel out of Egypt

!?

He said to him

[Ravina]:

Even though their reward is not greater,

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

it is more repulsive to eat them.

The eating of creeping creatures is more repulsive in the eyes of God than interest and weights.

Therefore, the Israelites who purify themselves from eating creeping creatures possess a great virtue, and for this virtue alone their exodus from Egypt was worthwhile:

We learned in the Mishna:

And what is “increase”? One who increases produce; how so? He took from him wheat for this gold dinar, etc.

And it is implied from the wording of the Mishna that only “one who increases produce” is defined as “increase,” whereas what we learned earlier is not.

And we wonder:

Is it so that all these that we have said until now,

that which we learned in the first part of the Mishna—what is neshekh? One who lends a sela for five dinars, and likewise two seahs for three seahs—

is it not interest?

Rabbi Abbahu said:

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

Up to here

the tanna spoke about interest

of Torah law; from here onward,

from the passage “what is increase” onward, the tanna speaks only about interest

of their words

[prohibited only by the Sages].

And so Rava also said

in explaining the words of the Mishna:

Up to here—

that is, in the first part, “what is neshekh,” the tanna speaks about interest

of Torah law,

from here onward—“what is increase”—the tanna speaks about interest

of their words.

Rava adds precision to the division of the Mishna on the basis of the verse in Job [chapter 27, verse 17].

The verse there speaks about the ways of the wicked. And it says: “He will prepare, and the righteous will wear, and he will divide silver to the innocent.”

And the Sages explained in the Tosefta that this verse speaks about “one who lends with interest.”

And this is the explanation of the verse: The wicked person who took interest is obligated to return the interest to the borrower. But his son, who inherits him, “the righteous will wear”—that is, it is permitted for him to benefit from the interest, and he is not obligated to return it to the borrower.

And in this manner the distinction between the first part and the final part is explained:

Up to here,

that is, up to “what is increase”—the tanna spoke about interest by Torah law, and it is fulfilled in it:

“The wicked will prepare and the righteous will wear,”

meaning that his sons are not obligated to return the interest!

And immediately the Gemara wonders:

Up to here, and no more?

Is the exemption of the heirs from returning the interest stated only concerning interest by Torah law, and not concerning interest by rabbinic law?

On the contrary, the rabbinic prohibition is lighter, and all the more so the sons will not be obligated to return the interest?!

Rather,

necessarily, Rava’s intention is:

“Even

up to here”—

that is, even concerning the severe interest of Torah law, there too the law of the lender differs from that of his sons in this: The lender himself is obligated to return the interest, whereas the heirs are exempt from returning the interest. And this is as the verse says:

“The wicked will prepare and the righteous will wear.”

But all this is “up to here,” that is, concerning interest by Torah law.

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

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 Gemara brings another explanation for the wording of the tanna, “and what is increase,” and we wondered: Until now we also spoke about interest.

And we answer:

Up to here—

we spoke about “fixed interest,”

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

from here onward—

the tanna speaks about

“the dust of interest,”

that is, interest that was not fixed in advance, but comes about automatically through the rise and fall of prices; and concerning all the dust of interest the tanna called it “what is increase.”

Rabbi Elazar said: Fixed interest,

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

is taken out through judges.

The court compels the lender [physically] to return to the borrower the addition of interest that he took from him.

But

the dust of interest,

which is prohibited only by rabbinic law,

is not taken out through judges.

This is the view of Rabbi Elazar.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Even fixed interest

which is prohibited by Torah law

also

[also it]

is not taken out through judges.

is not recoverable through the courts.

also

[even it]

is not extracted by the courts.

And the source of the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yohanan is in the verses as follows:

Rabbi Isaac said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yohanan

from where does he derive that fixed interest is recovered through the courts?

And he explains:

for Scripture says

in Ezekiel 18 it is stated, “

He has given on interest and taken increase, and shall not live; he has done all these abominations,”

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

is death, and not restitution.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said,

Rabbi Yohanan has a source even from the Torah:

Scripture says

in Leviticus 25 it is stated, “

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

And it is precise

from the words of Scripture that one who transgresses the prohibition of interest is only

for fear

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

assigned, and not to restitution.

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

Rabbi Isaac earlier expounded the verse in Ezekiel [chapter 18] in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan’s view, that fixed interest is recovered through the courts.

Rava said:

For even without the precision of “and shall not live,”

from the body of the verse

from the continuation of the verse itself

he derives it,

Rabbi Yohanan learned his ruling, as it is stated in the continuation of 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 said regarding “one who sheds blood,” whom the prophet Ezekiel mentioned earlier, in verse 10. Therefore

the lenders of interest were likened

who cause poverty to their fellows through their actions and cause them to die of starvation

to bloodshedders

[to actual murderers],

Just as bloodshedders were not given over to restitution,

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

So too, lenders of interest were not given over to restitution,

and no obligation of restitution was stated for them, as with robbery.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: What is the reason of Rabbi Elazar

who holds, “fixed interest is not recovered through the courts”?

And he explains his source from what

Scripture says

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