Bava Metzia 62a (סב.) — the Talmud in English

I eshche: «i da zhivet brat tvoi vmeste s toboi»,"

I ob'yasnil Rabbi Elazar:

«Vernut emu,»

esli ty vzyal u nego ribit, vozvrati ego bratu, zaemshchiku,

«chtoby on zhizn'yu pol'zovalsya vmeste s toboi».

Chtoby on mog zhivet' vmeste s toboi.

I Gemara vozrazhaet:

«A Rabbi Yohanan,»

kotoryy schitaet, chto «ustanovlennaya ribit ne podlezhit vzyskaniyu cherez sudy»,

«eto [stikh] “i da zhivet brat tvoi vmeste s toboi” — chto on delaet s nim?» —

zachem trebuetsya etot stikh?

I Gemara otvechaet:

«On nuzhen emu»

— stikh neobkhodim

«dlya togo, o chem skazano»:

in the following source:

«Dva cheloveka shli po doroge»

v pustyne ili v lyubom drugom meste, gde net vody,

«i u odnogo iz nikh»

byl

kitan

—

«s vodoy».

Voda v etom sosude prinadlezhala emu. V sosude ne bylo dostatochno vody, chtoby podderzhat' zhizn' oboikh, poka oni ne doydut do mesta, gde est' voda.

Tak poluchaetsya, chto

«esli vyp'yut oba»

po polovine soderzhimogo sosuda, oni

«umrut»

pozdnee, tak kak vody ne khvatit im do togo, kak oni doydut do naselennogo mesta.

«A esli odin iz nikh vyp'et»

ves' sosud,

«pridet»

odin

v naselennoe mesto,

no ego drug obyazatel'no umret. Chto im delat'?

«Ben Petura postanovil: luchshe pust' vyp'yut oba,»

razdelyat vodu porovnu, chtoby prozhit' khotya by vremennuyu zhizn',

«i umrut»

pozdnee,

«chem odin uvidit smert' drugogo,»

potomu chto tol'ko on vyp'et vodu, a vtoroy umret ot zhazhdy.

«Poka ne prishyol Rabbi Akiva i ne nauchil»

novomu zakonu. V Pisme skazano:

«“I da zhivet brat tvoi vmeste s toboy”,»

to est'

«tvoya zhizn' predshestvuet zhizni tvoego druga».

Eto uchit nas, chto obyazannost' podderzhivat' zhizn' brata otnositsya imenno k sluchayu «vmeste s toboy»: kogda i ty mozhesh' zhить vmeste s nim. No kogda zhizn' tvoego brata okazivaetsya vmesto tvoey zhizni, tvoya zhizn' imeet preimushchestvo.

Poetomu v sluchae dvukh lyudey, kotorye idut po doroge, kogda u odnogo iz nikh est' sosud s vodoy, Rabbi Akiva postanavlivaet, chto vladelец sosuda dolzhen vypit' vodu i ne obyazan podderzhivat' zhizn' druga, esli iz-za etogo sam umret.

Gemara vozvrashchaetsya k sporu Rabbi Elazara i Rabbi Yohanana o tom, podlezhit li ustanovlennaya ribit vzyskaniyu cherez sudy ili ne podlezhit.

I vozrazhaem protiv Rabbi Yohanana, kotoryy schitaet, chto net obyazannosti vozvrashchat' ribit:

Meytivi:

my uchili v baraite v traktate Bava Kamma: nasledniki, kotorym otets

«ostavil»

v nasledstvo

den'gi ribit,

kotorye on nezakonno vzyskal s zaemshchika,

«daже esli oni znayut, chto eto den'gi ribit, oni ne obyazany vozvrashchat' ikh»

zaemshchiku.

Gemara predpolagala, chto nasledniki osvobozhdeny ot vozvrata potomu, chto vsyu osnovu obyazannosti zaimodavtsa vozvratit' zaemshchiku ribit sostavlyaet stikh «i da zhivet brat tvoi vmeste s toboy», a iz yazyka stikha sleduet, chto Tora predupredila imenno etogo zaimodavtsa, no ne ego naslednikov.

I vyvodim iz baraity: tanнай osvobodil ot vozvrata ribit imenno naslednikov,

«a ikh otets obyazan vozvratit',»

tak kak esli i ikh otets ne byl obyazan vozvrashchat' ribit, soglasno mneniyu Rabbi Yohanana, tanнай dolzhen byl napisat', chto sam otets osvobozhden, a tem bolee nasledniki.

I otvechaem:

«Po zakonu i ikh otets takzhe ne obyazan vozvrashchat'»

— v sootvetstvii s mneniem Rabbi Yohanana.

«I»

na tvoy vopros, pochemu zhe tanнай ukazal osvobozhdenie tol'ko naslednikov, otvechaem:

Ya skazhu tebe:

«Poskol'ku v kontse on khotel uchit': “ikh otets ostavil im”

zaimodavets, ostaviv v nasledstvo svoim synov'yam,

«korovu i osla»,

kotorykh on vzyal u zaemshchika v schet ribit, kotorym tot byl emu dolzhen,

ili

«lyuboy opredelennyy predmet»

— takoy, po kotorymu vidno, chto on dostalsya ikh ottsu posredstvom ribit,

«oni obyazany»

nasledniki

«vozvratit'»

eti predmety zaemshchiku

«radi pochitaniya ikh ottsa»,

chtoby o nem ne rasprostranyali porochashchiy slukh, chto on zanimal den'gi pod ribit; ved' deti obyazany pochitat' ottsa pri ego zhizni i posle ego smerti.

Poskol'ku zakon, privodimyy v kontse baraity, otnositsya tol'ko k naslednikam na osnovanii zakonov pochitaniya ottsa i materi, poetomu

baraity postavil

takzhe

—

nachalo baraity: «Esli otets ostavil im den'gi ribit, oni ne obyazany vozvrashchat'»,

“Their father left them money of interest; they are not obligated to return it,”

«imenno im»,

naslednikam.

I po sushchestvu zakona o korove i osle my vozrazhaem:

«A eti» —

to est' synov'ya zaimodavtsa,

«radi pochitaniya ikh ottsa, razve obyazany?»

Razve mozhno obyazat' ikh na osnovanii zapovedi pochitaniya ottsa?

«Zdes' mozhet byt' skazano»

— ved' sleduet istolkovat' etot stikh tak zhe, kak my istolkovali v drugom meste stikh

«i nachal'stvuyushchego, kotoryy sredi tebya, ne proklinay»,

gde rech' idet imenno

«o»

nachal'stve, kotoroe prinadlezhit k kategorii

«sovershayushchiy postupki vmeste s toboy».

Ved' Tora zapretila proklinat' imenno ego; tot zhe, kto ne soblyudaet Toru i zapovedi i ne prinadlezhit k kategorii «sovershayushchiy postupki vmeste s toboy», ne vkhodit v etu kategoriyu — i ego razresheno proklinat'. Ne dolzhny li my tak zhe istolkovat' eto v otnoshenii pochitaniya ottsa i materi?!

I otvechaem:

«Kak skazal»

— kogda

Rav Pinhas ot imeni Ravy

istolkoval v traktate Hagiga druguyu baraitu: rech' idet

«o tom, kto sovershil tshuva; zdes' takzhe»

my otvetim otnositel'no baraity o ribit, chto rech' idet

«o tom, kto sovershil»

ego otets

tshuva,

i snova stal prinadlezhat' k kategorii «sovershayushchiy postupki vmeste s toboy». Poetomu na sirot lozhitsya obyazannost' pochitat' ego i vozvratit' ribit.

I my snova vozrazhaem:

«Esli on sovershil tshuva, pochemu ona okazalas' u nego?!»

Ved' chast' tshuvы sostavlyaet ispravit' to, chto bylo iskazheno, i togda on, bezuslovno, dolzhen byl vozvratit' ribit. Pochemu zhe eto vozlozheno na naslednikov?

I obosnovyvaem eto tak:

«On ne uspel vozvratit'»

ribit i zavershit' tshuvu

«do svoey smerti».

Gemara privodit eshche odno vozrazhenie protiv Rabbi Yohanana iz baraity:

Meytivi:

v baraite skazano:

«Razboyniki i zaimodavtsy, dayushchie ribit, dazhe esli vzyskali, vozvrashchayut».

A esli my istolkuem

«razboyniki»

v bareite v ee prostom smysle, kak nastoyashchikh razboynikov,

«

est' vozrazhenie:

«Kakoe zdes' mozhet byt' “dazhe esli vzyskali”?»

Kakoe otnoshenie k razboynikam imeet ponyatie «vzyskanie»? Razve, pomimo samoy krazhi, est' eshche odna stadiya vzyskaniya ukradennogo, kotoraya osvobodila by ego ot obyazannosti vozvratit'?

Ved' pri lyubom iskhode

«esli ukral, to ukral!»

Esli on uzhe ukral predmet, tot predmet ukraden u vladel'tsa, i on obyazan vypolnit' «i vozvratit ukradennoe, kotoroe ukral».

But

«A esli ne ukral,»

esli on eshche ne ukral ego, pochemu togda

«razboynikami»

«ty ikh nazyvaesh'?!»

Ved' oni eshche nichego ne ukrali — i chto oni budut vozvrashchat'?

«Skazhi togda,»

my vynuzhdeny istolkovat' baraitu kak odno tselое, i tanнай govoril tol'ko o zaimodavtsakh, dayushchikh ribit, kotorykh nazyvayut «razboynikami».

Tak sleduet ponimat' ego slova:

«“Razboyniki”

— kto eto?»

They are the

«Zaimodavtsy,»

with

«dayushchie ribit: “dazhe esli vzyskali, vozvrashchayut!”»

even if they have collected it, they must return it!

Vo всяkom sluchae v bareite yasno skazano, chto zaimodavtsy, dayushchie ribit, kotorye vzyskali dolg, obyazany vozvratit' ego zaemshchiku. Eto vozrazhenie protiv Rabbi Yohanana, kotoryy schitaet, chto ustanovlennaya ribit ne podlezhit vzyskaniyu cherez sudy.

I otvechaem: spor Rabbi Yohanana i Rabbi Elazara — eto spor

tan

nay

. Rabbi Yohanan sleduet mneniyu tan׳, osvobozhdayushchego ot vozvrata ribit, a privyodimaya vyshe baraда idet po mneniyu Rabbi Nehemii, kotoryy obyazyvaet vozvrashchat' ribit.

Tak bylo ucheno:

V kontse glavy ob'yasnyaetsya, chto zapret ribit narushayut zaimodavets, zaemshchik, poruchitel' i svideteli v dokumente. Zaimodavets narushaet, v chastnosti, takzhe zapret «ne nakladyvayte na nego neshekh» — za ustanovlenie ribit, — a takzhe «ne beri u nego neshekh» — za ee poluchenie. Zaemshchik narushaet tol'ko zapret «ne podvergay brata tvoego ribit» [a takzhe zapret «ne stavi prepyatstvie pered slepym»].

Poruchitel' i svideteli narushayut tol'ko zapret «ne nakladyvayte na nego neshekh». A o tom, podlezhat li zaimodavets i poruchitel' nakazaniyu malkot, v predlagаемой dal'she baraitе sporят tannай kama, Rabbi Nehemia i Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov:

Tanнай kama obyazyvaet zaimodavtsa i poruchitelya nakazaniem malkot.

But

A Rabbi Nehemia i Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov osvobozhdayut zaimodavtsa i poruchitelya kak

ot samogo zapreta, tak i ot nakazaniya malkot.

«Potomu chto v nem est' povelenie sovershit' deystvie»

— poskol'ku na nikh vozlozheno sovershit' opredelennoe deystvie dlya ispravleniya sover-shennoy imi nespravedlivosti. Ved' izvestno pravilo: za zapret, k kotoromu prisoedineno povelenie sovershit' deystvie, ne nakazyvayut malkot. Poetomu zaimodavets i poruchitel' osvobozhdayutsya ot malkot.

I vyvodim: kakoe imenno «povelenie sovershit' deystvie» vozlozheno na zaimodavtsa i poruchitelya posle vzyskaniya ribit, tak chto Rabbi Nehemia i Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov na etom osnovanii osvobodili ikh ot malkot?

Zapret

— kazalos' by, eto lish'

«potomu, chto my govorim im: “Vstan'te i vozvratite”»

— vozvratite ribit, kotoruyu vy vzyali v sootvetstvii s poveleniem Tori «i da zhivet brat tvoi vmeste s toboy». Rabbi Nehemia i Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov schitali, chto ustanovlennaya ribit podlezhit vzyskaniyu cherez sudy, i poetomu rassmatrivali ee kak zapret, k kotoromu prisoedineno povelenie sovershit' deystvie, za kotoryy ne nakazyvayut malkot.

«Iz etogo sleduet,»

chto soglasno etomu predpolozheniyu

tanнай kama,

kotoryy ne soglasen s Rabbi Nehemiey i obyazyvaet takzhe zaimodavtsa i poruchitelya prinimat' nakazanie malkot,

schital,

chto zaimodavets i poruchitel'

«ne prinadlezhat k tem, kto obyazan vozvrashchat'».

Oni ne obyazany vozvrashchat' ribit, kak schitaet Rabbi Yohanan, i poetomu zapret ribit ne svyazan s poveleniem sovershit' deystvie; sledovatel'no, za nego nakazyvayut malkot.

Znachit, u nas est' dokazatel'stvo, chto tannaim sporili po tomu zhe voprosu, chto Rabbi Elazar i Rabbi Yohanan?

I otvergayem:

«Net,»

vsegda mozhno skazat', chto esli zaimodavets uzhe vzyskal ribit, to po vseobshchemu mneniyu on nakazyvaetsya za zapret «ne beri u nego neshekh», tak kak na nem net obyazannosti sovershit' deystvie i vozvratit' ribit, a znachit, eto ne zapret, k kotoromu prisoedineno povelenie sovershit' deystvie.

A na tvoy vopros

«kakova»

— kakova prichina, po kotoroy Rabbi Nehemia i Rabbi Eliezer osvobozhdayut za nalichie

«poveleniya

sovershit'

deystvie»?!

— ya ob'yasnyu tebe eto inache.

Rabbi Nehemia i Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov govorili o sluchae, kogda zaimodavets eshche ne vzyskal ribit, i ne rassmatrivali zapret «ne beri», a tol'ko zapret «ne nakladyvayte», kotoryy zapreshchaet samo ustanovlenie ribit. No etot zapret zavisit ot togo, vzyschet li on v kontse ribit ili net.

Poetomu pri zaeme po dokumentu, poka zaimodavets ne vzyskal dolg po dokumentu, na nem lezhit

obyazannost' «porvat' shtar»

— razryvat' dokument, chtoby ne dopustit' vozmozhnosti vzyskaniya.

Po etoy prichine Rabbi Nehemia i Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov schitali ego zapretom, k kotoromu prisoedineno povelenie sovershit' deystvie, i osvobozhdali ikh ot malkot.

I vozrazhaem protiv etogo obosnovaniya:

«Chto schital»

Rabbi Nehemia?

«Esli on schital,»

chto

«dokument, prednaznachennyy dlya vzyskaniya, schitaetsya vzyskanным»,

to est' zaem, u kotorogo v rukakh zaimodavtsa est' dokument, schitaetsya tak, budto zemli zaemshchika, obremenennye etim dokumentom, uzhe vzyskany i nakhodyatsya vo vladenii zaimodavtsa, eshche do fakтичесkogo vzyskaniya.

Esli tak, to i ribit, ukazannaya v dokumente, schitaetsya uzhe vzyskannoy. Kak zhe togda razryvanie dokumenta pomozhet ispravit' zapret?

«Ved'

uzhe

«sovershili»

zaimodavets i poruchitel'

«svoi zaprety»

v tot moment, kogda poluchili dokument ot zaemshchika. Pochemu zhe zapret ribit schitaetsya zapretom, k kotoromu prisoedineno povelenie sovershit' deystvie?»

«A esli»

Rabbi Nehemia schitaet, chto dokument, prednaznachennyy dlya vzyskaniya,

«ne schitaetsya vzyskanным»,

to togda ochevidno, chto za sam zapret «ne nakladyvayte» voobshche nel'zya nakazat' malkot, tak kak poka ribit ne vzyskana, zapret voobshche ne sovershen. V chem zhe togda raznoglasie s nimi u tanая kama, kotoryy obyazyvaet zaimodavtsa prinimat' nakazanie malkot?

«Ved' on ne sovershil»

zaimodavets

«voobshche nichego?!»

I otvechaem:

«Vsegda on schitaet, chto dokument, prednaznachennyy dlya vzyskaniya, ne schitaetsya vzyskanным».

A na tvoy vopros, kakova togda prichina, po kotoroy tanнай kama obyazyvaet zaimodavtsa prinimat' nakazanie malkot, kakoy zapret on narushil do vzyskaniya, otvechaem:

«Tanнай kama uchit nas»

—

«chto ustanovlenie ribit yavlyaetsya deystviem».

To est' zapret «ne nakladyvayte» narushaetsya uzhe s momenta zapisi ribit v dokumente, iz-za samogo «ustanovleniya» ribit. Etot zapret nel'zya ispravit' razryvaniem dokumenta, i poetomu za nego nakazyvayut malkot.

«I eto takzhe logichno»:

Gemara privodit dokazatel'stvo v pol'zu podkhoda tanaya kama, chto zapret «ne nakladyvayte» otnositsya k samomu «sozdaniyu ribit» [to est' k momentu zaema i zapisi dokumenta] i ne zavisit ot vzyskaniya ribit.

«Tak my uchili»

v Mishne v kontse glavy:

«Vot te, kto narushaet zapret: zaimodavets, zaemshchik, poruchitel' i svideteli».

I nuzhno ponyat':

«Ponятno, chto vse oni,»

zaimodavets, zaemshchik i poruchitel',

«sovershayut deystvie»

— oni svyazany s deystviem vzyskaniya ribit. Poetomu oni narushayut zaprety ribit. -

Zaimodavets vzyskivaet s zaemshchika i narushaet zaprety «ne beri» i «ne davay». -

Zaemshchik peredaet den'gi zaimodavtsu i narushaet zapret «ne podvergay brata tvoego ribit». -

Poruchitel' uplachivaet zaimodavtsu ribit, a zatem vnov' vzyskivaet s zaemshchika ribit; poetomu i on svyazan s deystviem vzyskaniya. Ego zapret takoy zhe, kak zapret zaimodavtsa i zaemshchika.

Rather, witnesses—what did they do?

In what way are they involved in taking the interest, and why are they prohibited under the prohibition of “You shall not place interest upon him”? For according to Rabbi Neḥemya, the prohibition of “You shall not place interest upon him” also applies only when the debt is collected; what do witnesses have to do with collecting the debt?

Rather, can one not conclude from here that placing the interest in the document is significant,

which proves that the witnesses violate the prohibition of “You shall not place interest upon him” already when the document is drawn up! If so, the same should apply to the lender and the guarantor: they violate the prohibition of “You shall not place interest upon him” immediately when the interest is fixed, in accordance with the view of the first tanna.

And we conclude:

Conclude from here.

Indeed, it is a valid proof .

Rav Safra said:

If you wish to know which interest is recoverable through the courts and which interest is not recoverable through the courts, take this principle in hand:

Any

interest

that, had it been subject to their laws,

the laws of the nations, it would have been legally applicable, and they

would collect it

from the

borrower for the lender

—that is, fixed interest according to their law.

This interest,

according to our law,

if the lender has already collected it in violation of the prohibition,

is returned from the lender to the borrower.

That is, it is recoverable through the courts.

And any

interest

that, had it been subject to their laws, they would not collect from the borrower for the lender, according to our law is not returned from the lender to the borrower.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And is this an absolute principle?

But

a loan of

a se’a

of produce

for a se’a, which according to their laws

the laws of the nations, the obligation to return a se’a of produce takes effect, and they

collect it

from the

borrower for the lender

even if the produce increased in value between the time of the loan and repayment.

And

nevertheless,

according to our law,

since a loan of a se’a for a se’a is prohibited only by rabbinic decree, the law should be that

it is not returned from the lender to the borrower,

like avak ribbit, which is not recoverable through the courts?

Rav Yosef said

to Abaye: The case of a loan of a se’a for a se’a does not contradict Rav Safra’s principle, because when the gentiles collect the additional value in a loan of a se’a for a se’a, they do not do so as a payment of “interest.” Rather,

they

the gentiles regard the se’a loan as though it

came into the borrower’s possession as a deposit,

and he must return the se’a as it is, whether its value increased or decreased.

Ravina proceeds to challenge Rav Safra’s principle from the law of “a mortgage without deduction” (mashkanta be-lo nikhuyta):

The law of a mortgage without deduction is as follows: The lender lends money to the borrower on the condition that, for the duration of the loan, the borrower will provide him with a vineyard from which he may consume the produce, in such a manner that consuming the produce does not reduce any portion of the loan’s principal, but is granted in addition to the loan amount. By Torah law, this is permitted, since the right to consume the produce is not guaranteed: perhaps the vineyard will be struck by disease and produce no fruit at all during that period. However, the Sages prohibited it as avak ribbit. And we have learned that avak ribbit is not recoverable through the courts.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But in the case of “a mortgage without deduction,” according to their laws

the laws of the nations—if the borrower consumed the produce of his vineyard instead of giving it to the lender, as is the practice of a mortgage without deduction,

they collect from the borrower for the lender

the value of the produce that he consumed.

If so, according to Rav Safra’s principle, it should follow that according to our law, if the lender consumed the produce in violation of the prohibition, this interest should be recoverable through the courts,