Bava Metzia 63a — the Talmud in English

And thus he said:

When I die,

when I die,

Rabbi Oshaya will go out toward me,

he will go out to meet me. Why?

Because I resolve,

because I am always accustomed to resolve

the baraita according to him.

So that his baraitot should not be difficult on account of the Mishnayot.

For he taught,

that Rabbi Oshaya taught in a baraita:

Behold,

a certain man

who was owed money by his fellow,

for his fellow was liable to him for a hundred dinars,

and he went and stood at his granary,

he came to demand his debt,

and said: Give me my money,

give me my debt,

for I wish to buy wheat with it,

I desire to buy wheat with the money of the debt.

And he said to him,

the borrower:

I have wheat, which I am giving you,

I can supply you with wheat worth the debt.

Go out and fix them for me at the price of now,

and I will supply them to you at a later time, and your profit will be the increase in the price of the wheat, according to how much more it will be worth when I repay it to you.

The time came to sell wheat,

the price of the wheat increased.

And he said to him,

the lender to the borrower:

Give me my wheat, for I wish to buy wine with it,

since the price increased, I want the profit and to buy wine with it.

He said to him,

the borrower:

I have wine, which I am giving you. Go out

and fix them for me at the price of now. The time came to sell wine,

for its price increased.

And he said to him,

the lender to the borrower:

Give me my wine, for I wish to sell it and buy oil with it. He said to him: I have oil, which I am giving you. Go out and fix them for me at the price of now.

And the baraita concludes:

All

the aforementioned price-fixings,

if he has

the merchandise upon which they fix the price,

it is permitted,

but if he does not have it, it is forbidden.

And the reason is because when he has it, it is considered his, and as though the merchandise increased in price in the lender’s domain. But when the borrower does not have it, and the lender receives more, this is similar to interest.

And the resolution concerning the Mishna is:

And what is “bought”?

That which is written in the Mishna, “he bought from him this gold dinar,”

he bought with his loan,

the case is that his fellow was liable to him for a gold dinar, and they fixed wheat against it, and afterward they came from the wheat to fix wine against it. Then, if he does not have wine, it will be forbidden to fix the price, because if it increases in price it resembles interest.

Rava said: Learn from Rabbi Oshaya—

it emerges from his words

three,

three innovations.

Learn from it:

that they establish a loan

that is, they exchange the lender’s money-debt

against produce,

so that the borrower becomes liable for produce in place of the money.

And we do not say

that there is here a deficiency on account of

“not like the coin that came into his hand,”

for he did not receive money from the lender. Rather, whenever the borrower has produce, he can undertake it in place of his debt [and not like the baraita above, 62b, which always requires giving money].

And

further

learn from it

a second innovation:

namely, that he has it.

Everything that can be fixed even without giving money applies specifically when the borrower has produce; but when he does not have it, it is possible only through giving money.

And

further

learn from it

a third innovation:

the teaching of Rabbi Yannai is present,

for we uphold the words of Rabbi Yannai.

For Rabbi Yannai said: What difference is there to me, them or their value,

Rabbi Yannai innovated concerning every price-fixing that if the time of repayment arrived and the seller does not have the merchandise to give the buyer, he may give him the value of the merchandise in money, even though this is more money than he received from the buyer.

For Rabbi Yannai reasons: since they permitted giving the produce, they also permitted giving its value. And in Rabbi Oshaya’s baraita as well, we see this same innovation, for when the time came to repay the wheat, the borrower says, “I do not have wheat,” and in place of giving the wheat, he assesses the current value of the wheat, and in exchange for this value he fixes wine; and this assessment of the value of the wheat is the “their value” of Rabbi Yannai, for in place of giving the merchandise, they assess its value. And at this amount of its current value, they continue fixing the price.

And the Gemara brings the source of Rabbi Yannai’s words:

For it was stated: Rav said, one makes an amana in produce.

That is, an ordinary price-fixing for produce,

but one does not make an amana in money.

But one does not give money for produce in such a manner that the seller undertakes to repay money according to the value of the produce at the time of repayment.

And Rabbi Yannai said: What difference is there to me, them

the produce itself,

what difference is there to me, their value

the value of the produce.

And whenever a price-fixing was permitted for the produce, it is also possible to receive its value, and we are not concerned that this appears like interest.

It challenges

we raise an objection against Rav from what is stated in Rabbi Oshaya’s baraita:

All of them, if he has it, it is permitted.

If the borrower has the produce against which they wish to establish the debt,

it is permitted

to do so.

And although when they exchange wheat for wine, they make an assessment of the value of the wheat, and according to its value the borrower undertakes wine, and this assessment is in essence “their value,” concerning which Rav said that one does not make an amana in money. If so, we see the view of Rabbi Yannai and not that of Rav.

And we answer:

Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: When he drew it.

Initially, when they made a price-fixing for the wheat, the lender drew the wheat and acquired it, and it is his. The increase in price is in his domain, and the loan has ended. And when they come to make a price-fixing from the wheat for the wine, this is an assessment of the lender’s property [and not of the borrower’s property]—and so they did each time there was a price-fixing: the lender drew it and acquired it.

And we challenge:

If

the case is

when he drew it, is it necessary to say so!?

It is obvious, and the baraita need not innovate this.

And we answer:

Rather,

we shall establish the baraita in another manner,

for example, where he designated a corner for him,

there was no actual drawing here, but rather designation of a place: the borrower designated the place of the wheat for the lender.

And it teaches us,

and the innovation is

that designation is a significant matter.

It makes the merchandise considered as though it increased in price in the lender’s domain, so that there should not be a problem of interest here.

And Shmuel said

to give another resolution to the objection against Rav.

This,

Rabbi Oshaya’s baraita,

whose view is it?

It is according to the view of

Rabbi Yehuda, who said: One side

of interest is permitted.

When it is uncertain whether there will ultimately be interest or not, as in Rabbi Oshaya’s case: if the wheat that the seller undertook will be given at the appointed time, there is no aspect of interest here at all; and the problem begins only on the other side, in the case where he does not have the wheat, which is “one side of interest.” And Rabbi Yehuda holds in this matter that it is permitted to fix the price in such a case.

And the Gemara brings the source of Rabbi Yehuda’s words:

For it was taught

in a baraita:

There was a case where

a certain lender

was owed money by his fellow,

he came to collect his debt from his fellow,

a hundred

that he owed him.

And he made for him

the borrower made

his field a sale.

And this is what he said to him: If I do not repay your debt by a certain time, the field that I have is sold to you and passes into your possession. And the money that you gave me as a loan will be sale money.

The law is:

At the time when the seller,

who is the borrower,

eats

the

produce

growing in the field [the reference is to eating produce before the time they set between them for the field to pass to the lender], it is

permitted

to do so, because there is no concern of interest here at all.

But at the time when the

buyer,

who is the lender,

eats produce, it is forbidden

to do so, because perhaps the borrower will return the money to the lender, and it will then become clear that there was no sale here at all, but rather money of a loan. And the lender eats produce from the borrower’s land as payment for waiting for the money. And this is interest.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even when the buyer eats produce, it is permitted.

And Rabbi Yehuda brings proof for his words:

Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving Betos son of Zunin, who made his field a sale on the instruction of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah. And the buyer was eating produce. They said to him: Is this a proof!? The seller was eating produce, not the buyer.

What is the difference between them?

In what did the Sages and Rabbi Judah disagree?

Abaye said: one-sided interest is between them.

The Sages hold that one-sided interest is forbidden. Therefore, even though there is a possibility that the loan will change into a sale, it is forbidden. But Rabbi Judah holds that when there is a possibility that there will be interest and a possibility that there will not be interest, it is permitted.

But

Rava said

that with regard to one-sided interest Rabbi Judah agrees that it is forbidden, and the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Judah is in

interest on condition of returning is between them.

That is, when the purchaser ate the produce, they agreed between themselves that if in the end this would not be a sale, the purchaser would return what he had eaten. Nevertheless, the Sages prohibit it, because at the time of the eating it is interest. And what will it help that afterward he returns the interest that he took? But Rabbi Judah holds that such a condition is effective, even though one side will be forbidden.

Rava said, now

after Rabbi’s innovation,

for Rabbi Yannai said,