Bava Metzia 64a — the Talmud in English

In units of five and ten,

that is, they attributed the error to an excess of fives or tens, but not to less than five, such as one, two, three, or four. For this was their practice of counting by fives and by tens. Therefore, when the lender needed to give forty, and it was found that he had given fifty, one should assume that he erred and gave an additional ten. And likewise, when the money that was in excess was fifty-five, one attributes an error of fifty and an error of five; and even if he gave twenty-five more than he was required to give, one should attribute it to his having erred five times by five . But with regard to something that does not reach five, one does not attribute it to an error, since they did not count in groups of two and four; therefore, one attributes it to his having added a gift of two or four.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: And if he is a forceful person,

who is not accustomed to performing acts of kindness and giving gifts for nothing,

what

is there to say? How can the borrower attribute the extra money to a gift from such a person?

He said to him

Rav Ashi:

Perhaps he robbed him

the lender from the borrower many days earlier. And now he wishes to return it,

and he incorporated it

the lender the amount that he had robbed

into the account

of the loan.

And if he returns a robbery by incorporating it, he has fulfilled his obligation,

as it was taught in a beraita: One who robs his fellow and incorporates it for him into the account has fulfilled his obligation.

And we raise an objection:

And if the lender is a person who came from elsewhere, with whom he has neither dealt nor bargained, what

is there to say? Since he had no dealings with him until today, to what can it be attributed—not to a gift and not to a robbery?

And we resolve:

He said to him

Rav Ashi:

Perhaps another person robbed him

the amount of the excess from the borrower,

and that robber said to him

the lender:

When so-and-so borrows money from you, incorporate it into the account

what I robbed from him, and in this way, without his recognizing me, I will fulfill my obligation to return the robbery

. It is explained in the Gemara above, in the discussion of kire’a, that if a seller has produce in his possession, it is permitted to agree with him that he will supply produce at a certain time, and to advance him money, even though the seller lowers the price.

And the reason for the permission is that it is as though he sold him what he has in his possession cheaply. And every fixing of a price when he has it, even if he lowers the price, is permitted.

Rav Kahana said: I was sitting at the end of Rav’s lecture,

I did not hear the beginning of Rav’s words, but came at the end of his words,

and I heard that he was saying, “Pumpkins, pumpkins,”

in his lesson he mentioned the measure “times pumpkins.”

And I did not know what he was saying,

with regard to what the pumpkins had been mentioned.

After Rav arose

and finished his lecture,

I said to them

the students,

“What is the ‘pumpkins, pumpkins’ that Rav said?”

They said to me

the students:

“This is what Rav said

in his lecture:

“One who gives money to a gardener,

to the owner of the garden,

for pumpkins

that he will supply them to him later,

and

at that time when the buyer gave money for the pumpkins to the owner of the garden,

they were selling,

they were being sold in the market,

ten small pumpkins,

which are small pumpkins the size of a span; ten were being sold for one zuz,

and he said to him

the owner of the garden:

“I will give you

I will give you after a certain period of time

large pumpkins,”

which are large, each one being a cubit long.

And the law is that if

“they are present, it is permitted.”

Specifically, if at the time of payment of the money the seller has in his house large pumpkins, each a cubit long, as he undertook to supply him, then it is permitted to fix at the outset that he will give him large pumpkins later. And even though he lowered the price for him because of the advance of the money and gave him the price of small pumpkins, since we see the large pumpkins, each a cubit long, that the seller has in his house as though he sold them to him now cheaply

. But if

“they are not present, it is forbidden,”

since he does not have large ones in his house, but only these small ones that are still growing, it is impossible to consider it as though he sold them to him, for the buyer needs to receive large ones. It follows that the seller gives him large ones at a certain time even though he paid the price of small ones, in return for the buyer’s advancing the money to him, and this is forbidden.

And we raise an objection:

“It is obvious,”

for fixing a price with a reduction was permitted specifically when he has it in his house, and if he does not have it, it is forbidden.

And we resolve:

You might say: Since they grow on their own,

the small pumpkins will become large by themselves,

it is well,

and he is considered to have large ones even though at present they are still small.

It teaches us

that specifically if he has large ones in his house, it is possible to fix the low price, since it was specifically when he has that very item that fixing a price with a reduction was permitted.

And the Gemara explains:

“According to whom,”

according to whom is this law stated, that small pumpkins are not considered “he has it,” so that he can fix a price on them,

like this tanna:

For it was taught in a beraita: One who goes to milk his goats, to shear his sheep, and to take honey from his hive,

and

his fellow found him

on his way and wished to purchase from him the milk that he was destined to milk, or the wool, or the honey.

And he said to him

the seller:

“Whatever my goats milk, it is sold to you,”

whether there will be much milk or whether there will be little; and likewise,

“whatever my hive yields, it is sold to you”

for such-and-such zuz,

it is permitted.

Since the buyer accepted upon himself that if there would be little milk he would lose the price he paid, consequently, even if there is more, there is no interest here, although he advanced money and received more, since the excess that he received is not in return for advancing the money, but because of the risk that he accepted upon himself that there might be less.

But if he said to him

the seller:

“Whatever my goats milk, such-and-such a quantity, is sold to you”

for a specified sum, which is cheaper than the usual price, or

“Whatever my sheep shear, such-and-such a quantity, is sold to you,”

and likewise,

“Whatever my hive yields, such-and-such a quantity, is sold to you—it is forbidden.”

Since he stipulated with him that he would supply him with a specific quantity, there is no risk whatsoever for the buyer; and the reduction that the seller gave him in the price is in return for the buyer’s advancing the money to him, and is forbidden because of interest.

And even though they grow on their own,

and it might have been possible to consider that the seller now has milk, wool, or honey, since they increase by themselves, and it is permitted to lower the price where he has it, nevertheless,

since they are not present at that time,

since they are still not actually before us,

it is forbidden.

For this is considered fixing a price when “he does not have it,” which is forbidden even where the market price has been established.

It follows that the Gemara has a proof from the goats’ milk to the pumpkins: if he has small ones, even though they will grow on their own, he is considered not to have it, and it is forbidden to lower the price.

There are those who say:

Rava said:

Even if he does not have large pumpkins in his house, it is permitted to fix a price at the price of small pumpkins in order that he receive large pumpkins,

since they grow on their own, it is well.

And he is considered to have large pumpkins, since these small ones will become large by themselves

. And we raise an objection to this opinion:

But was it not taught: “Such-and-such a quantity is forbidden”?

With regard to the milk, wool, and honey, it is explained that if he sold a specific quantity cheaply, it is forbidden and is considered “he does not have it,” even though they grow on their own.

And we resolve:

There, they do not grow from that which is its source.

The milk that will come later does not come on account of the milk that was found in the animal at the time of the sale.

And the proof for this is

that

if

he takes this one

the milk that is present now,

another comes in its place.

Another one will come in its place. This proves that the milk that will come afterward does not come on account of what is present now; and if so, the milk that will come afterward is considered as though “he does not have it” now, and it is forbidden to fix a low price for it.

But

here,

what is added to the small pumpkins

grows from them,

it comes from the small pumpkins, and the proof for this is:

for when they take this one,

the small ones,

another does not come in its place.

And from the fact that another does not come in its place, it is proven that the large one was already contained within the small pumpkin, and he is considered to have large ones; therefore, it is permitted to fix a price even when he has only small ones, including with a reduction.

Abaye said: It is permitted for a person

who wishes to purchase wine from his fellow, but is concerned that the wine his fellow will supply him will turn sour,

to say to him

the buyer

to his fellow,

the seller:

“Here are four zuz for a jug of wine,”

and the seller has that jug in his house

Rather, he stipulated this with the seller:

If it sours -

,

and four zuz is its value at the time he pays him, and he agrees with him that he will supply him with the jug at a later time. If it spoils - Under your responsibility.

The responsibility in the event that the wine turns sour will be upon you.

But on the other hand,

if it becomes more expensive,

if the wine, at the time when he provides it to him, will be worth more, and likewise

if it becomes cheaper,

if the wine will be worth less,

it is under my responsibility

of the buyer.