Bava Metzia 64a (סד.) — the Talmud in English

In groups of ten and groups of five,

that is, one may attribute the error to an excess of fives or tens, but not to fewer than five, such as one, two, three, or four. This is because it was customary to count by fives and by tens. Therefore, when the lender needed to give forty and it turns out that he gave fifty, we assume that he erred and gave an additional group of ten. Similarly, when the excess money amounted to fifty-five, the error may be attributed to the fifty and to the five; and even if he gave twenty-five more than he needed to give, the error may be attributed to five errors of five . But when the excess does not amount to five, the error is not attributed to a mistake, since people did not count in groups of two or four. Rather, it is assumed that he added a gift of two or four.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: But what if he is a harsh person,

who is not accustomed to performing acts of kindness or giving gratuitous gifts

—what then?

How can the borrower assume that the additional money was a gift from such a person?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi

: Perhaps he had robbed him

the lender had robbed the borrower many days earlier, and now he wishes to return it

and incorporated it

the lender incorporated the amount he had robbed

into the account

of the loan.

And if he returns stolen property by incorporating it into another account, he has fulfilled his obligation,

as it was taught in a beraita: One who robs another and incorporates the stolen amount into the account has fulfilled his obligation.

And we raise an objection:

But if the lender is a person who came from elsewhere, with whom he has had no dealings, what then?

Since he had had no business dealings with him until now, to what can the excess be attributed—neither to a gift nor to stolen property?

And we resolve it:

He said to him,

Rav Ashi

: Perhaps another person robbed him

the borrower of the excess amount

and said to him,

that robber said to the lender

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

That is, incorporate what I robbed from him, and in this way, without his recognizing me, I will fulfill my obligation to return the stolen property.

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

The reason for the permission is that it is as though he sold him cheaply what he already has in his possession. Any advance payment made when the seller has the item, 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 remarks; rather, I arrived at the end of his words

and I heard that he was saying: Pumpkins, pumpkins,

as he had mentioned pumpkins several times in the course of his lesson.

And I did not know what he was saying,

in what context the pumpkins had been mentioned.

After Rav rose

and concluded his lecture

I said to them,

to the students

: What did Rav mean by “pumpkins, pumpkins”?

They said to me,

the students

: This is what Rav meant

in his lecture:

If one gives money to a gardener,

the owner of the garden

for pumpkins

that he will supply to him at a later time

and

at the time when the buyer gave the gardener money for the pumpkins

they were selling

in the marketplace

ten pumpkins the size of a span,

small pumpkins measuring a span, ten of which were sold for one zuz

and he said to him,

the owner of the garden

: I will give you

I will give you at a later time

arm’s-length pumpkins,

which are large, each measuring a cubit.

The law is that if

they are present, it is permitted.

Specifically, if at the time the money was paid the seller had large, cubit-sized pumpkins in his house, as he had undertaken to supply, it is permitted to stipulate initially that he will give him large pumpkins at a later time. Even though he lowered the price because the money was advanced, charging him the price of span-sized pumpkins, since we see the large, cubit-sized pumpkins in the seller’s house, it is as though he sold them to him immediately at a lower price.

But if

they are not present, it is forbidden,

since he does not have large pumpkins in his house, only these small ones that are still growing. It is impossible to consider the transaction as though he sold them to him, since the buyer must receive large pumpkins. It follows that the seller is giving him large pumpkins at a specified time even though he paid the price of small pumpkins, in exchange for the buyer’s advancing the money; this is forbidden.

And we raise an objection:

It is obvious,

since an advance payment at a reduced price is permitted specifically when the seller has the item in his house, and if he does not have it, it is forbidden.

And we resolve it:

Lest you say: Since they grow on their own,

the small pumpkins will independently become large

it is well,

and they should be considered large pumpkins that he has, even though they are presently still small.

It teaches us

that a reduced-price advance payment is possible only when he has large pumpkins in his house, since such an advance payment was permitted specifically when he possesses the very item being sold.

And the Gemara explains:

In accordance with whom

is this law stated, that small pumpkins are not considered “in his possession,” so that he may make an advance payment for them

? It is in accordance with this tanna:

As it was taught in a beraita: One who goes to milk his goats, shear his sheep, or extract honey from his hive,

and

his fellow met him

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

and he said to him,

the seller

: What my goats milk, I sell to you,

whether there will be a great deal of milk or only a little; and similarly,

what my hive produces, I sell to you

for such-and-such an amount of money

—it is permitted.

Since the buyer accepted upon himself that if there were little milk he would lose the price he paid, even if there is more, there is no interest, despite his advancing money and receiving more. The excess he receives is not in exchange for advancing the money, but rather on account of the risk he accepted that there might be less.

But if he said to him,

the seller

: What my goats milk in such-and-such a quantity, I sell to you

for a specified sum, which is lower than the regular price, or

what my sheep shear in such-and-such a quantity, I sell to you,

and similarly,

what my hive produces in such-and-such a quantity, I sell to you—it is forbidden.

Since he stipulated that he would supply him with a specific quantity, there is no risk for the buyer. The reduction the seller gave him in the price is in exchange for the buyer’s advancing the money, and it is forbidden as interest.

And although they grow on their own,

so one might consider the seller to have milk, wool, or honey already, since these increase on their own, and it is permitted to reduce the price when one has the item, nevertheless

since they are not present at that time,

since they are not yet actually before us

it is forbidden.

This is considered an advance payment when the seller does not have the item, which is forbidden even when the market price has been established.

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

There is an alternative version of the discussion:

Rava said:

Even if he does not have large pumpkins in his house, it is permitted to make an advance payment at the price of small pumpkins in order to receive large pumpkins

since they grow on their own, it is well.

He is considered to have large pumpkins, since these small ones will independently become large.

And we raise an objection to this view:

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

With regard to milk, wool, and honey, it is clear that if he sold a specified quantity at a reduced price, it is forbidden and is considered a case where he does not have the item, even though they grow on their own.

And we resolve it:

There, they do not grow from the same source.

The milk that will come later does not develop from the milk that was present in the animal at the time of the sale.

And the proof of this is:

For

if

he takes this one

the milk that is present now

another will come in its place.

Another quantity will come in its place. This proves that the milk that will come later does not develop from what is present now. Therefore, the milk that will come later is considered as something that he does not presently possess, and it is forbidden to make an advance payment for it at a reduced price.

But

here,

what is added to the small pumpkins

grows from them,

it develops from the small pumpkins, and the proof of this is:

for when he takes this one,

the small pumpkin

another does not come in its place.

Since another does not come in its place, it is evident that the large pumpkin was already contained within the small one. He is therefore considered to have large pumpkins, and it is permitted to make an advance payment even when he has only small ones, including at a reduced price.

Abaye said: It is permitted for a person

who wishes to purchase wine from another but fears that the wine the other will supply him will turn sour

to say

the buyer

to his fellow,

the seller

: Here are four zuz for a barrel of wine,

and the seller has that barrel in his house ;

four zuz is its value at the time he pays him, and he arranges with him that he will supply the barrel at a later time.

If it sours –

,

it is at your responsibility.

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

But on the other hand,

if it appreciates,

if the wine is worth more at the time he provides it to him, and likewise

if it depreciates,

if the wine is worth less,

it is at my responsibility

of the buyer.