Bava Metzia 64b (סד:) — the Talmud in English

And we challenge:

Rav Sharvia said to Abaye:

How can one stipulate in this manner? But []

this is close to profit:

for if the price rises, the buyer will profit,

and far from loss,

for if the wine turns sour, the buyer does not suffer a loss; rather, he keeps the loss at a distance from himself.

And since the buyer does not accept responsibility for the wine, it follows that this is not a sale but a loan that the buyer gave the seller. And the proximity to profit, in that the buyer receives wine that is worth more if its price rises, is the payment for the loan, and this involves interest.

And we answer:

He said to him:

Abaye:

Since he accepts

the buyer

the depreciation,

the buyer bears part of the responsibility as well, and in such a case

it is close both to this and to that, and there is no prohibition of interest. For it is specifically when it is close to profit and far from loss that it is stated below [70a] that he is wicked, as he consumes interest.

There is therefore no prohibition of interest. It is specifically when one is close to profit and far from loss that it is stated below (70a) that he is wicked, because he consumes interest.

The following Mishna discusses the prohibition against a lender receiving benefit from a borrower.

Mishna:

One who lends money to another may not reside

the lender

in his courtyard

of the borrower

for free,

because the reason the borrower agrees to let him reside in his courtyard for free is the loan, and this is prohibited as interest.

And likewise,

he may not rent

the lender

from him

his courtyard

for less,

because

the borrower reduced the rent for the courtyard on account of the loan, and this is prohibited

because it is interest.

Gemara:

Rav Yosef bar Minyomi said that Rav Naḥman said: “Although they said [in tractate Bava Kamma 21a, 97a]

that

one who resides in another’s courtyard without his knowledge

in a case where the owner of the courtyard was not going to rent it out in any event, while the person who came to reside there is seeking to rent a courtyard, and had he not had this courtyard, he would have rented another courtyard, and he entered his fellow’s courtyard without informing him; thus, the resident benefits because he needs a home in which to live, while the owner of the courtyard suffers no loss, since in any event he had not intended to rent out his courtyard—the rule when one benefits and the other suffers no loss is that he

does not need to pay him rent,

and the owner of the courtyard has no right to claim payment for the courtyard, since he suffered no loss. But in a case where

he lent him money and he resided

the lender

in his courtyard,

if the person who entered the courtyard to reside there had lent money to the owner of the courtyard, it is prohibited for the lender to reside in the borrower’s courtyard for free, and he

must pay him rent.”

And we challenge:

What does this teach us? We learned it

what did Rav Yosef add? Did our Mishna not state explicitly that

one who lends money to another may not reside in his courtyard for free, nor may he rent it from him for less, because it is interest,

and therefore it is explicitly written that it is prohibited to reside in another’s courtyard for free when one has lent him money?

And we answer:

If it were only from the Mishna, I would say

that were it not for the ruling of Rav Yosef bar Minyomi, one could say that the prohibition in the Mishna applies

only in this circumstance:

it refers only

to a courtyard that stands to be rented

whose owner wants to rent it out,

and to a person who is accustomed to renting,

and the person entering to reside there wants to rent a courtyard [and had he not had this courtyard, he would have rented another]. If he resides in the courtyard without the owner’s knowledge, it follows that the owner of the courtyard suffers a loss—he loses the rent that he could have received—while the resident benefits, as he does not need to pay the rent for the courtyard that he would have paid for another courtyard. Thus, the resident benefits and the owner of the courtyard suffers a loss, and in such a case he is legally required to pay him rent [as we learned above]. Consequently, the lender—the resident—profits on account of his loan, since he resides there for free, whereas without the loan he would have been obligated to pay. Therefore, in such a case it is prohibited.

But if it is a courtyard that does not stand to be rented,

whose owner was not going to rent it out in any event—and he suffers no loss—

and the person is not accustomed to renting,

and the resident does not need to rent a courtyard [because he has other courtyards]—and he does not benefit, and according to the law he is exempt from paying for the rental of the courtyard—

I would say, no:

it should not be prohibited for the lender to reside in the borrower’s courtyard for free, since he gains nothing from it.

He therefore teaches us

Rav Yosef bar Minyomi that it is prohibited, because it appears like interest.

Some say: Rav Yosef bar Minyomi said that Rav Naḥman said: Although they said that one who resides in another’s courtyard without his knowledge does not need to pay him rent,

but if he said to him,

“Lend me money and reside in my courtyard”

for free,

he must pay him

rent.

Since the owner of the courtyard says to the lender, “Lend me money, and I will let you reside in my courtyard for free,” and he stipulated the rental fee for the courtyard as interest on the loan that he receives from him, this is fixed interest. To prevent this, the lender is required to pay him the rental fee.

The practical difference between the two opinions regarding Rav Yosef is as follows:

According to the one who says

that Rav Yosef held that he must pay the rent

when he lent him money

already and then resided in his courtyard, even without stipulating that he would receive the house as interest,

all the more so in the case of “lend me money,”

where he stipulated that he would reside in his courtyard for free on account of the loan, he must pay rent.

And according to the one who says

that Rav Yosef was speaking about

“lend me money,”

only then must he pay him rent,

but not when he lent him money

must he pay rent, because the prohibition applies only when he explicitly stipulated that on account of the loan he would give him the courtyard.

What is the reason? Since initially he did not lend him the money with this in mind, there is no concern,

and the reason it is permitted without an initial stipulation is that the lender did not lend him the money in order to receive the courtyard. As for his subsequently residing in the courtyard for free, we do not assume that this was because of interest. According to this opinion, our Mishna, which prohibits the arrangement, must be established in a case where he stipulated that he would receive the use of the house, either at the time the money was given or afterward.

Rav Yosef bar Hama would seize the slaves of people who owed him money,

Rav Yosef would take the slaves of his debtors,

and he would perform work with them,

obligating the slaves to perform his work.

His son, Rava, said to him: “For what reason does my master do this,”

why is it permitted to take the slaves of his debtors? Surely this appears like interest.

He said to him: “I follow the opinion of Rav Naḥman, for Rav Naḥman said: ‘A slave is not worth even his food.’”

I hold in accordance with Rav Naḥman, who said that a slave is not worth even his food and sustenance. I give these slaves their food on the days they work for me, and I therefore do not benefit from the slave for free; consequently, I was not concerned about interest.

He said to him: “Say that Rav Naḥman said

that a slave is not worth even his sustenance only

in a case such as Dari, his slave,

Dari was the name of Rav Naḥman’s slave,

who danced in the shops,

as he was a jester who danced in shops in exchange for wine, and such a slave truly was not worth even his food. But

other slaves,

who perform other types of work,

who said

that Rav Naḥman said that they are not worth their sustenance?”

He said to him

Rav Yosef bar Hama:

“I hold in accordance with that which Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina said in the name of Rav: The one who forcibly seizes

and takes possession of

another’s slave

without his knowledge

and performs labor with him is exempt

from paying the slave’s owners.