Bava Metzia 64b — the Talmud in English

And we challenge:

Rav Sharbya said to Abaye:

How is it permitted to stipulate in this way? But

this is close to profit

for if it becomes more expensive, the buyer will profit,

and far from loss,

for if the wine becomes vinegar, the buyer does not lose, but merely distances the loss from himself.

And since the buyer does not accept upon himself responsibility for the wine, it is found that here there is no sale, but rather a loan that the buyer gave to the seller. And the closeness to profit, whereby the buyer receives wine that is worth more if it becomes more expensive , this is the payment for the loan, and there is interest here,

And we answer:

He said to him

Abaye:

Since he accepts upon himself

the buyer

the decrease in price,

there is also a portion of the responsibility upon the buyer, and in such a manner

it is close to both this and that,

and there is no prohibition of interest in this. For specifically concerning one who is close to profit and far from loss, it is stated below [70a] that he is wicked, for he consumes interest.

The following Mishna deals with the prohibition of receiving benefit by a lender from a borrower.

Mishna:

One who lends to his fellow may not dwell

the lender

in his courtyard

of the borrower

for free,

because the reason the borrower agrees to let him dwell in his courtyard for free is the loan, and it is forbidden on account of interest.

And likewise,

he may not rent

the lender

from him

his courtyard

for less,

because

on account of the loan the borrower reduced for him the rent of the courtyard, and it is forbidden

because it is interest.

Gemara:

Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said that Rav Naḥman said: “Even though they said

in Tractate Bava Kamma 21a, 97a

one who dwells in his fellow’s courtyard without his knowledge

in a situation where the owner of the courtyard was in any event not intending to rent it, but the person who came to dwell was 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 he benefits because he needs a house in which to dwell, while the owner of the courtyard does not suffer, since in any event he was not planning to rent his courtyard, and the law when this one benefits and that one does not suffer is that he

does not need to pay him rent, and the owner of the courtyard has no right to demand the rent of the courtyard from him, since he did not cause him a loss. But in a case where

and the owner of the courtyard has no right to claim rent, since he suffered no loss. But when

he lent to him and he dwelled

the lender

in his courtyard,

if the one who entered the courtyard to dwell gave the owner of the courtyard a loan, it is forbidden for the lender to dwell in the borrower’s courtyard for free, and he

must pay him rent.”

And we challenge:

What does he teach us? We have already learned it:

what did Rav Yosef innovate? Did not our Mishna explicitly say that

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

and therefore it is explicitly written that it is forbidden to dwell in his fellow’s courtyard for free if he lent to him?

And we answer:

If it were from the Mishna, I would have said,

were it not for the ruling of Rav Yosef bar Minyumi, it would have been possible to say that the prohibition in the Mishna applies

to these matters,

only

in a courtyard that stands to be rented

whose owners want to rent it ,

and a person who is accustomed to rent,

and the one entering to dwell wants to rent a courtyard [and had he not had this courtyard, he would have rented another courtyard]. And if he dwelled in the courtyard without the owner’s knowledge, it is found that the owner of the courtyard suffers—for he loses what he could have rented for payment—and the dweller benefits—for he does not need to pay the rent of the courtyard that he would have paid for another courtyard. Therefore the dweller benefits and the owner of the courtyard suffers, and in such a situation he is legally obligated to pay him rent [as we learned above]. Consequently, the lender—the dweller—profits on account of his loan, for he dwells there for free, whereas without the loan he would have been obligated to pay. Therefore, in such a situation it is forbidden.

But a courtyard that does not stand to be rented,

whose owner was in any event not intending to rent it—and he does not suffer—

and a person who is not accustomed to rent,

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

I would say, no,

it will not be forbidden for the lender to dwell in the borrower’s courtyard for free, since he gains nothing from this.

He teaches us

Rav Yosef bar Minyumi that it is forbidden, because it appears like interest.

There are those who say: Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said that Rav Naḥman said: Even though they said that one who dwells in his fellow’s courtyard without his knowledge does not need to pay him rent,

but if he said to him

“Lend to me, and dwell in my courtyard”

for free,

he must pay him

rent.

Since the owner of the courtyard says to the lender, “Lend to me, and I will let you dwell in my courtyard for free,” and he fixed for him the rental value of the courtyard as interest for the loan that he receives from him, this is fixed interest, and in order to prevent this, the lender is obligated to pay him the rental value.

The practical difference between the two views concerning Rav Yosef is:

According to the one who says

that Rav Yosef held that he must pay the rent

when he had already lent to him

and dwelled in his courtyard, even without stipulating the house as interest,

all the more so, “Lend to me,”

in a situation where he stipulated that he would dwell in his courtyard for free because of the loan, he must pay rent.

And according to the one who says

that Rav Yosef spoke about

“Lend to me,”

only then must he pay him rent,

but “he lent to him” does not

require him to pay rent, because the prohibition is 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 to him with this in mind, we have no concern,

and the reason it is permitted without an advance stipulation is that the lender did not lend to him in order to receive the courtyard, and as for his dwelling in the courtyard afterward for free, we do not suspect that it is because of interest. According to this view, our Mishna, which prohibits it, must be established in a situation where he did stipulate his dwelling in the house, either at the time of giving the money or afterward.

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

Rav Yosef would take the slaves of his debtors

and made them perform labor,

and required the slaves to do his work.

Rava, his son, said to him: What is the reason that the Master does this?

For what reason is it permitted to take the slaves of his debtors? Does this not appear like interest?

He said to him: I hold like Rav Naḥman, for Rav Naḥman said: “A slave does not equal even his food.”

I hold like Rav Naḥman, who said that a slave is not worth even his food and sustenance. And I give these slaves their food on the day they work for me, so I do not benefit from the slave for free; therefore I did not suspect interest.

He said to him: Granted that Rav Naḥman said

that Rav Naḥman held that a slave is not worth even his sustenance, only

such as “Dari,” his slave

[Dari was the name of Rav Naḥman’s slave],

who dances in the wine shops,

who was a jester and danced in the shops in order to drink wine, and such a slave truly is not worth even his food. But

other slaves,

who perform other work,

who said

that they are not worth their sustenance?

He said to him

Rav Yosef bar Hama:

I hold like that which Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina said in the name of Rav, who said: One who forcefully takes hold

of

his fellow’s slave

without his knowledge,

and performs labor with him, is exempt

the one who takes hold of a slave from paying the slave’s owners.