Bava Metzia 65a (סה.) — the Talmud in English

Because

it is preferable to him that his slave not become accustomed to idleness.

It is beneficial to his owner that the slave work constantly and not become accustomed to being lazy;

Therefore, the reason I held my debtors’ slaves and was not concerned about interest is that by law I am exempt from paying; consequently, I received no financial benefit from my debtors, and there is no interest here.

He said to him

Rava: Everything that Rav Daniel exempted from payment,

that applies only where he was not a creditor [

a creditor ]

of them in money,

meaning that the owners of the slave did not owe the person holding the slave money on account of a loan.

But in your case, since you were a creditor

meaning that you were owed money

by them,

by the owners of the slaves, a debt of

money, it appears to be interest.

Therefore, although according to the strict law you are exempt from paying, since a loan preceded this arrangement, it appears to be interest, and it is prohibited.

The Gemara brings proof that even in a situation where, according to the strict law, one is exempt from paying, if a loan preceded the arrangement, he is nevertheless liable to pay, since it appears to be interest [from the Gemara above].

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

because this is a case of one who does not benefit and one who does not suffer a loss [where the owner of the courtyard does not intend to rent it out, and the person residing there does not need the courtyard, since he has a courtyard of his own], and therefore he is exempt from payment,

but

if

he lent him money, and the lender resides

the lender

in his courtyard, he must

the lender

pay him rent,

to the borrower, because otherwise the matter appears to be interest.

It follows that whenever a loan preceded the arrangement, he is always liable to pay, even though without that loan he would have been exempt.

Rav Yosef bar Ḥama said to him: I retract!

I retract what I had thought—that it was permitted to hold the slaves of my debtor—because since a loan preceded the arrangement, it is prohibited, as it appears to be interest.

The following passage discusses the ways in which fixed interest is extracted from the lender and returned to the borrower.

Abaye said: In the case of one who is owed

who was a creditor for

interest money by another,

the fixed-interest money,

and the borrower paid him the interest in wheat,

and wheat is selling

for the price of

four grivyot [

seahs ]

for a zuz,

one zuz.

And he gave him five.

The borrower paid the interest, and instead of giving him four seahs of wheat for the one zuz of interest that he owed him, he added to it and gave him five seahs of wheat for each zuz of interest.

Now,

when we extract it from him,

when the court extracts from the lender the fixed interest that he took from the borrower, since fixed interest is extracted through the courts,

how much do they extract from the lender? Only

four

seahs of wheat

do we extract from him,

the court extracts from the lender, even though the borrower gave him five seahs. For

the other,

the additional seah that the borrower added and paid beyond the value of the zuz demanded by the lender,

is merely a discount that he gave him.

It is considered a discount that the borrower granted the lender by giving him one seah of wheat more than the four seahs that were the accepted market price for a zuz. It was not given as payment of interest.

But

Rava said: We extract five from him.

We also extract from the lender the fifth seah that the borrower added on his own, because

from the outset, it came into his possession as interest,

the fifth seah as well came into the lender’s possession as fixed interest, and it was not merely a gift given by means of a discount.

And Abaye said: In the case of one who is owed four zuz of interest by another,

he was owed four zuz of interest by another,

and he gave him

the borrower gave him in exchange for them

a cloak among them,

a garment worth four zuz, equal to the value of the interest.

Now

when we extract it from him,

when the court comes to extract the interest from the lender and return it to the borrower, only

four

silver zuz

do we extract from him,

we extract from him zuz equivalent in value to the garment, but the

cloak

itself

we do not extract from him.

Since the lender has already acquired the cloak itself for himself, he need return only its monetary value, four zuz.

Rava said: We extract the cloak from him.

We extract the cloak itself from the lender.

And we raise an objection:

What is the reason?

The lender has already acquired it for himself, and only a monetary debt rests upon him to return it!?

And we answer:

So that people will not say, “The cloak that he wears and stands in,”

so that people will not say about him: The garment that the lender is wearing is

a cloak of interest .

Rava said: In the case of one who is owed twelve zuz of interest by another,

he was owed twelve zuz of interest by another,

and he rented to him

and the borrower rented to the lender

a courtyard that rents for ten, and he rented it to him for twelve.

The borrower rented his courtyard to the lender [which ordinarily rented for ten zuz] for twelve zuz, and he did not take money from him for the rental. Rather, the lender’s residence was free, as payment of the borrower’s interest debt of twelve zuz, according to the high rental price they had agreed upon.

When we extract it from him,

when the judges come to extract from the lender the interest for having lived in the borrower’s courtyard free of charge as interest,

twelve

zuz

do we extract from him.

We extract twelve zuz from him, even though the courtyard’s rental value is only ten zuz, since here the price was set between the borrower and the lender at twelve zuz. This is the value of the property with regard to the lender. Therefore, twelve zuz are extracted from him.

Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: Let him say to him,

pust kreditor skazhet zaemshchiku:

When I rented it at that price,

the reason I agreed to live in your courtyard according to the high rental value of twelve zuz, although the courtyard’s rental price is only ten zuz, was

that I was benefiting from it,

that I enjoyed the profit of the interest by receiving lodging from you free of charge as payment of interest, and therefore I was willing to live there at the high price you set for me, above the ordinary market price.

But

now that I am not benefiting from it,

now that they are removing all my benefit and I must pay you the rental fee,

I rented it at the rate at which everyone rents it,

the residence in your courtyard is worth only the ordinary price, ten zuz, and I need return to you only ten zuz.

Ravina answered him:

Because he said to him

the borrower said to the lender:

You considered it and accepted it!

Since you agreed to live in my courtyard free of charge in exchange for the twelve zuz of interest that you were owed by me, you accepted this price for yourself as payment of twelve zuz, and since it is interest, you must return all of it to me.

Mishna:

One may increase the rental price, but one may not increase the sale price,

meaning, a tenant may pay a landlord more than the appropriate amount in exchange for postponing the rental payments. But a purchaser of a house or field may not pay more than the appropriate price in exchange for postponing payment for the sale, for the reason that will be explained in the Gemara.

And the Mishna explains,

How

one may increase the rental price:

He rented his courtyard to him and said to him

the landlord said to the tenant:

If you give me from now

all the rent for an entire year,

it is yours for ten sela for the year.

And if

you wish to pay the rent

month by month,

at the end of each month , you will pay me

one sela per month,

and in total you will pay twelve sela for a year’s rental.

It is permitted

to pay at the end of each month and thereby pay twelve sela per year. The additional amount paid in this manner, compared with paying everything at the beginning of the rental period, is not payment for waiting for the money, because the true value is twelve sela per year; rather, when he pays the entire rent at the beginning of the rental period, the landlord discounts the amount of the rent for him.

And how may one not increase the sale price?

He sold him his field

, and said to him: If you give me from now

the price of the field,

it is yours for one thousand zuz.

And if

you wish to postpone the payment

until the threshing floor,

meaning, that I will wait for you until the time when the threshing floors are made , I will sell it to you

for twelve maneh,

which are one thousand two hundred zuz.

It is prohibited

to pay twelve maneh at the time of the threshing floor, because the true value is one thousand zuz, and when he pays at the time of the threshing floor, he pays more because of the payment for waiting for the money, and this is prohibited as interest. The Gemara will explain the reason for the distinction between rental and sale.

Gemara:

And we inquire:

What is different in the first clause,

which states that the true value of a house rental is the amount paid when payment is made at the end of each month,

and what is different in the latter clause,

which states that in a sale, the true value is the amount paid when payment is made immediately at the time of the sale?

Rabba and Rav Yosef both said

to explain the Mishna:

Rental is payable only at the end.

That is, according to the law, the time when the tenant must pay the rent is at the end of the period of use.

And this

landlord,

since the time for collecting it has not yet arrived,

since the time for collecting the rent had not yet arrived, before the tenant had resided in the house, therefore when he says to him that if he pays at the end of each month the rent will be twelve sela per year,

it is not payment for waiting for him.

Rather,

that is simply its value.

That is the value of house rental.

And when he says to him, “If you give me from now”

all the rent,

“it is yours for ten sela per year,” it is merely a discount that he gives him,

from the true value.

The latter clause: Since it is a sale,

according to the law,

he should take the money from now.

Therefore,

the fact that when he pays at the time of the threshing floor he pays twelve maneh,

is payment for waiting for him, and it is prohibited .

Rava said: The Sages scrutinized this matter

the Sages examined it carefully

thoroughly,

to find a source for what we learned: rent is payable only at the end.

And they established it

and supported it

from a verse,

concerning what is written with regard to a Hebrew slave, [Leviticus 25:53]]

“As a hired laborer year by year.”

From the fact that it is written “year by year,” it follows

that the rental for this year is payable only in another year,

that is, the wages for this year are paid in the following year.

We learned in the Mishna:

And if he says: If you pay me at the threshing season, it is twelve maneh, it is prohibited.

Rav Naḥman said: A tarsha is permitted,

that is: It is permitted to sell merchandise for more than its value because the buyer pays at a later time. The meaning of the word tarsha is “height,” as high rocks are called tarshin. And because the seller raises the price, Rav Naḥman calls it a tarsha.

Rami bar Ḥama raised an objection to Rav Naḥman—and some say it was Rav Ukva bar Ḥama who raised it to Rav Naḥman—

from what is written in the Mishna:

And if he says: If you pay me at the threshing season, it is twelve maneh, it is prohibited.

It is explicit in the Mishna that it is prohibited to raise the price of the field because the buyer delays payment!

And we answer:

He said to him: There,

in the Mishna,

he fixed the price,

for if you pay now, it is yours for less, and in this way it is evident that what he says to him—if you pay at the threshing season, it is twelve maneh—is compensation for waiting for the money. Therefore it is prohibited.

Here,

in the case discussed by Rav Naḥman,

he did not fix the price.

He did not say to him: If you pay now, it is yours for less, and therefore it is not evident that he is taking compensation for waiting for the money, because it can be said that he is simply selling it at a high price.

Rav Pappa said: My tarsha is permitted.

That is: Although Rav Naḥman said that when he fixed the price it is prohibited to sell merchandise for more than its value because of waiting for the money, in my case it is permitted to sell beer made from dates in the month of Tishrei, when it is inexpensive, and to establish that the buyer will pay me in the month of Nisan, at the price in Nisan, when it is expensive, even though in Tishrei the market price is low, and the fact that the market price is stated makes this equivalent to fixing the price.

What is the reason? —

My beer does not spoil.

I can store it until the month of Nisan without it spoiling and sell it at the time when it is expensive.

And even if the buyer were to pay immediately, I would not sell it to him at the current price in order to use the money now, because

money, I do not

need.

And the fact that I give the buyer the beer now,

I am the one doing him a favor.

That is, I am doing him a favor because he requested it from me, not because I want to sell now. Therefore there is no compensation here for waiting for the money.

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said to Rav Pappa: What did you see

what did you see

that you follow your own perspective,

considering only your own side, and therefore saying that since you want to sell the beer in Nisan at the Nisan price, there is no compensation here for waiting for the money?

Follow their perspective,

the buyers.

For if they had money

cash,

they would purchase

from other sellers

now,

at the lower price.

Now, since they do not have money

cash,

they purchase at the future higher price.

Consequently, they pay more because of the waiting for the money, and this is interest.

The Gemara relates an incident involving Rav Ḥama, who gave merchandise to people in a place where it was inexpensive so that they would transport it to a place where it was expensive and sell the merchandise there on his behalf at a high price, with responsibility for the journey remaining with Rav Ḥama. The money they received for the merchandise he lent to them, and with it they purchased merchandise there, brought it back here, and earned a profit from it.

Rav Ḥama said: My tarsha is certainly permitted.

That is: Although Rav Naḥman says, “When he fixed the price, it is prohibited,” and here this is equivalent to fixing the price, because in this place the market price was low and he stipulated with them that they would pay him according to the price in the place where it was high, nevertheless it is permitted, since responsibility for the journey remained with Rav Ḥama, and they were merely his agents to sell the merchandise on his behalf. Consequently, the money they received for the merchandise in the place where the price was high belonged to Rav Ḥama. They borrowed this money from him and repaid him.

What is the reason

that it is permitted? There is interest here, because they exert themselves on behalf of Rav Ḥama to transport his merchandise to the place where it is expensive and sell it for him in exchange for the loan. This is analogous to one who says to another: “Take my bundle to a particular place, or perform work for me, in exchange for my lending you money,” which is prohibited.

Rav Ḥama explains:

It is preferable for them

to transport merchandise

that it remain [

under the authority

of me,

because as a result of this they acquire a reputation as people who transport the merchandise of Rav Ḥama, who is an important person.

And as a result of this,

wherever they travel,

even on the return journey, when they transport their own merchandise,

they are exempted from customs [

they are not charged customs] because of Rav Ḥama’s importance.

And they have another benefit:

the market is reserved for them.

That is, even on the return journey, when they transport their own merchandise, it is announced that no one may sell his merchandise until they have sold theirs. Consequently, they exert themselves for their own benefit and not for Rav Ḥama in exchange for the loan, and therefore it is permitted.