Bava Metzia 65a — the Talmud in English

because

he is pleased that his slave should not become accustomed to idleness.

It is preferable for his owner that the slave work constantly and not become accustomed to being idle;

And therefore, the reason that I held the slaves of my creditors and was not concerned about interest is that, according to the law, I am exempt from paying; and if so, I received no monetary benefit from my creditors, and there is no interest here.

He said to him,

Rava: Everything for which Rav Daniel exempted [him] from payment,

applies only where he is not a creditor [נושה]

kreditoru

of them for money,

that is, the slave’s owners do not owe the one holding the slave money on account of a loan.

But the Master, since he is a creditor

that you are a creditor

of them,

of the owners of the slaves, a debt from a loan of

money, appears as interest.

And therefore, even though according to the fundamental law you are exempt from paying, since a loan preceded this, it appears as interest, and it is forbidden.

And the Gemara brings proof that even in a case where, according to the fundamental law, one is exempt from paying, nevertheless, if a loan preceded it, he is liable to pay, since it appears as interest [from the Gemara above]].

For Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said that Rav Naḥman said: Although they said that one who dwells in his fellow’s courtyard without his knowledge need not pay him rent,

because this one does not benefit and that one does not lose [in a case where the owner of the courtyard does not intend to rent out his courtyard, and the one dwelling in it does not need a courtyard, since he has his own courtyard], and therefore he is exempt from payment,

but

if

he lent him money, and the lender dwells

the lender

in his courtyard, the lender must

the lender

pay him rent,

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

It follows that when a loan preceded it, he is always liable to pay, even though without this 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 creditor, because since a loan preceded it, it is forbidden, as it appears as interest.

The following discussion concerns the ways of extracting fixed interest from the lender for the borrower.

Abaye said: One who is a creditor

who was owed

of money of interest by his fellow,

the money of fixed interest.

And the borrower paid him the interest in wheat.

And the wheat is sold

the wheat is sold at the price of

four gerivei [סאים]

saim

for one zuz

one.

And he gave him five.

The borrower paid the interest, and instead of giving him, for the one zuz of interest that he was owed, four seahs of wheat, he added to this and gave him five seahs of wheat for one 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 by the judges,

how much will they extract from the lender? Only

four

seahs of wheat

we extract from him,

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

the other one,

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

is merely a reduction that he reduced for him.

It is considered a reduction that the borrower granted the lender, by giving him one additional seah of wheat beyond the four seahs that are the accepted market price for a zuz. It was not given to him as payment of interest.

But

Rava said: We extract five from him.

We extract from the lender even the fifth seah that the borrower added on his own. Because

initially, it came into his possession as interest,

the fifth seah as well came into the lender’s possession as fixed interest, and it is not merely a gift through a reduction.

And Abaye said: One who is owed four zuz of interest by his fellow,

who was a creditor of his fellow for four zuz of interest,

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

we extract from him,

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

cloak

itself

we do not extract from him.

Since the lender already acquired the cloak itself for himself, he is liable to 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 already acquired it for himself, and only a monetary debt is imposed upon him to return it!?

And we answer:

So that they should not say, “The cloak that he wears and stands in,

so that people should not say about him: the garment that the lender wears is

a cloak of interest .

Rava said: One who is owed twelve zuz of interest by his fellow,

who was a creditor of his fellow for twelve zuz of interest,

and he rented to him,

and the borrower rented to the lender

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

The borrower rented his courtyard to the lender [which is ordinarily rented for ten zuz], at a price of twelve zuz, and did not take money from him in exchange for the rental; rather, the lender’s dwelling was free, as payment of the borrower’s interest, in the amount of twelve zuz, according to the higher rental price that they agreed upon.

When we extract it from him,

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

twelve

zuz

we extract from him.

We extract twelve zuz from him, even though the rental of the courtyard is worth only ten zuz, since here the price between the borrower and the lender was established at twelve zuz. This is the value of the house with regard to the lender. Therefore, we extract twelve zuz from him.

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

let the lender say to the borrower:

When I rented it at this rate,

the reason that I agreed to dwell in your courtyard according to the high rental value of twelve zuz, even though the rental price of the courtyard is worth only ten zuz, is

that I was benefiting from it,

that I benefited from the profit of the interest by receiving dwelling from you for free as payment of interest, and therefore I was willing to dwell at the higher price that you established for me, which is above the ordinary price.

But

now, since I do not benefit from it,

now that they are extracting all my benefit from me, and I am liable to pay you the rental fee,

I rented it at the rate at which everyone rents,

dwelling in your courtyard is worth to me only the ordinary price, which is ten zuz, and I am liable to return to you only ten zuz.

And Ravina answered him:

Because he says to him

the borrower to the lender:

You considered and accepted!

Since you agreed to dwell in my courtyard for free 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 they are interest, you must return all of them to me.

Mishna:

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

That is, it is permitted for a tenant of a house to pay the landlord a higher rent than is appropriate in exchange for his waiting for him regarding the rental payments. But it is forbidden for a purchaser of a house or field to pay more than is appropriate for them in exchange for his waiting for him regarding the sale payments, for the reason that will be explained in the Gemara.

And the Mishna explains,

How

one increases the rental:

He rented his courtyard to him, and he said to him

the landlord to the tenant:

If from now you give me

all the rental payment for an entire year,

then it is yours for ten sela per year.

And if

you wish to pay the rental fee

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. For what he pays in this manner, more than if he had paid everything at the beginning of the rental, is not payment for waiting for the money, because the true value is twelve sela per year; rather, if he pays the entire rental fee at the beginning of the rental, the landlord reduces the amount of the rental fee for him.

And how does one not increase the sale price?

He sold him his field

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

the payment for the field,

then it is yours for one thousand zuz.

And if

you wish to delay the payment until

the threshing floor,

that is, that I will wait for you until the time of making the threshing floors , I sell it to you

for twelve maneh,

which are one thousand two hundred zuz.

It is forbidden

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

Gemara:

And we inquire about it:

What is different in the first clause,

which says that the true value of the rental of a house is the amount paid when one pays at the end of each month,

and what is different in the latter clause,

which says that in payment for a sale, the true value is the amount paid when one pays immediately at the time of the sale?

Rabba and Rav Yosef both say

to explain the Mishna:

Rental is paid only at the end.

That is, according to the law, the time at which the tenant must pay the rental fee is at the end of the use.

And this

landlord,

since the time for collecting it has not arrived,

since the time for collecting the rental fee has not yet arrived, before the tenant has dwelled in the house, therefore what he says to him—that if he pays at the end of each month the rent will be twelve sela per year—

is not payment for waiting for it.

Rather

it is simply that this is its value.

This is the value of the rent for the rental of a house.

And this that he says to him, “If from now you give me

the entire rental fee,

then it is yours for ten sela per year,” is merely that he reduces it for him,

from the true value.

The latter clause: Since they are sales,

according to the law

he should take the money from now.

Therefore,

this one, when he pays at the time of the threshing floors, pays twelve maneh,

is paying for waiting for it, and it is forbidden .

Rava said: The Sages scrutinized

the matter carefully

in this matter,

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

And they established it

and supported it

from a verse,

from what is written concerning the Hebrew slave, [Leviticus 25:53]]

“As the hireling of a year by a year.”

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

that the rent of this year is paid only in another year,

that is, the rent for this year will be paid in the year after it.

We learned in the Mishna:

And if [he says that payment will be] at the threshing season, for twelve maneh, it is forbidden.

Rav Nahman said: Tarsha is permitted,

that is: it is permitted to sell merchandise for more than its value because the buyer pays after some time. The meaning of the word tarsha is “height,” just as high rocks were called tarshin. And because he raises the value, Rav Nahman calls it tarsha.

Rami bar Hama raised an objection to Rav Nahman, and some say it was Rav Ukva bar Hama who raised an objection to Rav Nahman,

from what is written in the Mishna:

And if [he says that payment will be] at the threshing season, for twelve maneh, it is forbidden.

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

And we answer:

He said to him: There,

in the Mishna,

he fixed it,

for if you pay now, it is yours for less, and by this it is recognizable that what he says to him—“If [payment will be] at the threshing season, for twelve maneh”—is payment for waiting for the money. Therefore it is forbidden.

Here,

in the law stated by Rav Nahman,

he did not fix it.

He did not say to him, “If you pay now, it is yours for less,” and therefore it is not recognizable that he is taking payment for waiting for the money, because it can be said that he is selling it expensively.

Rav Pappa said: My tarsha is certainly permitted.

That is, although Rav Nahman said that when he fixed it, it is forbidden to sell merchandise for more than its value because of waiting for the money, I am nevertheless permitted to sell date beer in the month of Tishrei, which is the time of low prices, and to establish for the buyer that he will pay me in the month of Nisan, at the price of Nisan, which is the time of high prices—even though in Tishrei the market price is low, and stating the market price is like fixing it.

What is the reason? —

My beer does not suffer a loss.

I can store it until the month of Nisan without its spoiling, and sell it at the time of high prices.

And even if the buyer had paid immediately, I would not have sold 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 who is doing a favor for the buyer.

That is, I am doing him a favor, because he asked me to do so, and not because I want to sell now. Therefore there is no payment for waiting for the money.

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

what did you see,

that you go after your own [perspective],

considering only your side, and therefore say: Since you want to sell the beer in the month of Nisan at the price of Nisan, there is no payment for waiting for the money?

Go after theirs,

the buyers.

For if they had money

in cash,

they would take

from other sellers

as now,

at the low price.

Now, since they do not have money

in cash,

they take it at the high price of later.

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

And the Gemara brings an incident involving Rav Hama, who gave merchandise to people in a place where the price was low, so that they would transport it to a place where the price was high and sell the merchandise there for him at a high price, with responsibility for the journey resting upon Rav Hama. The money that they received for the merchandise he lent to them, and with it they bought merchandise there, brought it here, and profited from it.

Rav Hama said: My tarsha is certainly permitted.

That is, even though Rav Nahman says, “When he fixed it, it is forbidden,” and here it is like fixing it, because in this place the market price was low and he fixed with them that they would pay him according to the price in the place where the price was high, nevertheless it is permitted, since responsibility for the journey remained with Rav Hama, and they were merely his agents to sell the merchandise for him. Consequently, the money they received for the merchandise in the place where the price was high belonged to Rav Hama. They borrowed this money from him and repaid him.

What is the reason

is it permitted? After all, there is interest here, because they labor for Rav Hama by transporting his merchandise to the place where the price is high and selling it for him in return for the loan, and this is similar to one who says to another: “Take my bundle to a certain place, or perform work for me, in return for my lending to you,” which is forbidden.

Rav Hama explains:

It is pleasant for them

to transport merchandise

that it should stand [

that stands]

in my domain,

because through this they acquire the reputation that they transport the merchandise of Rav Hama, who is an important person.

And through this,

wherever they go,

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

they waive the customs tax for them [

they do not collect customs tax from them], because of Rav Hama’s importance.

And they have another benefit, that

the market is held 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 labor for themselves and not for Rav Hama as payment for the loan, and therefore it is permitted.