Bava Metzia 65b — the Talmud in English

And the halakha is in accordance with Rav Hama,

who says, in the manner mentioned above, that there is no prohibition of interest .

And the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar,

who says that fixed interest is recoverable through the courts .

And the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yannai, who said: What difference is there to me between them and what difference is there to me between their value,

and just as when one fixes a price for produce at the current market rate and it becomes more expensive, it is permitted for the seller to give him the produce for which they fixed the price, so it is permitted for the seller to give him the value of the produce, unlike the view of Rav, who holds that it is forbidden for the seller to give the buyer the value of the produce, because when he gives him, after some time, more money than he received from him, this appears to be interest .

Mishna:

He sold him the field, and he gave him

the buyer

part of the money, and he said to him

the seller to the buyer at the time of the sale:

Whenever you wish, bring

the remainder of the

money and take

the field

that is yours,

which you bought from me.

It is forbidden

to do so, because as long as he has not paid the remainder of the money, there is a prohibition of interest in eating the produce. And the Gemara explains for whom it is forbidden.

He lent him money against his field,

meaning, the borrower’s field was collateral for the debt,

and he said to him

the lender:

If you do not give me

what I lent you

from now until three years, then

the mortgaged field in my possession

is mine,

for repayment of the debt.

The law is that

it is his. And thus Betos son of Zunin would act in accordance with the Sages .

Gemara:

Who eats the produce,

that is, in the first clause it is written that it is forbidden to do so, because there is a prohibition of interest in eating the produce; for whom is it forbidden and for whom is it permitted?

Rav Huna said: The seller eats the produce,

and the Mishna’s intention is that it is forbidden to the buyer.

Rav Anan said: They place [

they deposit with a third party]

the produce,

and both of them are forbidden to eat the produce until the sale is completed or annulled.

And they do not disagree

Rav Huna and Rav Anan:

This

is the statement of Rav Huna, that the seller eats the produce and the buyer is forbidden, for example:

he said

the seller to the buyer:

When you bring

the remainder of the money,

you acquire,

and until you finish paying, the field belongs to me. Therefore, as long as the buyer has not paid all the money, the seller eats the produce because the field is his, while the buyer is forbidden to eat the produce because the field is still not his; and if he eats, it is in return for the advance of the money, namely, the part of the money that he gave the seller and for which he has not yet acquired anything. And this is interest.

This

is the statement of Rav Anan, that both of them are forbidden to eat the produce, for example:

he said

the seller to the buyer:

When you bring

the remainder of the money,

you acquire it from now.

Therefore, as long as the buyer has not paid all the money, both of them are forbidden to eat the produce. The seller is forbidden, because if the buyer pays the remainder of the money, it will become clear that the field was already acquired by him from the day of the sale, through his having given the seller part of the money; and if the seller eats the produce, it is in return for the payment for waiting for his money, which the buyer has still not repaid. And the buyer is forbidden to eat the produce, because perhaps he will not pay the remainder of the money, and it will become clear that the field was not acquired by him, and the part of the money that he gave the seller at the time of the sale was a loan, while the produce belongs to the seller; and if the buyer eats, it is in return for the part of the money that he gave the seller, which was a loan .

Rav Safra taught in

the laws of

interest

that they learned

in the academy of Rabbi Hiyya:

There are

times when both of them

the seller and the buyer

are permitted

to eat the produce.

There are times when both of them are forbidden

to eat the produce.

And there are times when the seller is permitted and the buyer is forbidden. And there are times when the buyer is permitted and the seller is forbidden.

Rava explained it afterward

and explained the beraita.

There are times when both of them are permitted,

for example:

he said to him

the seller to the buyer when he pays part of the money:

Acquire

immediately a portion of the field

corresponding to your dinar,

and you will acquire the rest of the field when you pay everything. Both of them are permitted, and the buyer eats the produce of the land worth the money that he gave, while the seller eats the rest of the produce .

There are times when both of them are forbidden,

for example:

he said to him

the seller to the buyer:

When you bring

the remainder of the money,

you acquire

everything

from now. Both of them are forbidden, as stated above in the words of Rav Anan .

Both are forbidden, as stated above in the words of Rav Anan .

There are times when the seller is permitted and the buyer is forbidden,

for example:

he said to him

the seller to the buyer:

When you bring

the remainder of the money,

you acquire

from that point onward. The seller is permitted and the buyer is forbidden, as stated above in the words of Rav Huna.

There are times when the buyer is permitted and the seller is forbidden,

for example:

he said to him

the seller to the buyer:

Acquire

everything

from now, and my dinars

that is, the rest of the money that you owe me for the purchase of the field

shall be a loan with you .

In this case, even if the buyer does not pay the remainder of the money, the sale will not be annulled. Therefore, the buyer is permitted to eat the produce, because he acquired the entire field immediately. And the seller is forbidden, because if he eats the produce, it is in return for having lent the buyer the remainder of the money.

Who is the author

of the Mishna according to Rav Anan, and of the beraita of the academy of Rabbi Hiyya, which says that when he said to him, “When you bring the remainder of the money, acquire from now,”

both are forbidden

to eat the produce?

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: It is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, for if it were Rabbi Yehuda, he indeed said: Interest on one side is permitted.

That is, above, on page 63, the Gemara cites a beraita in which the first anonymous authority and Rabbi Yehuda disagree concerning Reuben, who borrowed money from Simeon and said to him, “If I do not repay you by such-and-such a day, my field is sold to you from now for repayment of the debt”: whether it is permitted for the lender, who is the buyer, to eat the produce of the field until it becomes clear whether he acquired the field. The first anonymous authority holds that the buyer is forbidden to eat the produce, lest the borrower repay him and the sale not come to pass. Rabbi Yehuda holds that the buyer is permitted to eat the produce. Abaye explains Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning: he holds that “interest on one side is permitted,” meaning that if at the time of the loan there is a possibility that it will not lead to interest, as here, where there is a possibility of a sale, there is no prohibition of interest. Here too, whether the seller eats the produce or the buyer eats the produce, it is interest on one side, because if the seller eats and the buyer does not pay the remainder of the money, there is no interest, and if the buyer eats and afterward pays the remainder of the money, there is no interest. And it is written that they are forbidden to eat the produce, which is in accordance with the opinion of the first anonymous authority, who forbids interest on one side .

It is written in the beraita:

He mortgaged a house to him

or

he mortgaged a field to him

because he lent him money,

and he said to him

the lender to the borrower, meaning, he stipulated with him:

When you wish,

meaning, if you wish

to sell them, sell them only to me.

Whether they made an act of acquisition concerning this or did not make an act of acquisition, if he said to him

for this money,

meaning, sell me the house for the money of the loan that I gave you , and the house is worth more,

it is forbidden

because of interest, since the borrower reduces the price of the house for the lender because of the loan .

And if he said to him, “Sell to me”

at their value

that is:

a share in the house, worth the money that I lent you,

permitted.

Which tanna holds that with these monies it is forbidden?

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

for if [it were] Rabbi Yehuda, he says that one side of interest is permitted,

and here this is one side of interest, because perhaps the borrower will never wish to sell it , and this will not come to involve interest. And according to Rabbi Yehuda, even if afterward the borrower sells the field to the lender cheaply, he is permitted to accept it, because at the time of the loan this was one side of interest .

We learned in a beraita:

He sold him a house

or

he sold him a field, and said to him,

the seller said to the buyer at the time of the sale: I am selling to you on condition that

when I have money, return it to me

the house or the field, and I will return to you the money that you gave me.

Forbidden

to do so. For the buyer lives in the house, and if afterward the seller returns his money, it will become clear that there was never a sale here , and the money that the buyer gave the seller is a loan. It follows that he lives in the house in return for waiting for his money.

And if the buyer says to the seller, of his own will, at the time of the sale: I transfer ownership on condition that

when you have money, I will return it to you

the house or the field,

permitted.

The Gemara below explains the reason.

The Gemara says,

which tanna

of the beraita is the one who says in the first clause that it is forbidden?

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Not in accordance with Rabbi

Yehuda.

For if [it were] Rabbi Yehuda, he says that one side of interest is permitted.

And here this is one side of interest, because if the seller does not return the money that he received, the field is sold to the buyer, and he lives in his house .

Now the Gemara explains the beraita.

What is different in the first clause

that when the seller stipulates it is forbidden,

and what is different in the last clause

that when the buyer stipulates it is permitted?

Rava said: The last clause is where he said to him

the buyer to the seller,

of his own accord.

That is: “If I wish, I will return it to you.” And since the buyer clarifies in the condition that this depends on his will, there is no interest here, because until he returns it to the seller, the house is acquired by him, and when he returns it to him, he sells it back to him; it follows that when he lives in the house, he lives in his own.

A certain man sold land to his fellow without liability,

that is: In the deed of sale it was written that the seller did not accept liability for the sale, and if his creditor were to collect the land from the buyer, he would give him nothing.

He saw

the seller saw the buyer,

that he was distressed,

because the seller did not wish to sell it with liability, and he did not wish to refrain from buying it on account of this, and he was distressed because he feared that a creditor would collect it from him and he would suffer a loss.

He said to him

the seller said to the buyer, while they were occupied with the matter of the sale,

“Why are you distressed?”

You have no reason to worry.

If

my creditors

seize it from you, I will collect for you the choicest

from the choicest of my properties

even the improvement

that you will cause the field to produce,

and the produce

that will grow while it is in your possession.

And the buyer remained silent and did not reinforce the seller’s words.