Bava Metzia 65b (סה:) — the Talmud in English

And the halakha is in accordance with Rav Ḥama,

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 stipulated interest is recoverable through the courts .

And the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yannai, who said: What difference is there between the produce itself and its value,

just as, when one sets a price for produce at the current market price and its value subsequently increases, it is permitted for the seller to give him the produce whose price had been fixed, so too it is permitted for the seller to give him the value of the produce. This is unlike Rav’s view, who holds that it is forbidden for the seller to give the buyer the value of the produce, because when he gives him, at a later time, more money than he received from him, it appears to be interest .

Mishna:

He sold him the field, and he,

the buyer,

gave him part of the money, and he said to him,

the seller said 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 purchased from me.

It is forbidden

to do this, because as long as he has not paid the remainder of the money, there is a prohibition of interest in the consumption of the produce. The Gemara explains for whom this is forbidden.

He lent him money against his field,

meaning that the borrower’s field served as collateral for the debt,

and he said to him

the lender said to him:

If you do not give me

what I lent you

from now until three years have passed, then

the mortgaged field in my possession

is mine,

as repayment of the debt.

The law is that

it is his. And this is what Beitos ben Zunin used to do, in accordance with the Sages .

Gemara:

Who consumes the produce,

meaning: In the first clause it says that it is forbidden to do this because consuming the produce involves a prohibition of interest. For whom is it forbidden, and for whom is it permitted?

Rav Huna said: The seller consumes the produce,

and the intention of the Mishna is that it is forbidden for the buyer.

Rav Anan said: They deposit the produce with a third party

[the produce is entrusted to a third party]

the produce,

and both of them are forbidden to consume the produce until the sale is completed or canceled.

And they do not disagree

Rav Huna and Rav Anan.

This

is Rav Huna’s ruling, that the seller consumes the produce and the buyer is forbidden, when

he said

the seller said 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 consumes the produce because the field is his, while the buyer is forbidden to consume the produce because the field is still not his. If he consumes it, it is in exchange for the advance payment—namely, the partial payment that he gave the seller, for which he has not yet acquired anything. And this is interest.

This

is Rav Anan’s ruling, that both are forbidden to consume the produce, when

he said

the seller said 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 are forbidden to consume 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. If the seller consumes the produce, it is in exchange for waiting for the money that the buyer has not yet paid. The buyer is forbidden to consume 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; the partial payment that he gave the seller at the time of the sale was a loan, and the produce belongs to the seller. If the buyer consumes it, it is in exchange for the partial payment that he gave the seller, which was a loan .

Rav Safra taught in

the laws of

interest

that were taught by

the school of Rabbi Ḥiyya:

There are

times when both

the seller and the buyer

are permitted

to consume the produce.

There are times when both are forbidden

to consume 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

and interpreted the beraita.

There are times when both are permitted,

for example:

The seller said to him

the seller said to the buyer when he paid part of the money:

Acquire

immediately a portion of the field

corresponding to your zuz,

and you will acquire the rest of the field when you pay the entire amount. Both are permitted: The buyer consumes the produce from the portion of the land corresponding in value to the money he gave, and the seller consumes the rest of the produce .

There are times when both are forbidden,

for example:

The seller said to him

the seller said to the buyer:

When you bring

the remainder of the money,

you acquire

everything

from now.

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:

The seller said to him

the seller said to the buyer:

When you bring

the remainder of the money,

you acquire

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

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

for example:

The seller said to him

the seller said to the buyer:

Acquire

everything

from now, and my zuz

that is, the remaining money that you owe me for purchasing the field

shall be a loan to you .

In this case, even if the buyer does not pay the remaining money, the sale is not canceled. Therefore, the buyer is permitted to consume the produce, because he acquired the entire field immediately. The seller is forbidden, because if he consumes the produce, it is in exchange for having lent the buyer the remainder of the money.

Who is the tanna

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

both are forbidden

to consume the produce?

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

Meaning: Above, on page 63, the Gemara cites a beraita in which the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda disagree concerning Reuven, who borrowed money from Shimon and said to him: “If I do not repay you by such-and-such a day, my field is sold to you from now as repayment of the debt.” The question is whether the lender, who is the buyer, may consume the produce of the field until it becomes clear whether he acquired the field. The first tanna holds that the buyer is forbidden to consume the produce, lest the borrower repay him and the sale never take place. Rabbi Yehuda holds that the buyer is permitted to consume the produce. Abaye explains Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning: He holds that interest existing on only one side is permitted. That is, when at the time of the loan there is a possibility that the transaction 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 consumes the produce or the buyer consumes the produce, this is interest existing on only one side: If the seller consumes the produce and the buyer does not pay the remainder of the money, there is no interest; and if the buyer consumes the produce and later pays the remainder of the money, there is no interest. The beraita says that they are forbidden to consume the produce, which is the view of the first tanna, who forbids interest existing on only one side .

It is written in the beraita:

If he mortgaged a house to him

or

if he mortgaged a field to him

because he lent him money,

and he said to him

the lender said to the borrower—that is, he stipulated with him:

When you wish,

meaning: If you wish

to sell them, you may sell them only to me.

Whether they performed an act of acquisition concerning this or did not perform such an act, if he said to him

at this price,

meaning: You will sell me the house for the amount 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 it to me”

at their value

—that is:

a portion of the house worth the money that I lent you—

it is permitted .

Who is the tanna [of the beraita] who says that with regard to this money it is prohibited?

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

for if it were Rabbi Yehuda, he says that one side of an interest transaction is permitted.

And here there is one side of an interest transaction, because perhaps the borrower will never wish to sell it —and in that event no interest will arise. According to Rabbi Yehuda, even if the borrower later sells the field to the lender at a discount, he may accept it, because at the time of the loan there was one side of an interest transaction .

We learned in a beraita:

He sold him a house

or

he sold him a field, and said to him

—the seller says to the buyer at the time of the sale: “I am selling it to you on the 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.”

It is prohibited

to do so. For the buyer lives in the house, and if afterward the seller returns his money to him, it will become clear that there was never a sale at all ; the money that the buyer gave the seller was therefore a loan, and it follows that he lived in the house in exchange for waiting for the return of his money.

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

when you have money, I will return it to you

the house or the field,”

it is permitted.

The Gemara below explains the reason.

The Gemara says:

Who is the tanna

of the beraita who says in its first clause that it is prohibited?

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It is not in accordance with Rabbi

Yehuda.

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

And here there is one side of an interest transaction, because if the seller does not return the money he received, the field is sold to the buyer, and he lives in his own house

. The Gemara now explains the beraita.

What is different in the first clause,

where it is prohibited if the seller makes the condition,

and what is different in the latter clause,

where it is permitted if the buyer makes the condition?

Rava said: The latter clause is where he says to him

the buyer says to the seller,

“of his own accord.”

That is: “If I wish, I will return it to you.” Since the buyer specifies in the condition that the matter depends on his will, there is no interest, because until he returns it to the seller, the house belongs to him, and when he returns it, he sells it back to him. It follows that while he lives in the house, he lives in his own property.

There was a certain man who sold land to another without liability,

that is, the deed of sale stated that the seller did not assume liability for the sale; if one of his creditors 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 had not wished to sell it with liability, while the buyer had not wished to refrain from purchasing it on that account, 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 engaged in the sale,

“Why are you distressed?”

You have no reason to worry.

If

my creditors

seize it from you, I will pay you with the choicest property

from the best of my possessions—even

the appreciation

that you bring about in the field,

and the produce

that grows while it is in your possession.

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