Bava Metzia 69b (סט:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Pappa said:

in a case such as this

where the litigant has reason to suspect that there was an error, since I ruled in favor of one of them twice,

I certainly must

I

inform

the one against whom I ruled of the reason for the matter.

And this applies specifically to

coins:

they may be divided independently, because

who—

is it possible that he

took the good ones,

taking good coins,

while

his partner

took the deficient ones,

taking inferior coins?! Surely all the coins are alike, and a court’s assessment is not required in order to divide coins.

But

with regard to wine, everyone knows that there is

wine

that is well-seasoned,

tasty and good,

and there is wine that is not well-seasoned.

Therefore, in order to divide wine and similar commodities, for which a court’s assessment is required, one must divide specifically in the presence of three people; and if he divided it alone, the division is invalid.

The Gemara returns to the matter itself: Rav Naḥman said: Coins

are considered as though they have already been divided,

and no court assessment is required in order to divide the partnership; rather, each partner may divide his share independently.

However,

this applies only when they are good and good,

when the coins are divided equally, with all the coins being good and each of the two receiving good coins—for example, light coins, to which people are accustomed because they are easy to carry and circulate more readily than heavy coins—

or conversely,

heavy and heavy,

coins that are heavy and preferred by one who weighs silver on scales, provided that the coins taken by the partner for himself are equal in type to the coins he left for his fellow.

But

if he takes for himself

good coins

and leaves his fellow

heavy ones, he may not.

And if he divided the different types of coins, the division is invalid until he has them assessed in the presence of three people, or informs his partner and the latter consents.

Rav Hama used to rent out

lend

coins for a simple coin

each coin in exchange for payment of one simple coin

per day.

He would give coins to his fellow using the language of rental, saying: “I rent this coin to you in exchange for one simple coin per day.” That is, when he repaid the coin, he would add to the principal one simple coin for every day of the rental. This coin was worth one-eighth of a coin.

All of Rav Hama’s coins were lost.

All his wealth went to ruin, as we say below (71a): The assets of those who lend with interest collapse.

The Gemara explains why Rav Hama acted in this manner:

He,

Rav Hama,

thought

that it was permitted to do so, because

how is it different from a plow,

how is renting money different from renting a plow, which one may rent and take a fixed payment for its use each day?

Therefore Rav Hama reasoned that, similarly, it was permitted to rent out money using the language of rental rather than the language of a loan.

But the Gemara says regarding this:

That is not so!

This is not comparable to renting a utensil, and it is certainly prohibited to do so.

The Gemara explains the distinctions between renting a plow, which is permitted, and Rav Hama’s actions, which are prohibited:

A plow—

it returns itself.

The very same utensil returns to its owner, and this is not considered a loan. Therefore, the payment is not considered interest, but only payment for use of the utensil.

And

in addition, with regard to a plow,

its depreciation is known.

The depreciation, the damage to the utensil caused by its use, is apparent; therefore, one may take payment for it.

But

coins do not return themselves,

the money of the loan does not itself return to the owner, since it was given to be spent, and the borrower is obligated to pay the lender the amount of the loan. When he adds to that amount, it is interest.

And

in addition, even in a case such as this, where he does not lend the money to be spent but only for use, and the coins return intact—for example, a money changer who rents coins from his fellow in order to study the forms of the coins and returns them as they are—it is nevertheless prohibited. Because

their depreciation is not known,

there is no damage to them resulting from their use; therefore, if he takes payment for this use, it is interest.

It follows from the Gemara’s discussion that the prohibition against interest applies in two ways.

1. When one lends money or produce to be spent and the borrower returns other items, then if he adds payment to the repayment, it is prohibited as interest. 2. Even if one rents his fellow a utensil for use and afterward it is returned intact, if it suffered no depreciation as a result of the use, it is prohibited as interest. Only if the utensil also depreciates through use may one take payment for it.

Rava said: It is permitted for a person

to

say to his fellow,

saying to him:

“Here are four coins,”

take four coins as a gift,

“and lend money to so-and-so.”

In exchange for the gift I am giving you, lend money to so-and-so.

It follows that the lender receives an addition to the loan that he lends to that so-and-so, and nevertheless it is permitted to do so, because

the Torah prohibited only interest that comes from the borrower to the lender.

Here, the borrower repays only the debt, while the lender receives the addition from another person; therefore it is permitted .

And Rava said: It is permitted for a person to say to his fellow: “Take for yourself,”

take for yourself,

four coins, and say to so-and-so, ‘Lend me money.’”

You should tell so-and-so to lend me money. It follows that the borrower pays an addition for his loan, as in every case of interest, and nevertheless it is permitted to do so.

What is the reason?—

He is taking payment for conveying the request!

This money is not given by the borrower as an addition for the loan, for allowing the money to remain in his possession; rather, it is payment to the intermediary for arranging the loan with the lender, like the other expenses a borrower incurs in order to obtain a loan.

This is analogous

to an incident that occurred:

Abba

Mar, son of Rav Pappa, used to take

he would take

a cake of wax

a cake of wax

from wax merchants

from a wax merchant,

and he said to his father,

Abba Mar said to his father, Rav Pappa:

“Lend him money,”

lend money to that merchant.

The Sages said to Rav Pappa: “The son of the Master is eating interest!”

Your son is eating interest, since he received a cake of wax from that merchant in exchange for persuading his father to lend him money, and this is interest.

He said to them: “Let him eat interest of this sort,”

as there is no concern of a prohibition in this.

And the reason is that

the Torah prohibited only interest that comes from the borrower to the lender.

Here, he is taking payment for conveying the request, and it is permitted.

The son received payment for saying to his father that he should lend to the merchant.

This refers to an adult who is not dependent on his father’s table; otherwise, whether he is a minor or an adult dependent on his father, it is as though his father, who is the lender, received the wax, and it is prohibited as interest and is not merely payment for conveying the request.

Mishna:

One appraises a cow or a donkey, and anything that works and eats,

it is permitted to appraise any object that can be used for labor, such as a cow with which one can plow, or a donkey on which one can ride, and to give it in an iska partnership

for half,

sharing the profits from its appreciation and its offspring without paying the person who works with it a wage for his efforts, since the worker earns his wage through the use he can make of the object included in the iska.

Likewise, the provider need not pay the recipient for the food with which he feeds the animals, and this does not constitute taking interest, since the recipient’s free use of the animals is the provider’s payment for his efforts and for the food.

In a place where the practice is to divide the offspring immediately, they divide them,

when the time for division arrives. As we said above, on the first side of the page, with regard to a small animal, after thirty days, and with regard to a large animal, after fifty days, they divide the offspring.

In a place where the practice is to raise them,

where it is customary for the recipient to continue raising the offspring as part of the iska,

they shall grow

the offspring in his possession. It follows that of all the offspring, half belong to him. And with regard to the other half, he also receives half the profits, because all of them are in his possession as part of the iska.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One appraises

in order to give in an iska

a calf

of a cow

with its mother, and

one appraises in order to give in an iska

a foal

of a donkey

with its mother,

and the provider need not give the recipient payment for the labor and food of the calf and foal, because caring for them does not involve any effort beyond that required for the mother, since the calf follows its mother wherever she goes.

And with regard to what he spends on feeding the cow or donkey, we have already learned at the beginning of the Mishna that with regard to anything that works and eats, its use for labor is the recipient’s payment for his efforts and expenses.

And one may increase the productivity of his field, and need not be concerned about interest.

The term mafriz denotes exaggeration, or increasing. Some versions read umaferin, from the language of fruitfulness and procreation.

The Gemara will explain this ruling of the Mishna.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: One may increase the productivity

of a person’s

field, and need not be concerned about interest.

How so? If one rents a field from another at

a price of

ten kor of wheat per year.

And

the renter

says

to the owner:

Give me two hundred zuz

as a loan,

and I will maintain it,

I will see to the improvement of the field, through fertilizing, plowing, and the like, and to all the fieldwork, with this money,

and I will give you

in rental payment

twelve kor per year,

and I will also return your money, namely, two hundred zuz,

it is permitted

to do so, and there is no concern of interest in the fact that he adds two kor of wheat to the rental payment, in addition to repayment of the principal that he borrowed. Since he improved the field with the money he borrowed, the field became more valuable, and the twelve kor are its rental value for the year.

Even though, strictly speaking, he has no power to obligate him to add a payment for the improvement of his field, nevertheless the renter may pay for this, because the loan is viewed independently, while the additional rental payment is regarded as compensation for a better field.

But one may not increase the productivity of a shop or of a ship,

because with regard to them it is not applicable to say that they have become more valuable. If so, the addition to the payment is necessarily compensation for the loan, and is prohibited as interest.

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: Sometimes one may increase the productivity of a shop,

for example,

to paint a design on it,

when he uses the money he borrowed to enhance the shop’s external appearance with paintings and the like, thereby attracting more customers and increasing the shop’s value, as with a field.

Likewise, it is permitted with regard to

a ship to equip it with a mast and sail,

a curtain and a mast for the ship, and other ship’s equipment.

The Gemara explains:

A shop on which one paints a design

is permitted, because

people take an interest in it, and its rental is greater,

people look at it, and then everyone rushes into it to buy and eat there.

Likewise,

a ship to equip it with a mast and sail

is permitted, because

once its mast and sail are more attractive, its rental is greater.

With regard to a ship,

a ship intended for rental:

Rav said:

It is permitted to rent it out in exchange for

rental,

payment,

and

the renter accepts upon himself the

damage liability,

so that if it breaks due to circumstances beyond his control, he is obligated to pay its value, even though any other renter would be exempt from liability for accidents.

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: If it is rental

—he pays for use of the ship—

then he may not

pay the

damage liability.

And if it is damage liability,

that is what he pays,

then he may not

pay the

rental,

which is the rental payment!

The reason is that since the ship was appraised at a monetary value for the renter, and he is obligated to return it to its owner intact, or, if it breaks or is damaged, to provide its value, this rental is considered a loan of the ship; and when one takes payment for a loan, that is interest.

Rav was silent

and did not respond to the claims of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi.

Rav Sheshet said: What is the reason Rav was silent?

Was it because

he had not heard

from Rav

that which was taught: Although they said

later, in the Mishna [70b],

one may not accept iron-flock arrangements from a Jew.

The explanation is: This is a business arrangement that a person receives from another in order to work with it and divide the profits. The recipient accepts upon himself all responsibility for the business, so that if it is subject to an accident and is lost, he pays its value to the owner, according to the value at which the business is currently appraised. For this reason this arrangement is called an “iron-flock arrangement,” since it is as hard as iron: it remains the owner’s property like iron, and he never loses any of its value.

And since most recipients of these arrangements worked with small livestock, they were called “flock.”

Such an arrangement is prohibited, since it is like a loan: all responsibility for the business rests on the recipient, and it follows that the profits received by the owner are interest for lending the business to the recipient.

But one may accept an iron-flock arrangement from gentiles,

because it is not prohibited for a Jew to borrow from a gentile at interest.

But they said

the Sages:

If one appraises a cow for another, and he says

the recipient

to him: Your cow is considered mine at thirty dinars,

which is its present value, and I am obligated to you for this sum, so that if it dies, I will pay you its value,

and I will give you

the rental payment for the cow

of a sela per month.

At first glance, this is precisely an iron-flock arrangement, since he accepts upon himself all responsibility for the cow.

Nevertheless, the ruling is that

it is permitted,

and the reason is

because he did not assign it a monetary value.

This concludes the wording of the beraita. Its explanation appears below in the Gemara.

The Gemara is astonished by the wording of the beraita:

And

does it mean that

he did not assign it

a monetary value!? He did assign a value to the cow, obligating himself to pay for it if it dies or is damaged.

And we answer:

Rav Sheshet said: He did not assign it a monetary value while it was alive.

For if it does not die, and he returns it to its owner at the end of the rental period as it was, while in the meantime, during the intervening period, the price of cows has fallen, he does not pay the owner the amount by which its value declined during that period,

but

he assigned its value only with regard to

“after death,”

so that he will pay its value if it dies, or if it breaks, he will pay the amount of the loss.

Since the renter does not accept responsibility for the loss caused by a decline in prices, this is not considered a loan. In a loan, the lender has no possibility of suffering a loss of his money, since he lends the money to the borrower in a manner that obligates the borrower to repay the loan whether he used the money or it was lost. But when the losses resulting from a decline in prices fall upon the owner, the arrangement is considered the rental of an object, and it is permitted to take payment for renting out an object.

But in an “iron-flock arrangement,” when the business declines even slightly in value, the recipient of the business is nevertheless obligated to make up the difference for the provider. This is considered “appraising it while alive,” meaning that the owner has no possibility of suffering a loss in the matter. Therefore, it is a loan and not a rental, and the profits he takes are interest.

And the Gemara concludes:

Rav Pappa said: The halakha is: A ship

may be rented in exchange for

rental,

and the renter may also be required to pay the

damage liability.

And this is in accordance with Rav’s statement above. As for the argument raised against him by Rav Kahana and Rav Asi—that it is prohibited to accept responsibility for accidents involving an object while taking payment for its use—it can be answered that a ship is not comparable to an “iron-flock arrangement,” but rather to the case of “one who assigns a cow’s value to another after death,” since with a ship as well, if its price declines and its value falls during the rental period, the renter is not obligated to pay the owner for this loss. Therefore, this is not a loan, and it is permitted for the owner to take payment for it.