Bava Metzia 69b — the Talmud in English

Rav Pappa said: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact location on the page")

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.

На этом Гемара завершает обсуждение данного вопроса. Далее, в обсуждении случая «корабль: наём и ответственность за ущерб», эти положения будут разъяснены подробнее.

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 assesses a cow or a donkey, and anything that works and eats,

it is permitted to assess anything that can be used for work, such as a cow with which one can plow, or a donkey upon which one can ride, and to give it as an iska

for half,

to divide the profit from the appreciation and from the offspring, without paying a wage for labor to the one dealing with it, since the one dealing with it earns his wage through the use that he can make of the object of the iska.

Likewise, the giver does not need to pay the recipient for the food with which he feeds the animals, and there is no taking of interest in this, since the use that the recipient of the iska makes of the animals for free is the payment of the giver of the iska for his labor and for the food.

Where they are accustomed to divide the offspring immediately, they divide,

when the time for the division arrives, as we said above on page 68a: for small livestock, thirty days, and for large livestock, fifty days, they divide the offspring.

Where they are accustomed to raise them,

where they are accustomed that the recipient continues to raise the offspring under the arrangement of an iska,

they shall grow

the offspring with him. And it follows that of all the offspring, half are his. And from the other half, he also receives half of the profits, since all of them are with him under the arrangement of an iska.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One assesses

to give as an iska,

a calf

of a cow

with its mother, and

one assesses to give as an iska,

a foal

of a donkey

with its mother,

and the giver of the iska does not need to give the recipient payment for his labor and the food of the calf and the foal, because he has no special labor with them beyond that involving the mother, since the calf follows its mother everywhere.

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

And he may increase the amount for his field, and he need not be concerned because of interest.

Maפריז is an expression of exaggeration, increase. And some have the reading “umafrin,” from the expression of being fruitful and multiplying.

And in the Gemara this law of the Mishna will be explained.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: A person may increase

a person

for his field, and he need not be concerned because of interest.

How so? One who rents a field from his fellow for

the price of

ten kor of wheat per year.

And

the renter

says to him,

to the landlord:

Give me two hundred zuz

as a loan,

and I will maintain it,

I will take care of improving the field, through fertilizing, plowing, and the like, and all the work of the field, with this money,

and I will raise for you

in the rental payment

twelve kor per year

and I will also return your money, which is two hundred zuz,

it is permitted

to do so, and there is no concern of interest in adding two kor of wheat to the rental payment, in addition to repayment of the principal that he borrowed. For since he maintained the field with this money that he borrowed, the field improved more, and the twelve kor are its value for a year.

And although according to the fundamental law he has no power to obligate him to add to the payment for the improvement of his field, nevertheless, the renter may pay for this, because the loan itself is viewed separately, and the addition to the rental payment as compensation for a better field.

But one may not increase the amount for either a shop or a ship,

because with regard to them it is not applicable to say that they improved more. And if so, the addition to the payment is necessarily in exchange for the loan, and it is forbidden because of interest.

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: At times one may increase the amount for a shop,

for example,

to paint a design in it,

when he uses the money that he borrowed to add to the shop's external beauty with paintings and the like, and through this the buyers increase and the shop improves, as with a field.

And likewise it is permitted with a

ship, to make a sail for it,

a curtain and a mast for the ship, and the other equipment of a ship.

And the Gemara explains:

A shop in which to paint a design

is permitted, because

people take pleasure in it, and its rent is greater,

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

And likewise,

a ship, to make a sail for it,

is permitted, because

since the sail is more beautiful, its rent is greater.

A ship,

a ship that stands to be rented:

Rav said:

it is permitted to rent it out in exchange for

agra,

rent,

and

the renter accepts upon himself the

pagra,

that if it breaks through unavoidable circumstances, he becomes obligated to pay its value, even though every other renter is exempt from unavoidable circumstances.

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: If it is agra,

he pays for the use of the ship,

he cannot

it is possible to pay the

pagra.

And if it is pagra,

he pays

he cannot

it is possible that he pay the

agra,

which is the rental payment!

And the reason for this is that since the ship was assessed in money for the renter, and he is obligated to return it to its owner as it is, or, if it breaks and is damaged, to give its value, this rental is considered a loan of the ship, and with a loan, if one takes payment, this is interest.

Rav was silent

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

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

And is it that

he did not hear

Rav

that which was taught: Although they said

below in the Mishna [70b],

one may not accept iron-flock from a Jew.

The meaning is: a business venture that a person receives from his fellow, to engage in it and divide the profits. And he accepts upon himself all responsibility for the venture, so that if it is overcome by unavoidable circumstances and is lost, he pays its value to the owners, according to the value at which the venture is now assessed. And for this reason this iska is called “iron-flock”: it is hard like iron, it exists for its owners like iron, and he never loses from its value.

And since most recipients of these ventures dealt with small livestock, they were therefore called “flock.”

Such an iska is forbidden, for it is like a loan, since all responsibility for the venture is upon the recipient, and it follows that the profits that the owner receives are interest for lending the venture to the recipient.

But one may accept iron-flock from gentiles,

because there is no prohibition for a Jew to borrow from a gentile with interest.

But they said

the Sages:

One who gives a cow to his fellow, and

the recipient

says to him: Behold, your cow is assessed by me at thirty dinars,

which is its value according to its present assessment, and this sum is an obligation upon me toward you, so that if it dies, I will pay you its value,

and I will raise for you

the rental payment for the cow

one sela per month.

And apparently this is precisely iron-flock, since he accepts upon himself all responsibility for the cow.

Nevertheless, the law is that

it is permitted,

and the reason is

because he did not make it money.

This is the end of the wording of the beraita. And its explanation is in the Gemara below.

And the Gemara wonders about the wording of the beraita:

And

is it that

he did not make it

money!? For he assessed the value of the cow for him, so that he would be obligated in its payment if it died or was damaged.

And we answer:

Rav Sheshet said: He did not make it money during its lifetime.

For if it does not die, and he returns it to its owner at the end of the rental period as it is, and meanwhile, during the time that passed, the price of cows declined, he does not pay the owner what was lacking from its value during this time,

but

he assessed it only with regard to

“after death,”

so that he will pay its value if it dies, or if it is broken, he will pay the deficiency.

And since the renter does not accept upon himself the loss of “zula” [the reduction of prices], this is therefore not considered a loan. For with a loan, the lender has no possibility of loss regarding 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 whether it was lost from him. But where the losses from the zula are upon the owners, the matter is considered the rental of an object, and it is permitted to take payment for renting out an object.

But with “iron-flock,” when the venture declines in value even slightly, nevertheless the “recipient of the venture” is obligated to make it whole for the giver. This is considered “they assessed it during its lifetime,” so that the owners have no possibility of loss in the matter. Therefore, this is like a loan and not like a rental. And the profits that he takes are interest.

And the Gemara concludes:

Rav Pappa said: The halakha is: A ship

it is permitted to rent out in exchange for

agra,

and also that the renter become obligated to pay the

pagra.

And this is in accordance with the words of Rav above. And as for what Rav Kahana and Rav Asi argued against him—that it is forbidden to accept responsibility for the unavoidable accidents of an object and to pay for using it—it may be said that a ship does not resemble “iron-flock,” but rather “one who gives a cow to his fellow after death,” since also with a ship, if during the rental period its price declines and its value decreases, the renter is not obligated to pay this deficiency to the owners. And for this reason, this is not a loan, and it is permitted for the landlord to take payment for it.