Bava Metzia 70b — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

One may not accept

merchandise for conducting business, with all the responsibility upon the recipient of the transaction, so that the merchandise will in any event be preserved in its value for the owners, as

iron sheep,

which never decreases, and is always preserved for the owners at the same value that it had when he received the transaction.

And since he received the money

from a Jew,

what he gives the Jew is a share in the profits of the business, this is forbidden

because it is interest .

But one may accept iron sheep from gentiles

even though the recipient of the transaction accepted upon himself responsibility for the entire sum of the transaction.

There is no prohibition in this , since the giver of the transaction is a gentile, there is no prohibition against giving him a share of the profits.

And

likewise

lend

Jews

from them—

from gentiles, for it was not said that there is a prohibition against borrowing from a gentile with interest—

and

also

lend

the Jew

to them with interest,

for it was not said that there is a Torah prohibition against lending to a gentile with interest,

and likewise with a resident alien

he has the same law as a gentile, and just as it is permitted to borrow from and lend to a gentile with interest, so it is permitted to borrow from and lend to a resident alien with interest .

A Jew lends the money of a gentile with the gentile’s knowledge,

where the Jew received this money as a loan from the gentile, and he places the money before the gentile who is the lender, so that it is as though it has been returned to the lender, and afterward he gives that same money to his fellow Jew; this is permitted, for we regard it as though the gentile had lent to the third Jew.

But not

was it permitted to lend

with the knowledge of the Jew,

for since the borrower did not place the money back with the gentile, there is here a complete loan from a Jew to a Jew, and it is forbidden because of interest.

Gemara:

Does this mean,

it is seen from the Mishna that a person who receives merchandise from his fellow to conduct business as iron sheep,

that it stands in the domain of the recipient

the transaction is under the complete responsibility of the recipient, and therefore the transaction was forbidden because of interest, for we regard it as a loan with profit.

And he raises a contradiction

there is a difficulty against this from the beraita that says: A Jew

who accepts iron sheep from gentiles

to conduct business with them and to divide the profits with the gentile, and the animals that he received to conduct business gave birth to offspring, the offspring born from the animal that he received do not have the status of firstborn, for it is stated concerning the firstborn “among Israel,” excluding the animal of a gentile, and this animal that he received in the transaction belongs to the gentile.

And even those offspring that are the profit of the animal he received, and of which the Jewish recipient receives a share as half the profits, if they give birth, their offspring

are exempt from the firstborn status,

and although the Jew has a share in the offspring that give birth, nevertheless we regard them as the animal of a gentile, which has no firstborn status.

It is proven that iron sheep are in the domain of the giver, that is, the gentile, for if they were in the domain of the recipient then even the offspring born from the animal itself that he received in the transaction would have to become liable in the firstborn status, according to the law of an animal belonging to a Jew.

And we answer:

Abaye said: It is not difficult; this

which is stated in Bekhorot, that they are exempt from the firstborn status because they are considered to belong to the gentile giver, is in a case

where he accepts upon himself

the gentile

unavoidable accidents and depreciation,

and therefore they are to be considered as belonging to the gentile.

But

this

which is explained in our Mishna, that it is considered to be in the domain of the recipient and therefore there is a prohibition of interest, is in a case

where he did not accept upon himself

the giver of the transaction

unavoidable accidents and depreciation,

but it is under the responsibility of the recipient; therefore it is a loan by the recipient, and there is a prohibition of interest because of the profit that he will give to the owners.

And we challenge:

Rava said to him: If he accepted upon himself

in the Mishna of Bekhorot

the owner’s unavoidable accidents and depreciation,

and since the gentile accepted responsibility upon himself, it is exempt from the firstborn status,

do you call it iron sheep?

Is it not so that if the animals are lost, the gentile loses? If so, it should not be called iron sheep, whose meaning is that it stands for the owners at the initial value .

And furthermore

there is a difficulty:

rather than teach in the latter clause

of our Mishna

“But one may accept iron sheep from gentiles,”

which implies that accepting a transaction as iron sheep is permitted only when he accepts it from a gentile, there is permission even with a Jew.

And in the Mishna they should have

made the distinction within that matter itself,

dividing the case concerning a Jew himself, and saying:

In what case are these words stated,

that it is forbidden to accept a transaction as iron sheep from a Jew? In a case

where he did not accept upon himself

the owner

unavoidable accidents and depreciation,

and therefore it is a loan by the recipient, since all responsibility is upon him.

But if

the owner accepted—

the owner

unavoidable accidents and depreciation, it is well,

and it should not be forbidden because of interest, for there is no loan by the recipient, since the owner accepted the responsibility upon himself.

Rather, Rava said

another answer to the difficulty: in our Mishna it appears that the responsibility for iron sheep is upon the recipient, whereas in Bekhorot it appears that the responsibility is upon the gentile giver.

This and that,

both in Bekhorot and in our Mishna, concern a case

where the owner did not accept upon himself unavoidable accidents and depreciation,

and thus it is under the complete responsibility of the recipient.

And the reason for the difficulty concerning Bekhorot is the reason that the offspring are exempt from the firstborn status, even though they are under the complete responsibility of the Jew:

since if he does not give money,

if the Jew does not return, at the conclusion of the transaction, the sum at which the animal was initially appraised,

a gentile will come and seize the animal

the first one that had belonged to him ,

and if he does not find the animal

and if the gentile does not find that animal which he initially gave,

he will seize them

the gentile

the offspring

that ought to come to the Jew as his share of the profits, and the gentile will seize them for the sum that is owed to him in return.

And it becomes for him

because of this possibility of seizure,

the hand of a gentile in the middle,

that the gentile has the power to seize these offspring,

and whenever the hand of a gentile is in the middle, it is exempt from the firstborn status ,

therefore specifically there, even though the animal is under the responsibility of the Jew, since the gentile has the power to seize it, it is exempt.

But concerning the prohibition of interest, when the recipient accepts responsibility upon himself, he is considered as though he received the merchandise or the money as a loan, and it is forbidden to give the giver any profit because of the prohibition of interest.

And the Gemara brings the words of the verse in Proverbs [28:8

“He who increases his wealth with interest and increase, for one who is gracious to the poor he will gather it,”

and discusses its explanation:

What is “for one who is gracious to the poor

he will gather it”?

Rav said: For example, Shapur the king,

who was king of Persia, and who imposed heavy taxes, and took the wealth that lenders with interest had made, and with it was gracious to the poor gentiles, who were poor in commandments.

Rav Naḥman said; Huna said to me: It is necessary

this verse

only

to say that one must distance himself from interest,

even the interest of idolaters,

a person should not take from a Jew, for in the end it will go to waste.

Rava challenged Rav Naḥman

from the words of the verse that explicitly permits lending to a gentile with interest, for it is written:

“To a foreigner you shall charge interest.”

What is “you shall charge interest”? Is it not, “you shall bite,”

for the verse commands the Jew that he should bite the gentile, with interest that he takes from him?

And Rav Naḥman answers:

No,

the verse did not speak of this, but rather of a Jew who is compelled to take a loan with interest from a gentile, and I apply to him:

“You shall charge interest,”

charge interest from your money to the gentile for the loan that you take from him.

And the Gemara wonders: Would the verse command one to give interest to a gentile? Is it not

“is it not sufficient that it is not otherwise,”

meaning, can a Jew not borrow from a gentile without interest!?

And the Gemara answers: The intention of the verse that commands borrowing from a gentile with interest is

“to exclude your brother, no.”

The verse stated this in the language of a command in order to teach us the prohibition against lending to one’s Jewish brother with interest.

But the Gemara wonders: Surely the prohibition against lending with interest to

“your brother” is explicitly written in it: “And to your brother you shall not

charge interest”!?

And the Gemara answers: The intention of the verse is

to cause him to transgress a positive commandment and a negative commandment.

He challenged him

Rav Naḥman from our Mishna:

For it was taught:

One may borrow from them,

from gentiles,

and lend to them with interest. And likewise with a resident alien,

who is not a Jew, but has only accepted upon himself to observe the commandments of the descendants of Noah.