Bava Metzia 70b (ע:) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

One may not accept

merchandise for purposes of conducting business, with all responsibility to rest upon the recipient of the business arrangement, so that the merchandise will necessarily retain its value for the owner, like

iron sheep,

which never decrease in value, and whose original value is always preserved for the owner, the value it had when he received the business arrangement.

And since he received the money

from a Jew,

what he gives the Jew is a share of the business profits, and this is prohibited

because it is interest .

But one may accept iron sheep from gentiles

even though the recipient of the business arrangement accepted responsibility for the entire amount of the arrangement.

There is no prohibition in this, since the provider of the funds is a gentile, and there is no prohibition against giving him a share of the profits.

And

likewise

lend

Jews

from them—

from gentiles, as no prohibition was stated against borrowing from a gentile with interest—

and

also

lend

the Jew

to them with interest,

as no prohibition by Torah law was stated against lending to a gentile with interest,

and likewise with a resident convert

he has the same law as a gentile. 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 convert with interest .

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

meaning that the Jew received this money as a loan from the gentile, and he deposits the money with the gentile lender, so that it is as though it has been returned to the lender; afterward, he gives that same money to another Jew. This is permitted, since we regard it as though the gentile had lent the money to the third Jew.

But not

is it permitted to lend

with the knowledge of the Jew,

because since the borrower did not deposit the money back with the gentile, this is a complete loan from one Jew to another, and it is prohibited on account of interest.

Gemara:

Does this mean

that it can be inferred from the Mishna that one who accepts merchandise from another to conduct business as iron sheep,

it remains in the possession of the recipient

and the business arrangement is under the recipient’s complete responsibility. Therefore, the arrangement is prohibited because of interest, since we regard it as a loan with profit.

And we raise a contradiction

to this from the beraita that states: A Jew

who accepts iron sheep from gentiles

to conduct business with them and share the profits with the gentile, and the animals he received for business purposes give birth to offspring, the offspring born to the animal he received do not have the status of firstborn animals, since with regard to a firstborn it is stated “among Israel,” excluding an animal belonging to a gentile; and this animal that he received in the business arrangement belongs to the gentile.

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

are exempt from the firstborn law,

and although the Jew has a share in the offspring born to them, in any event we regard them as animals belonging to a gentile, which are not subject to the firstborn law.

It is proven that iron sheep remain in the possession of the provider, namely, the gentile, for had they remained in the possession of the recipient, then even the offspring born from the animal itself that he received in the business arrangement would have had to be subject to the firstborn law, as is the law with an animal belonging to a Jew.

And we answer:

Abaye said: This is not difficult. This

case stated in Bekhorot, where the animals are exempt from the firstborn law because they are considered to belong to the gentile provider, is when

he accepts upon himself

the gentile

responsibility for unavoidable accidents and depreciation,

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

In contrast,

this

case stated in our Mishna, where it is considered to remain in the recipient’s possession and there is therefore a prohibition of interest, is when

he does not accept upon himself,

the provider of the business arrangement,

responsibility for unavoidable accidents and depreciation,

but it remains the recipient’s responsibility. Therefore, it is a loan in the recipient’s possession, and there is a prohibition of interest because of the profit he gives to the owners.

And we challenge this:

Rava said to him: If he accepts upon himself,

in the Mishna in Bekhorot,

the owner’s responsibility for unavoidable accidents and depreciation,

and since the gentile accepted responsibility upon himself, the animal is exempt from the firstborn law,

do you call it iron sheep?

This is a rhetorical question: Surely if the animals depreciate, the gentile will suffer the loss. If so, it should not be called iron sheep, whose meaning is that it retains its original value for the owners.

And furthermore,

there is a difficulty:

since the latter clause teaches

of our Mishna

“But one may accept iron sheep from gentiles,”

which implies that accepting a business arrangement as iron sheep is permitted only when one accepts it from a gentile, whereas it is in fact permitted even with a Jew,

the Mishna should have

distinguished within that case itself,

differentiating within the case of a Jew himself, and said:

When is this statement applicable?

That it is prohibited to accept a business arrangement as iron sheep from a Jew is when

he does not accept upon himself,

the owner,

responsibility for unavoidable accidents and depreciation,

and therefore it is a loan in the recipient’s possession, since all responsibility rests upon him.

But if

the owner accepts—

the owner

responsibility for unavoidable accidents and depreciation, it is well and good,

and it is not prohibited on account of interest, since there is no loan in the recipient’s possession, as the owner accepted responsibility upon himself.

Rather, Rava said

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

In both cases,

both in Bekhorot and in our Mishna, the case is

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

and it is therefore under the recipient’s complete responsibility.

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

because if he does not give the money,

if the Jew does not return, at the conclusion of the business arrangement, the amount at which the animal was initially appraised,

the gentile will come and seize the animal,

the first one, which had belonged to him,

and if he does not find the animal,

if the gentile does not find that same animal that he initially provided,

he will seize them,

the gentile

the offspring,

which were supposed to come to the Jew as his share of the profits; the gentile will seize them in place of the amount that is owed to him in return.

And it is therefore

because of this possibility of seizure

an intervening gentile right,

as the gentile has the power to seize these offspring,

and anything with an intervening gentile right is exempt from the firstborn law ;

therefore, in that case, although the animal is under the Jew’s responsibility, since the gentile has the power to seize it, it is exempt.

But with regard to the prohibition of interest, when the recipient accepts responsibility upon himself, it is considered as though he received the merchandise or money as a loan, and it is prohibited for him to give the provider any profit because of the prohibition of interest.

The Gemara cites the words of the verse in Proverbs [28:8]: “

One who increases his wealth through interest and usury will gather it for one who is gracious to the poor,”

and discusses its meaning:

What is the meaning of “for one who is gracious to the poor

will gather it”?

Rav said: For example, Shapur, the king,

who was the king of Persia. He imposed heavy taxes and took the wealth accumulated by those who lent with interest, using it to show grace to the impoverished gentiles, who were poor in mitzvot.

Rav Naḥman said: Huna said to me: This verse was necessary

this verse

only

to say that one should distance himself from interest,

even gentile interest,

and a Jew should not take it, for ultimately it will be lost.

Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman

from the verse that explicitly permits lending to a gentile with interest, as it is written: “

To a gentile you may lend with interest.”

What is the meaning of “you may lend with interest”? Is it not “you may charge interest,”

meaning that the verse commands the Jew to “bite” the gentile by taking interest from him?!

Rav Naḥman answers:

No,

the verse was not speaking of this. Rather, it refers to a Jew who is compelled to take an interest-bearing loan from a gentile, and I interpret the verse as saying:

“You may charge interest,”

that you may pay interest from your money to a gentile in return for a loan that you take from him.

The Gemara asks in astonishment: Would the verse command one to pay interest to a gentile? Is it the case that

there is no alternative,

that a Jew cannot borrow from a gentile without interest?!

The Gemara answers: The intent of the verse, which commands borrowing from a gentile with interest, is

to exclude your brother: he may not.

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

But the Gemara asks in astonishment: The prohibition against lending with interest to

your brother is explicitly written concerning him: “And to your brother you shall not

charge interest”!?

The Gemara answers: The intent of the verse is

that he transgresses both a positive and a negative commandment.

He raised an objection

to Rav Naḥman from our Mishna:

As it is taught in a beraita:

One may borrow from them,

from gentiles,

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

who is not a Jew but has accepted upon himself the observance of the Noahide mitzvot.