Bava Metzia 71a (עא.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Hiyya, son of Rav Huna, said: It was necessary only to state this,

the Mishna did not intend to permit lending to a gentile at interest in every case,

but

only for his basic livelihood,

so that the Jew can subsist; but beyond that it is forbidden, lest he come to violate the prohibition of interest with a Jew.

Ravina said

to resolve the difficulty:

Here,

in our Mishna,

we are dealing with Torah scholars. For what reason did the Sages decree

concerning interest charged to a gentile?

Lest he learn

the Jew

from his ways. But since he is a Torah scholar, he will not learn from his ways.

Some recite this statement of Rav Huna in connection with that which Rav Yosef taught [

there were those who recited the above statement of Rav Huna as an interpretation of Rav Yosef’s beraita]:

It is written: “

When you lend money to My people,

to the poor among you,”

and the beraita expounds:

The phrase “My people” was stated in order to teach:

My people [

Israel ]

and a gentile

who come to borrow from you,

My people take precedence,

it is a mitzva to lend to a Jew before lending to a gentile.

“To the poor” was stated for this reason:

A poor person and a wealthy person

who come to borrow,

the poor person takes precedence.

And “among you” was stated in order to teach:

your poor [

your poor relatives, who are “among you” ]

and the poor of your city: Your poor take precedence.

And likewise, to teach:

the poor of your city

who are more “among you” \-

and the poor of another city: The poor of your city take precedence.

Rav Huna came to explain this beraita, as

the Master said

in the beraita:

My people and a gentile, My people take precedence.

But this is difficult:

Is it obvious?

Why was it necessary to derive this from a verse?

And

Rav Naḥman said: Huna said to me

by way of explanation:

It was necessary

for the beraita to teach us only

that even if the choice is between lending to a gentile at interest and to a Jew without interest,

you must give precedence to lending to the Jew, even though lending to the gentile will yield interest income.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei said:

Come and see the blindness of those who lend at interest [

how blind they are ]:

When

a person calls his fellow

“wicked,”

the one whom he called this,

goes down with him

—with the one who called him “wicked”—

to his very life,

quarrelling with him as though he had struck him and as though he sought to kill him—

But

if

they—

those who lend at interest—

bring witnesses and a scribe [

a writer ]

and a quill and ink

in order to write the document,

and write and sign

in it:

This so-and-so—

the lender—

has denied the God of Israel,

for he lent to a Jew at interest, which is far worse than calling him “wicked,” they nevertheless pay no heed to this.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

Anyone who possesses money and lends it without interest,

the verse says concerning him:

See the Mahar"ם Schiff.

“He has not given his money at interest, nor taken a bribe against the innocent; he who does these things

shall never be shaken.”

You learn from this

from what the verse says about one who lends without interest, that he “shall never be shaken,”

that the property of anyone who lends at interest will be shaken,

for from the negative statement—“he who does these things shall never be shaken”—you infer the positive.

And we raise an objection:

But we see that those who do not lend at interest

nevertheless

are shaken [

yet we see people who lend without interest and nevertheless are shaken, whereas the verse says of them, “they shall never be shaken”! ]

Rabbi Elazar

resolved the difficulty:

These

—those who lend without interest—

are shaken and

then

rise again,

in accordance with the verse “shall never be shaken,” which implies that even if he is shaken, this will not be an enduring downfall; rather, he is shaken and then rises again.

But these—

those who lend at interest—

are shaken, and

then

do not rise again.

The Gemara further brings an explanation of another verse relevant to the matter discussed above:

It is written: “

Why

the Lord

do You look

upon

traitors

[this was said concerning Nebuchadnezzar; and]

remain silent when the wicked swallows one more righteous than he

[for Nebuchadnezzar blinded King Zedekiah]”:

Rav Huna said:

One more righteous than he

[more righteous than the wicked one]

is swallowed

by the wicked one, but

a completely righteous person is not swallowed,

for even if he is shaken, he rises again.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi says:

The righteous convert mentioned

in the Torah

with regard to sale [

of a slave, as the Gemara will explain ], and

the resident gentile mentioned

in the Torah

with regard to interest—I do not know what it is,

meaning that there is a difficulty concerning both of them, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

The Gemara explains:

The righteous convert mentioned with regard to sale,

which was difficult for Rabbi, is as follows:

We learned in a beraita: Come and see how severe is even the trace of the prohibition of the Sabbatical year. A person engages in commerce with produce of the Sabbatical year; ultimately he sells his movable property, as it is stated: “In this year of the Jubilee you shall return, each man to his ancestral property,” and it is written nearby: “When you sell a sale to your fellow or purchase from the hand of your fellow,” referring to an item acquired from hand to hand ... If it does not come into his hand [meaning, if he does not repent], ultimately he sells himself,

as it is written

[Leviticus 25:39]: “

When your brother becomes impoverished with you and is sold to you,”

but not to you

shall he be sold; that is, if he does not come into your hand, he is sold not to you

but to a convert, as it is stated:

“When the hand of a convert and a resident gentile with you gains strength, and your brother becomes impoverished alongside him, and he is sold

to a convert”

; and not to a righteous convert, but

if he did not come into his hand, he may be sold even

to a resident gentile,

as it is stated: “And he shall be sold

to a

resident gentile

among you.”

And it is written later in the verse: “Or to the root of the family of a convert.” The beraita explains: “

The family of a convert”

means the gentile

who is a member of the convert’s family.

When it says “

or to the root

of the family of a convert,”

this means one who is sold

to serve

idolatry itself,

and ultimately he is sold to all of these.

The Gemara explains what was difficult for Rabbi:

The Master said

in the beraita: “

And not to you, but to a convert, as it is stated, to a convert,”

and not to a [righteous] convert, but to a resident gentile. Yet this is difficult:

Does this mean that a

righteous convert

can acquire a Hebrew slave

?[Is it possible that a convert can acquire a Hebrew slave, such that the verse says concerning your brother that he is sold to a convert?]

And we raise a contradiction,

for surely it is difficult from the beraita in which we learned:

A righteous convert is not acquired through a Hebrew slave, and neither a woman nor a convert

righteous

can acquire a Hebrew slave,

righteous

acquire a Hebrew slave;

thus a righteous convert cannot acquire your brother!?

And since the beraita was cited, the Gemara explains it:

A convert cannot be acquired through a Hebrew slave,

as it is stated: “When your brother becomes impoverished with you and is sold to you ... he shall serve with you until the Jubilee year. And he shall leave you, he and his children with him,

and he shall return to his family”;

we require this, but it is not present here,

for a convert has no family, since “a convert who converts is like a newborn child.”

And neither a woman nor a convert can acquire a Hebrew slave;

the reason is:

It is not proper conduct for a woman [

it is not a matter of proper conduct and modesty ], for he is secluded with her.

A convert also

cannot acquire one, because

it is a received tradition [

a halakha given to Moses at Sinai ] that whoever

can be acquired—

can acquire; one who cannot be acquired cannot acquire [

one who can himself be acquired can acquire, while one who cannot himself be acquired cannot acquire others ]. Since a convert cannot be acquired as a Hebrew slave, he likewise cannot acquire others.

In any event, we have learned that a convert cannot acquire a Hebrew slave. How, then, does the verse say: “And he shall be sold to a convert”?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak

resolved the difficulty:

He cannot acquire

under the status of a Jew [

the convert cannot acquire the Jew as a slave sold to a Jew ], but the convert can acquire the Jew

under the status of a gentile,

meaning, one sold to a convert has the status of a Jew sold to a gentile, whose laws differ from those of a slave sold to a Jew, as is explained in the following beraita. It is in this manner that the verse says: “And he shall be sold to a convert.”

As it was taught in a beraita:

A Hebrew slave

whose ear has been pierced [

after six years, and whose law is that he leaves at the Jubilee ],

and one sold to a gentile

—and likewise one sold to a convert, as explained—if the master dies,

does not serve the son

of the master

and does not serve the daughter;

whereas a slave sold to a Jew serves the son.

Before the Gemara continues to explain Rabbi’s statement concerning interest, it concludes explaining the beraita that was cited:

The Master said

in the beraita:

And neither a woman nor a convert can acquire a Hebrew slave.

The Gemara asks:

Shall we say

that this beraita is

not in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? As it was taught in a beraita:

A woman acquires maidservants,

meaning that she can acquire a woman as a maidservant,

but does not acquire

male slaves.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: She too can acquire

the woman

male slaves.

If so, the beraita that says that a woman cannot acquire a Hebrew slave is not in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

We answer:

You may even say that it is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and there is no difficulty:

Here—where we learned that neither a woman nor a convert can acquire—

it is referring to a Hebrew slave; here

—where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that she too can acquire male slaves—

it is referring to a Canaanite slave.

The Gemara explains the reason for the distinction:

A Hebrew slave is modest with her;

he appears modest in her eyes, and she relies on the fact that if she commits adultery with him, he will not publicize the matter; therefore a woman may not acquire him.

A Canaanite slave is licentious with her;

he appears sexually uninhibited in her eyes, and she fears that if she yields herself to him, he will go and publicize the matter; therefore, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, a woman may acquire him.

The Gemara challenges the reasoning that a woman is not suspected of committing adultery with one whom she fears will publicize the matter:

But that which Rav Yosef taught:

A widow may not raise a dog

and

likewise

she may not lodge a yeshiva student in her house [

a widow may not raise a dog, nor may she lodge a yeshiva student in her home ], because of the suspicion of sexual impropriety.

And if you say that a woman is not suspected of committing adultery with one whom she fears will publicize the matter, this is difficult:

Granted, with regard to a yeshiva student,

it is understandable that she may not lodge him, because

he is

modest

with her

[

he appears modest in her eyes, and she does not fear that he will publicize the matter ],

but what about a dog? Why may she not raise one, when

since it becomes attached to her—

she fears

[

since if she commits adultery with it, it will follow her, she fears ] that the matter will become public!?

They said

the members of the academy in resolution:

Since, when she throws it a piece of meat, it becomes attached to her, people say, “

It follows her because of the piece of meat that she throws to it” [

since even when she gives the dog meat, it follows her, she relies on people saying, “The dog follows her because she gives it meat” ].

What is the case of the resident gentile mentioned with regard to interest? [

what difficulty did Rabbi have concerning this matter ]:

As it is written: “

When your brother becomes impoverished and his means fail with you, you shall support him, a convert or resident gentile, and he shall live with you.

You shall not take from him interest or increase, and you shall fear your God, and he shall live

your brother with you,”

and the prohibition against taking interest from a resident gentile is explicit—

And we raise a contradiction,

meaning that Rabbi found a difficulty from our Mishna, in which we learned:

We borrow from them [

from gentiles ]

and lend to them at interest, and likewise with a resident gentile,

which indicates that it is permitted to take interest from a resident gentile!?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak

resolved the difficulty:

Did the verse write “

You shall not take from them”

?

That would imply: You may not take interest or increase from your brother and from the resident gentile mentioned above. But the verse says

“from him”;

it is written

and this means only

from a Jew,

your brother mentioned above. The Torah prohibited taking interest or increase from him, but it is permitted to take interest or increase from a resident gentile.

The Sages taught:

It is written: “

You shall not take from him” [

from a Jew ]

interest or increase,”

and we expound:

But you may become for him

—for the Jew—

a guarantor

for the interest-bearing loan that he takes, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.