Bava Metzia 71b — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection against it:

For whom is he a guarantor—

who is the lender for whom the beraita permitted an Israelite to be a guarantor, for a loan that he gives to another Israelite?

But if

you say

that the beraita permitted an Israelite to be

a guarantor for an Israelite

for an interest-bearing loan that he lends to another Israelite, this cannot be said, because:

But the tanna

in a beraita said:

These violate a prohibition

when the interest-bearing loan is from an Israelite to an Israelite:

the lender, the borrower, the guarantor, and the witnesses;

thus, it is forbidden to be a guarantor for an interest-bearing loan from an Israelite to an Israelite—

Rather,

perhaps you will say: the beraita permitted an Israelite to be a guarantor

for a gentile

for a loan that he gives to another Israelite; but even this is difficult:

And since the law of the gentile is that he proceeds against the guarantor, [

since in their laws the gentiles demand only from the guarantor, it follows that

he is the one who takes interest from him

the guarantor is the one who takes interest from the Israelite], as though this guarantor borrowed from the gentile and then lent to the Israelite!?

Said

he answered,

Rav Sheshet:

Here we are dealing with a gentile lender at interest

who accepted upon himself to be judged according to the laws of Israel,

so that they do not collect from the guarantor first.

And we raise an objection against it:

If

as you say, that the beraita deals with a gentile who

accepted upon himself to be judged according to the laws of Israel,

then

he should not take interest either [the gentile should not take any interest at all, in accordance with the laws of Israel]!?

Said

he answered

в ответ

Rav Sheshet:

Here we are dealing with a gentile

who accepted this but did not accept that, [he accepted upon himself not to collect from the guarantor first, but did not accept upon himself not to take interest].

он согласился не взыскивать долг прежде всего с поручителя, но не согласился отказаться от получения процентов.

The Sages taught:

An Israelite lends

the

money of a gentile—

which the Israelite borrowed from him at interest—to another Israelite, only

with the knowledge of the gentile, but not with the knowledge of the Israelite,

and it proceeds to explain this.

How so?

An Israelite who borrowed money from a gentile at interest, and requested

the Israelite

to return it to him

to the gentile, and then

he found

for the borrower

another Israelite, and said to him

to the borrower: “Do not return it now to the gentile; rather,

give it to me, and I will increase it for you

interest

as you increase it for him,”

this is

forbidden,

for it turns out that the borrower is lending to another Israelite at interest; and this is what they said: “An Israelite lends ... but not with the knowledge of the Israelite.”

And if he placed him

the Israelite borrower

with a gentile,

and by the command of the gentile the borrower gave the money to another Israelite, this is

permitted,

and this is what they said: “An Israelite lends the money of a gentile with the knowledge of the gentile.”

And similarly, a gentile who borrowed money from an Israelite at interest, and requested

the gentile

to return it to him

to the Israelite,

he found

for the gentile

another Israelite, and said to him, “

Give it to me

as a loan,

and I will increase it for you

interest

as you increase it for him,”

this is

permitted,

because the Israelite borrows from the gentile at interest and not from the Israelite.

And if he placed him

the gentile borrower

with an Israelite,

this is

forbidden.

And we raise an objection:

Granted,

what we learned in the

latter clause, “And if he placed him with an Israelite, it is forbidden,” is understandable, for although “there is no agency for a gentile” [a gentile cannot appoint an agent or become an agent], nevertheless, since

as a stringency

it is forbidden by rabbinic enactment—

Rather,

what we learned in the

first clause, “And if he placed him with a gentile, it is permitted,” is difficult:

Since there is no agency for a gentile,

it turns out that the Israelite is not the agent of the gentile; rather, he is the one lending to the Israelite and

he is the one who takes interest from him [

it turns out that the Israelite who borrowed from the gentile takes interest from the Israelite borrower]!?

Said

he answered

Rav Huna bar Menahot in the name of Rav Aha, son of Rav Ika:

Here we are dealing with:

for example, the gentile said to the borrower,

‘Place them upon the ground, and be released.’

And we raise an objection against it:

If so, what is the point of saying this [what novelty is there in the matter]!?

что нового есть в этом положении!?

Rather, said

he answered

Rav Pappa:

Here we are dealing with:

for example, the gentile took

the money from the Israelite

and gave it

to the second Israelite

by hand,

and if so, certainly the gentile is the lender and not the Israelite.

But still

it is difficult:

What is the point of saying this!?

And we answer:

You might have said: the gentile himself, when he acts, acts and gives with the intention of the Israelite [the gentile himself, when he gave the money to the Israelite, gave it with the intention of the Israelite],

for he brought him to him, and the gentile is his agent; and although there is no agency for a gentile, we should be stringent rabbinically, as we are stringent in the latter clause—

It teaches us this.

Rav Ashi said

to resolve the difficulty concerning the beraita: how is it permitted for the Israelite borrower to lend when he placed him with the gentile lender, when there is no agency for a gentile:

When we say that there is no agency for a gentile, this applies to teruma—

for there is a derivation for this there, as the Gemara brings below—

but throughout the entire Torah there is agency for a gentile.

The Gemara rejects the words of Rav Ashi:

But Rav Ashi’s statement is nonsense,

for

what is different about teruma, that there is not [that there is no agency for a gentile] because

нет права посланничества у нееврея? Потому что

it is written:

“You, also you”

that is, because it is written, “So shall you also raise,” and it should have said, “So shall you raise,” and therefore Scripture said “also you” in order to teach that there is agency in teruma, and we then expound:

Just as you are members of the covenant, so too your agents must be members of the covenant—

and if so,

agency throughout the entire Torah as well,

that is, the principal law of agency throughout the Torah

we derive from teruma,

and if so, the law of agency throughout the Torah is like the law of teruma, that there is no agency for a gentile.

Rather,

for this reason,

Rav Ashi’s statement is nonsense.

There are those who say

that

Rav Ashi said

the following to answer the difficulty:

When we say that there is no agency for a gentile, this applies to them for us [they for us], that is, a gentile cannot become an agent for an Israelite,

когда они являются посланниками для нас, то есть нееврей не может быть посланником еврея,

but we for them [we for them]

мы по отношению к неевреям

become agents for them,

an Israelite becomes an agent for a gentile; therefore, in the first clause it is forbidden because the Israelite becomes the agent of the gentile.

And the Gemara also rejects this answer:

But this statement of Rav Ashi

also

is nonsense—

for

what is different about them for us, that there is not,

since it is because

it is written

“You, also you,”

to include your agents,

and we expound:

Just as you are members of the covenant, so too your agents must be members of the covenant;

and if so, automatically

we for them also

do not become agents for them, for

“just as you”

the senders

are members of the covenant

it says.

Rather,

for this reason,

this statement of Rav Ashi is nonsense.

Ravina said

to answer the difficulty concerning the beraita: how is it permitted to lend to an Israelite when he placed him with the gentile, when there is no agency for a gentile:

Even though he has no agency for a gentile, acquisition—

that the Israelite should acquire for the gentile—

he has by rabbinic enactment,

as is the case with a minor: does a minor not, although he lacks

agency,

, Ритба объяснил: «Следовательно, начальная часть — о нееврее, ссудившем еврею, — говорит о случае, когда нееврей прямо сказал еврею [который пришел занять], чтобы тот приобрел эти деньги у еврея [заемщика — для нееврея], а затем приобрел их для себя; ведь отказ от собственности, установленный судом, имеет силу, и поскольку нееврей приобретает через него по постановлению мудрецов, деньги считаются деньгами нееврея, а когда этот еврей занимает их, он занимает у нееврея . Заключительная часть — о еврее, ссудившем нееврею, — также основана на законе приобретения [то есть второй заемщик приобретает деньги у нееврея для заимодавца] ; либо заключительная часть понимается так, как она была понята изначально: для ужесточения у нееврея есть право посланничества; этим мы ничего не устраняем». Рабби Шломо Ицхаки объяснил: «Когда Писание говорит о посланничестве, оно говорит о взрослом, пригодном для отделения תרума, чтобы его посвящение стало посвящением и его речь имела силу, поскольку в отношении посвящений и обетов написано “муж”, а в отношении תרומה [то есть תרומה для Скинии] сказано: “от всякого человека, которого побуждает сердце его”».