Bava Metzia 72a (עב.) — the Talmud in English

He has the capacity to acquire by rabbinic ordinance

as we learned [Bava Batra 157b]: “One may acquire on behalf of a minor

; here too

in the case of an Israelite acquiring for a gentile

it is no different;

and an Israelite acquires for a gentile.

The Gemara rejects Ravina’s explanation as well:

That is not so:

a minor

who is an Israelite will eventually attain the capacity to appoint an agent

[he will eventually attain the status in which he can appoint an agent], but

a gentile will never attain

the status of being able

to appoint an agent,

and the Sages did not institute for him the capacity to acquire.

The Sages taught:

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

the debt together with the interest

as a loan owed to him—

that is, after some time the gentile calculated the interest with the Israelite, recorded the entire amount together as a loan, and the Israelite wrote the gentile a document stating: “I owe so and so to so-and-so”

—and then he converted:

If he recorded it as a loan owed to him before he converted, the convert collects

the

principal

from the Israelite,

and he collects

from him also

the interest,

because, from the time it was recorded as a loan, it is considered as though it had already been collected.

But if he recorded it as a loan owed to him after he converted, he collects the principal, but he does not collect the interest.

And likewise, if a gentile borrowed money from an Israelite at interest, and the Israelite recorded

the debt

as a loan owed to him, and the gentile converted:

If he recorded it as a loan owed to him before he converted, the Israelite collects

from the convert

the principal and collects

also

the interest.

If he recorded it as a loan owed to him after he converted, the Israelite collects

from the convert

the principal, but he does not collect the interest.

Rabbi Yosei

disagrees with the latter clause of the first tanna’s statement and

says:

In the case of a gentile who borrowed money from an Israelite at interest, in either case

[whether he recorded it as a loan owed to him before he converted, or whether he did not record it as a loan owed to him before he converted],

he collects the principal and collects

also

the interest.

Rava said that Rav Hisda said that Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

who said: When a gentile borrows money at interest, the Israelite collects the interest even if the gentile converted before he recorded it as a loan owed to him.

Rava said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yosei’s ruling?

So that people will not say

about the convert: “

It was on account of his money

—the interest, which he would no longer have to pay—

that this man converted,”

and therefore the Sages said that he must pay the interest even after he converted, so that his conversion should gain him no financial benefit.

The Sages taught:

With regard to a document in which interest is written:

the lender is penalized

[the lender]

and he may collect neither the principal

even from unencumbered property, and whether on the basis of an admission or witnesses,

nor the interest; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: He collects the principal,

because there is no prohibition involved in it, and even from encumbered property ,

but he does not collect the interest,

because there is a prohibition against collecting it.

And we explain:

What is the disagreement

between Rabbi Meir and the Sages?

Rabbi Meir holds: We penalize that which is permitted

[the principal]

on account of that which is prohibited

[the interest].

And the Sages hold: We do not penalize that which is permitted on account of that which is prohibited.

We learned there

[in tractate Shevi'it]:

Documents of debt dated earlier than the actual loan,

where the date written in the document precedes the date on which the loan was actually made, are

invalid, whereas

those

dated later,

where the date written in the document is later than the date of the loan, are

valid.

And we raise a difficulty: Why are

documents of debt dated earlier than the actual loan invalid

and entirely unenforceable? After all,

although they cannot collect

—from purchasers—

from the earlier date,

since it precedes the actual loan, nevertheless

should they not collect from the later date?!

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish

answered:

It was stated as a dispute,

indeed

a dispute

between Rabbi Meir and the Sages concerning interest, whether we penalize that which is permitted on account of that which is prohibited;

and it is Rabbi Meir’s view

who penalizes that which is permitted on account of that which is prohibited. But according to the Sages, just as they do not penalize that which is permitted on account of that which is prohibited in the case of a document containing interest, so too they do not penalize the lender by preventing him from collecting from the later date, which is permitted.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: You may even say that it is the view of the Sages,

who do not penalize that which is permitted on account of that which is prohibited. Nevertheless, here he does not collect because of

a decree lest

he collect from the earlier date.

There was an incident involving

a certain man who mortgaged an orchard to his fellow for ten years; the latter consumed its produce for three years, and said to him

the lender said to the borrower:

“If you sell it to me, that is preferable; and if not, I will conceal the mortgage document and say: ‘

It is purchased by me’

.” He went

the borrower

and proceeded to transfer it to his minor son, and afterward sold it to him.

[This is an incident involving a borrower who mortgaged his field to his fellow so that the latter would consume its produce for ten years in exchange for his debt and then return it to him. The field had been in his possession for three years—the “years of presumptive ownership,” by virtue of which one who possesses a field can claim, “It was purchased by me,” and need not produce a bill of sale. The lender took a liking to the field and said to the borrower: “If you sell me the field, all the better; but if not, I will conceal the mortgage document and say in court that I consumed the produce for all three years because it was purchased by me, and I will be deemed credible.” The borrower acted shrewdly and transferred the field to his minor son, and afterward wrote a bill of sale to the lender and signed the document himself.]

The Gemara first states: It is obvious to me that

the sale is certainly not a valid sale

[the sale does not take effect], since the field belongs to the minor, and the minor did not transfer it at all; but there is nevertheless a question:

The money

the money that was given to the borrower in error—does it

have the status of a documented loan, and does the lender collect

that money even

from encumbered property,

as is the law with regard to a documented loan?

Or perhaps: Does it have the status of an oral loan, and may he not collect from encumbered property?

Abaye

said concerning this:

“But is this not the same ruling as that of Rabbi Asi!?”

For Rabbi Asi said: