Bava Metzia 72a — the Talmud in English

he has acquisition by rabbinic ordinance

and as we learned [Bava Batra 157b]: “One may acquire for a minor

; here too

with regard to an Israelite for a gentile

it is likewise no different,

and the Israelite acquires for the gentile.

The Gemara rejects even Ravina’s resolution:

But it is not so,

a minor

an Israelite will eventually attain agency

he is destined to attain agency, but

a gentile will never attain

ever

agency,

and the Sages did not institute acquisition for him.

The Sages taught:

An Israelite who borrowed money from a gentile with interest, and he entered them

the gentile—the debt together with the interest

as a loan-credit against him,

that is, after some time the gentile calculated the interest with the Israelite, entered everything together as a loan-credit, and the Israelite wrote the gentile a document concerning them: “So-and-so I owe to so-and-so

,” and he converted:

If, before he converted, he entered them as a loan-credit against him: the convert collects

the convert

the principal

from the Israelite,

and he collects

from him also

the interest,

and because from the time of the entry as a loan-credit, this is considered as already collected.

And if, after he converted, he entered them as a loan-credit against him: he collects the principal, but he does not collect the interest.

And likewise, a gentile who borrowed money from an Israelite with interest, and the Israelite entered them

the Israelite

as a loan-credit against him, and he converted:

If, before he converted, he entered them as a loan-credit against him, he collects

the Israelite from the convert

the principal and collects

also

the interest.

If, after he converted, he entered them as a loan-credit against him, he collects

the Israelite from the convert

the principal, but he does not collect the interest.

Rabbi Yose

disagrees with the final clause of the words of the first tanna and

says:

A gentile who borrowed money from an Israelite with interest, in either case

whether he entered them as a loan-credit against him before he converted, or whether he did not enter them as a loan-credit against him before he converted,

he collects the principal and collects

also

the interest.

Rava said in the name of Rav Hisda in the name of Rav Huna: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yose,

who said: When a gentile borrowed money with interest, the Israelite collects the interest even if he converted before he entered them as a loan-credit against him.

Rava said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yose:

So that they will not say

about the convert: “

For the sake of his money

of the interest, which he would not have needed to pay

this one converted,”

and therefore the Sages said that he must pay the interest even after he converted, and he gained nothing through his conversion.

The Sages taught:

A document in which interest is written:

we penalize him

the lender

and he does not collect even the principal

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

and not the interest; these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: He collects the principal

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

but he does not collect the interest

for there is a prohibition against collecting it.

And we explain:

In what do Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagree

Rabbi Meir and the Sages:

Rabbi Meir holds: We penalize what is permitted

the principal

because of what is prohibited

interest.

And the Sages hold: We do not penalize what is permitted because of what is prohibited.

We learned there

we learned in tractate Sheviit:

Postdated debt documents,

in which the date written in the document preceded the actual time of the loan, these are

invalid, and

those

dated later,

in which the date written in the document was later than the loan, these are

valid.

And we challenge: Postdated debt documents

why are they invalid

and nothing is collected with them at all, when

even though they do not collect

from purchasers

from the first date,

for it is early, nevertheless

let them collect from the second date!?

He said

he resolved

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

Indeed

it was stated as a dispute—

Rabbi Meir and the Sages regarding interest, whether we penalize what is permitted because of what is prohibited—

it is taught, and it is Rabbi Meir

who penalizes what is permitted because of what is prohibited; but according to the Sages, just as they do not penalize what is permitted because of what is prohibited in a document containing interest, so too they do not penalize the lender by preventing him from collecting from the second date, which is permitted.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even if you say that it is the Sages

who do not penalize what is permitted because of what is prohibited, nevertheless here he does not collect because of

a decree lest

he collect from the first date.

There was an incident involving

a certain man who mortgaged his vineyard to his fellow for ten years; he ate its produce for three years, and he said to him

the lender to the borrower:

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

It is purchased by me

”; he went

the borrower

and stood and transferred it to his minor son, and afterward sold it to him.

An incident involving a borrower who mortgaged his field to his fellow, so that he would eat its produce for ten years against his debt and return it to him, and it had been in his possession for three years—which are “years of presumption,” through which one holding a field can claim, “It is purchased by me,” and does not need to bring a deed of sale—and the lender became fond of the field and said to the borrower: If you sell the field to me, good; and if not, I will conceal the mortgage document and say in court that for all three years I ate the produce because it is purchased by me, and I will thereby be believed; the borrower acted cleverly and transferred the field to his minor son, and afterward wrote a deed of sale to the lender and himself signed the deed].

And the Gemara first states: This is obvious to me, that

the sale is certainly not a sale

the sale does not take effect, for the field belongs to a minor, and the minor did not transfer anything at all; however, there is room for doubt:

The money,

those monies given to the borrower in error, whether

they are considered like a loan by document, and the one who gave the money collects

them, the giver of the money, even

from encumbered property

as is the law of a loan by document.

Or perhaps: they are considered like an oral loan, and he does not collect from encumbered property?

Abaye

said concerning this

Abaye:

Is this not the case of Rabbi Asi!?

For Rabbi Asi said: