Bava Metzia 72b — the Talmud in English

One who admits the document that he wrote,

one who admits concerning a document that he wrote it, but claims that the debt recorded in the document was paid, since he admitted concerning the document that it is not forged, he no longer

needs

the lender

to validate it

through the witnesses signed upon it,

and the lender collects

the debt

from liened property.

Rava said

to Abaye:

Are they comparable

[that our matter should be compared with Rabbi Asi’s matter]!?

But

there—

in Rabbi Asi’s law—

the document was fit

to be

written,

but

here, behold, the document

was

not fit to be written, for the field did not belong to the writer of the document, and against his will he wrote the document for him.

Marimar sat and stated this teaching

[he was sitting and stating Rava’s distinction].

Ravina said to Marimar:

But—

if it is as Rava said—there is a difficulty with

that which he said,

that which

Rabbi Yohanan

needed to say as the reason for the law that one does not collect by documents dated earlier than the actual loan at all: because of

a decree, lest he collect from the earlier date—

But even without this,

let us say:

therefore he does not collect by this document because

the document was not fit

to be

written!?

He said to him

Marimar to Ravina:

How can you understand it thus

[is the proof comparable to the case under discussion]!?

There—

in Rabbi Yohanan’s statement—

although the document was not fit

to be

written from the earlier date, it was fit to be written from the later date,

and therefore there is no reason that he should not collect from the later date, were it not for the decree.

But

here—

in Rava’s statement—

the document was not fit

to be

written at all, since the field did not belong to the writer of the document.

And we still raise a difficulty against Rava’s reasoning:

And

but what of that which the beraita teaches

to explain what we learned: “One does not extract payment for the consumption of produce or for improvements to land from liened property, because of the betterment of the world”

:

For improvements to land

—that one does not extract payment for them from liened property—

how:

If one stole a field from his fellow, sold it to another, and that other improved it,

the other

and it is taken out

by the person robbed

from his possession

of the purchaser,

when he

the purchaser

collects

from the one who sold it to him the money he gave and the improvement that he lost, he

collects the principal—

that is, the purchase money—

from liened property, and

as for the

improvement,

he does not

collect

except

from free property.

And in any event it is explained that he collects the purchase money from liened property, while according to Rava,

let us say:

behold,

the document was not

fit

to be written

at all, because it did not belong to the seller, and he should not collect from liened property!?

And we answer:

And we answer:

How can you understand it thus!?

We read in the Gemara above, on page 15a: “Shmuel asked Rav: If [the robber who sold a field that was not his to another] then returned and purchased it from the original owners, what is the law [does it belong to the purchaser, or to the seller]?”

He said to him: “What the first seller sold to the second was every right that would come into his possession,” meaning, it belongs to the purchaser.

And there we explain: What is the reason? Mar Zutra said: [because] it is agreeable to him [the seller] that he [the purchaser] not call him [the seller] a robber [and therefore, when he purchased the field from the owners, it was for the purchaser that he purchased it]; Rav Ashi said: [one should say that the robber purchased it for the purchaser’s sake because] it is agreeable to him [the seller] that he stand by his trustworthiness [that he be regarded in the purchaser’s eyes as a trustworthy person

].

There, concerning a document of sale from the robber, the document is therefore valid, for

if

according to the one who says—

when he returned and purchased it from the original owners—his intention was to purchase it for the purchaser because

it is not agreeable to him that he be called a robber, or if

[according to the one who says],

according to the one who says:

because it is agreeable to him

that he stand by his trustworthiness,

in the end

he appeases its owner and validates his document

[the robber’s intention is to purchase it from the original owners and to uphold his document of sale], and behold, the document is fit to be written for this reason—

But

here—

in our case—behold,

his intention is to drive it away from him

[he sold it to him for the purpose of driving it away from him], and if so, is it the case that

he validates the document

[that his intention is to return and purchase it from his son, in order to establish it in the purchaser’s possession]!? And if so, it is a document not fit to be written, and therefore he does not collect by it.

Mishna:

One may not set a price,

it is forbidden to advance and give a sum of money to a seller at a time when the price is low

for produce,

on the condition that the seller give the owner of the money [the purchaser] produce at that same low price, at a later time, according to the amount of his money, and the prohibition applies

until the market price has emerged

[the price] publicized and fixed in the city markets for this produce. The reason for the prohibition is: since the price at which this produce is sold has not yet emerged, we are concerned that it may become more expensive when its price emerges, and it will be found that the purchaser profits from waiting with his money .

But if

But if

the publicized and fixed price in the city markets for this produce

has emerged,

one may set a price: it is permitted for the purchaser to set with him that he give him produce at a later time, according to that price that has already emerged; and even if the produce subsequently becomes more expensive, there is no ribit in this.

And this setting of a price is permitted,

and even

though this one does not have

produce for the seller at the time of setting the price,

another has it

for someone else, and the seller can purchase it now with the money he received. And it is permitted for the purchaser to set a price with the seller that he give him wheat, even if the market price has not emerged, if

he was

the seller

first among the reapers,

and he already has a heap [cut grain piled on the surface of the field

], the purchaser

sets a price

with him,

with the seller,

for the heap

that the seller has. The reason for the permission is: since the seller has it, this is not ribit, because it is acquired for him from now , even though he did not draw it, for when he does not have it, the prohibition is only rabbinic , and when he has it, they did not decree

.

And for the vat of grapes.

It is permitted for the purchaser to set a price with the seller that he give him wine, even though the market price has not emerged, if the seller’s grapes are gathered in a large vessel [that is, a vat] placed in it before treading, and they become heated and ripen in order to produce their wine properly.

And for the vat of olives.

It is permitted for the purchaser to set a price with the seller that he give him oil, even though the market price has not emerged, according to the law of the wine above; except that the vessel of olives is called a “vat .”

of the potter.

And for the eggs

of the potter. It is permitted for the purchaser to set a price with the seller [the potter] that he give him pots, even though the market price has not emerged, if the potter prepared eggs, balls of clay that the potter rounds, And for the lime once they have been placed in the kiln. And it is permitted for the purchaser to set a price that he make pots from them.

It is permitted for the purchaser to agree that the seller will give him lime, even though the market price has not been established, once the lime stones and wood have been placed in the kiln to burn them and make lime.

That the seller give him lime, even though the market price has not emerged, once the lime stones and the wood have been placed in the kiln in order to burn them and make lime from them.

at whatever price he wishes

And the purchaser sets a price

with him,

with the seller, at whatever price he wishes,

for manure,

that he supply him with manure [to fertilize fields

],

throughout the entire year,

both during the summer and during the rainy season.

Rabbi Yose says:

he disagrees with the first tannaitic authority and holds:

one may not set a price for manure unless he had

the seller manure in a refuse heap.

And the Sages permit.

The

And the Sages permit.

And in the Gemara [74a–b] the dispute between the first tannaitic authority and the Sages is explained.

And the purchaser sets a price

with him, with the seller,

at the higher price

that is, at a low price, when many produce items are given for a small amount of money, meaning: when the price becomes lower than it is now, he will give it to him at the low price, and if it becomes more expensive, he will give it to him at the price of now.

Rabbi Judah says:

he disagrees with the first tannaitic authority and holds:

even though the purchaser did not set a price

with

him,

with the seller [at the higher price],

the purchaser can

say

to the seller:

Give me such

produce at the low price,

or give me

my money!

Gemara:

Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: One may not set a price according to the market price

because it is not fixed.

Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi:

Did

Rabbi Yohanan say

that one may not set a price

even at the price of this Durmos

[a large and substantial market]

that

has a fixed price?

whose price is fixed?

He said to him

Rav Asi to Rabbi Zeira:

Rabbi Yohanan said

that one does not fix a price

except in the market of towns,

because their gates are not fixed

because their price is not fixed.

And we raise an objection:

And according to the one who initially understood,

according to Rabbi Zeira's understanding,

that Rabbi Yohanan said

that one does not fix a price

even according to

the price

of this Durmos market, but the Mishna,

which teaches

which the tan(n)ay taught in it,

“One does not fix a price for produce until the price has gone out; once the price has gone out,

one fixes a price”—where do you find it?

Where will you find a place where it is permitted to fix a price according to its price?!

And we answer:

The Mishna

that once the price has gone out one fixes a price,

with wheat of the storehouses

[storehouses]

and ships

[ships]

whose price remains longer,

because their price remains longer than the price of this Durmos market; that is to say: from the time that householders and storehouse owners of produce begin to open their storehouses, and ships bring grain to sell, their price remains for them for a long time, for there is much grain.

The Sages taught:

we learned in the Tosefta:

One does not fix a price for produce until the price has gone out.

Once the price has gone out, one fixes a price

because

even though this one does not have it, that one has it.

There were

produce

new,

which had not yet dried sufficiently,

at four,

at the price of four se'a for a sela,

and

produce

old at three

at the price of three se'a for a sela,

one does not fix a price

for new produce at four,

until

the price has gone out

at four

for the new and the old,

which is a fixed price.

There were

produce of

gleaners,

of the poor, which are gathered from several fields and are not fine, for they mix rye ears [one of the five species of grain] with wheat ears,

at four

four se'a for a sela.

And for every person,

the produce of the other people,

at three,

three se'a for a sela,

one does not fix a price

with the householder at four,

until the price has gone out

of four

for the gleaner,

for the produce of the poor person who gleans,

and for the seller,

the ordinary householder.

Rav Nahman said: One fixes a price for gleaners

for the poor who gather, with gleaners' produce,

according to the price of the gleaners,

which is four se'a for a sela.

He said to him

he asked

Rava asked Rav Nahman: What is different about a gleaner,

in what is the law of the gleaner different, so that it is permitted even when he does not have it, from the law of the householder, for whom it is forbidden,

for if he does not have it,

for if the gleaner does not have produce,

he borrows,

he borrows mixed produce

from his fellow gleaner,

and therefore he is considered as having it,” and therefore it is permitted, if so,

the householder also can borrow from a gleaner.

And if so, why is the householder forbidden to fix a price with an ordinary person for gleaners' produce according to the price of the gleaners, since the matter is considered “he has it,” because he can borrow from the gleaners?!

He said to him

Rav Nahman answered Rava:

A householder is ashamed of it,

it is disgraceful for him

to borrow from a gleaner

and therefore he is considered as having nothing, and it is forbidden.

Alternatively, I can say: The one who gives money

the one who gives money

to a householder gives it for fine produce,

with the understanding that he will give him good produce, and not gleaners' produce.

Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rav Huna: One does not borrow according to the market price,

that is to say: one does not borrow money in the manner of a loan, on condition that if he does not repay the money by a certain time, he will give him produce at today's price. And it is forbidden, lest the produce become more expensive.

He said

he objected

to him, Rav Yosef bar Hama to Rav Sheshet, and some say,

there were members of the academy who stated this objection in the name of

Rav Yosei bar Abba to Rav Sheshet: “Did Rav Huna really say this

and did Rav Huna say so?,

for they asked him,

for Rav Huna was asked,

these sons of the academy,

the members of the academy,

who borrow

who borrow money

in Tishrei and repay

produce

in Tevet

at the price of Tishrei,

is it permitted or forbidden,

permitted or forbidden?

He said to them

Rav Huna answered them:

These are wheat in Hinai,

a place-name,

and these are wheat in Shili,

a place-name,

if they wish, they can buy and repay him.

If they wish, they can now buy wheat in the nearby places and repay now, and therefore the members of the academy act according to the law,

And if so, how did Rav Sheshet say in the name of Rav Huna that one does not borrow according to the market price?!

And Rav Sheshet answers:

Initially,

at first

Rav Huna held: One does not borrow

according to the market price.

Once he heard this, which Rav Shmuel bar Hiyya said in the name of Rabbi Elazar,

who said that one does borrow, Rav Huna retracted, and

he too said: One does borrow,

and therefore he said that the members of the academy act according to the law.

The Sages taught:

A person

who transports a bundle

merchandise [of his own]

from a place

of cheapness

to a place

of expensiveness,

his fellow found him

in the inexpensive place

and said to him: Give it to me,

and I will transport it to the expensive place,

and I will raise for you according to the way they raise for you in that place,

and I will sell it there, and use the money for my needs until a certain time, and repay you according to what it is worth there.