Bava Metzia 73b — the Talmud in English

Rav Mari bar Rahel,

a gentile owed him money,

and that gentile pledged a house to him.

The gentile pledged his house to Rav Mari as security for the loan, and Rav Mari lived in that house.

Then he sold it to Rava.

The gentile later sold his mortgaged house to Rava.

Rav Mari waited

twelve

months,

which are

one year,

and

collected the rent for the house,

taking the rental payment for the following year.

He brought it to Rava,

who was now the owner of the house.

He said to him,

Rav Mari said to Rava:

“The reason I did not bring

the

rent of the house to you

Rava

until now

was because

an unspecified mortgage is for one year,

meaning that one who mortgages his house without specifying a period mortgages it for one year,

and if the gentile wanted to remove me,

that is, to repay the loan and take back the house,

he could not remove me

during that year.

It was therefore considered like a sale for me

as explained above, on page 67b.

Now,

now,

let the Master take

that is, let Rava, who was the owner of the house, take

the rent of the house.”

Rava said to him,

Rava said to Rav Mari:

“Had I known

had I known

that it was mortgaged

that this house was mortgaged

to the Master,

to Rav Mari,

I would not have bought it

from the gentile.”

“Now,

now,

we will act toward you according to their laws.

I will deal with you according to the laws of the gentiles, since the gentile has still not paid his debt. According to gentile law, even when a house is mortgaged without a specified period,

as long as he has not removed him with money,

that is, as long as the borrower has not repaid the debt,

he does not take rent for the house.

Therefore,

I too,

since I derive my rights from the gentile,

will not take from you

I will not take from you

rent for the house

the rent for the house

until I remove you with money,

until I compel the gentile to pay you the money he owes you.”

And this is not interest, since Rava owes Rav Mari nothing; only the gentile owes him.

Rava of Barnish

the name of a place

said to Rav Ashi: ‘See

look,

the Sages

Torah scholars

who are consuming interest!’

“They give money for wine in Tishrei,

advancing money for wine in Tishrei, at the Tishrei price, when the market price had not yet been established, in order to receive wine in Tevet,

and they select

it in Tevet,

taking good-quality wine in Tevet, while the seller assumes responsibility if it turns to vinegar. This involves interest: Had they received their wine in Tishrei, it might have turned to vinegar. Because they advanced the money in Tishrei, the seller accepted responsibility. Although our Mishna teaches (on page 72b) that one may fix the price of grain when the seller possesses it—and here too the seller possesses wine in Tishrei—even when the market price has not been established, and even though the seller assumes all responsibility, this case is not comparable. The Mishna is speaking of grain and produce that do not ordinarily spoil, whereas wine commonly turns to vinegar.”

He said to him,

Rav Ashi said to Rava:

“They too

those Torah scholars who purchased the wine

are giving money for wine;

they gave money in order to receive good wine that would not be suitable to turn into vinegar.

They are not giving money for vinegar.

They did not give money in order to receive vinegar.

From the outset, wine is wine.

It was good wine from the beginning, when they acquired it in Tishrei, since it was then recognizable as wine and not vinegar. Consequently, there is no interest, and those Torah scholars acted properly.”

Ravina would give money to the people of the riverbank

of Shenvata.

Ravina gave money to those who lived on the riverbank, whose place was called Shenvata, advancing the money to them before the grape harvest so that they would give him wine at harvest time, at the prevailing market price.

And they would pour him extra,

a small measure.

When they gave him the wine, they poured him slightly more wine than they had agreed upon, and Ravina was therefore concerned about interest.

He came before Rav Ashi and said to him: ‘Is this permitted?’

He came before Rav Ashi to ask whether this was permitted.

He said to him,

Rav Ashi said to Ravina:

“Yes,

it is permitted, because

they are foregoing this, which they are giving you.

That is, since you did not stipulate with them that they would add anything, and they give it willingly without mentioning that the addition is payment for the use of your money, it is merely a gift, and there is no concern of interest.”

He said to him,

Ravina said to Rav Ashi:

“But the land does not belong to them!

The land is not theirs. These people who sold wine to Ravina were wealthy. When they saw people abandoning their fields and fleeing because they could not pay the land tax to the king, the wealthy men would come, take the fields and vineyards, and pay the tax to the king. Ravina was therefore concerned that the wine he took from them was stolen property in his possession. The land itself cannot be stolen and remains the property of its original owners, and the produce, including the wine, was stolen property in the hands of these wealthy men.”

He said to him,

Rav Ashi said to Ravina:

“The land is pledged for the land tax,

the land is pledged to whoever pays the land tax to the king,

and the king said: Whoever pays the land tax may consume the produce of the land.”

This is the king’s law: whoever pays him the land tax may consume the produce. Consequently, there is no concern of theft.

Rav Pappa said to Rava: ‘See

look,

the Sages,

the Torah scholars,

who give money for people’s head tax,

paying the king’s head tax on behalf of those who cannot pay the tax imposed on every Jew.

And they enslave them excessively

that is, they make them work too much. Rav Pappa was concerned that paying the tax for the poor was treated as though they had lent the money to them, and that when the poor worked for these Torah scholars, this constituted interest.

He said to him,

Rava said to Rav Pappa:

“Now,

now,

if I were

if

to die,

I had died,

I would not have told you this matter.”

That is, it is fortunate that this opportunity arose for me to tell you this.

So

so

said Rav Sheshet: ‘The seals of these people

the marks of servitude belonging to these people

, are placed in the king’s treasury,

they are kept in the king’s treasury,

and the king said: Whoever does not pay the tax shall serve the one who pays the tax.’

This is the king’s law, meaning that the law of the kingdom is law. One who pays the king’s tax on behalf of another acquires him from the king, as one acquires a slave, until the tax is repaid. This is not a loan but a sale, and the additional amount they take is taken from the authority of the king. Thus, those Torah scholars acted properly.

Rav Seorum, Rava’s brother,

Rava’s brother,

would seize

and compel

unscrupulous people

people who were not respectable,

and would place them

and put them

in Rava’s carriage

a carriage

to transport Rava.

to transport Rava.

Rava said

to his brother, Rav Seorum:

“You acted properly,

you are acting according to the law,

for we learned:

as we learned:

‘If you see

a person

a person who does not behave properly, from where do you know that you are permitted to enslave him? The verse states:

(Leviticus 25:46):

“You shall work them forever”; and, “among your brothers.”

That is, the phrase “among your brothers” is expounded with regard to what precedes it: If he does not behave properly, you are permitted to enslave him like a slave.

One might have thought

it is possible

that even if he behaves properly

you are permitted to enslave him like a slave.

The verse therefore states: “And among your brothers, the children of Israel, each man with his brother,”

meaning: “You shall not rule over him harshly.” The phrase “among your brothers” is also expounded with regard to what follows it: If he behaves properly, you are not permitted to enslave him like a slave, as it is stated: “And among your brothers, the children of Israel,” and so on.’”

Rav Hama said: ‘One who gives money to another

the one who gives money to his agent

to purchase wine for him

to buy wine at harvest time, when wine is inexpensive, and the agent promised that if he did not buy it, he would repay him from his own funds,

and was negligent

the agent,

and did not buy it for him,

and did not buy wine for him, after the winepresses had already closed and wine had become expensive, causing the owner of the money a loss,

must pay him

the agent must pay the owner of the money

according to the price at which

the wine is sold

in Aphruta of Zulshafat.’

This was the name of a place that was a major center of the wine trade.

Amemar said: “I stated this teaching”

I said this teaching,

before

him]

of Rav Zevid of Nehardea, and he said

to me]:

When Rav Hama said

that the agent is obligated to pay,

these words apply to ordinary wine

specifically when the owner of the money did not designate a particular wine for him to send, but rather said to him, “Ordinary wine,” which the agent had the ability to purchase; and since he did not purchase it, he caused a loss to the owner of the money,

but with this wine, no

but if the owner of the money designated a particular wine for him to purchase, Rav Hama did not say that the agent is obligated to pay the owner of the money, and the reason is:

Who says that they would sell this to him

it is not certain that they would sell him this wine; it follows that it is not clear that the agent caused a loss to the owner of the money, and he is exempt from paying.

Rav Ashi said:

he disagrees with Rav Hama and Rav Zevid, and holds:

even with ordinary wine, also no

the agent is not exempt only with this wine; rather, even with ordinary wine, he is exempt.

What is the reason? It is an asmachta!

that is to say: since they did not perform a kinyan concerning the agent’s guarantee [that if he did not purchase it for him, he would pay from his own funds], the agent’s guarantee is not binding, for he “relied” and trusted in his heart that he would purchase wine, whereas sometimes the agent is unable, or does not wish, to purchase it afterward.

And an asmachta does not acquire

and it is the halakha that an asmachta does not acquire.

And we raise an objection:

And according to Rav Ashi, what is different

in what way is this law different

from that which we learned

from the law that we learned in the Mishna [103a] concerning one who receives a field [under a contracting arrangement] from his fellow for half [that he should plow and sow it, and they should divide the produce], and leaves it fallow [that he did not plow and did not sow it, and left it fallow], that they assess the loss, how much it should have produced, and the contractor pays the owner of the field; and the reason is that this is what he writes to him at the outset:

If I leave it fallow

I shall leave it fallow,

and do not work it

and do not perform in it the activity appropriate for it,

I shall pay with the best

according to what it should have produced had he plowed and sown it properly. That is to say: we learned from the Mishna that since he caused him a loss, this is not the law of an asmachta because he accepts upon himself to pay only the loss and no more; and if so, why did Rav Ashi exempt the agent? This resembles the law of the Mishna.