Bava Metzia 73b (עג:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Mari bar Rahel,

a gentile owed him money,

and that gentile mortgaged a house to him.

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

Afterward, he sold it to Rava.

The gentile then sold the mortgaged house to Rava.

Natar

Rav Mari waited

twelve lunar months,

twelve months, which are

a year,

one year,

and took the rent for the house,

receiving the rent for the house for the coming year.

He brought it to Rava,

and brought the money 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 fact that I did not bring

to you

to Rava

the rent for the house

the rent for the house

until now

until now, is

because an unspecified mortgage is for a year,

when one mortgages his house without specifying a term, he mortgages it for one year,

and if the gentile had wanted to remove me

if the gentile had wanted to remove me within the year,

he would not have been able to remove me,

he would not have been able to remove me, and for me this is considered like a sale [as stated above, on 67b].

Now

now,

let you take

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

the rent for the house,

the rent for 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 you,

to Rav Mari,

I would not have bought it,”

I would not have bought it from the gentile.

Now,

now,

we shall act toward you according to their law,

I shall deal with you according to gentile law [since the gentile has still not repaid his debt]; according to gentile law, even when a house is mortgaged without a specified term,

as long as he has not removed me with money,

as long as the borrower has not repaid the debt,

he does not take the rent for the house.

he does not take rent for the house.

I too,

I too, who derive my rights from the gentile,

will not take from you

I will not take from you

the rent for the house

the rent for the house

until I remove you with money,

until I compel the gentile to pay you your money.

This is not interest, since Rava owes Rav Mari nothing; rather, the gentile owes him.

Rava of Barnish said

the name of a place

to Rav Ashi: “See

look,

Master, the Sages

Torah scholars [who traded in wine]

are consuming interest!”

For they give money for wine in Tishrei,

they advance money for wine in Tishrei, at the Tishrei price [when the market price has not yet been established], in order to receive wine in Tevet,

and select

the choice wine in Tevet

and take good wine in Tevet, with responsibility for its turning sour resting on the seller, so there is interest here. Had they received their wine in Tishrei, it might have turned sour; because they advanced the money in Tishrei, the seller accepted responsibility. This is so even though our Mishna [72b] teaches that one may fix a price for grain when the seller possesses it [and here too the seller possessed wine in Tishrei], even when the market price has not been established, and even when the seller accepts all responsibility. The cases are nevertheless not comparable, because the Mishna speaks of grain and produce that do not ordinarily spoil, whereas wine commonly turns sour.

He said to him,

Rav Ashi said to Rava:

“They too,

those Torah scholars who purchased the wine,

gave money for wine,

they gave money in order to receive good wine that was not liable to turn sour;

they did not give money for vinegar.

they did not give money in order to receive vinegar.

From the outset it was wine; it is wine.”

It was good wine from the outset [from the time they acquired it in Tishrei], when it was evident that it was wine and not vinegar. Therefore there is no interest, and those Torah scholars are acting properly.

Ravina would give money to the residents of the district

of Shenvata.

Ravina gave money to those who lived on the bank of the river [whose name was Shenvata], advancing them the money before the grape harvest so that they would give him wine at the time of the harvest, at the prevailing price,

and they would pour him extra

from a small measure.

When they gave him the wine, they poured him a little more than they had agreed to give him. Ravina was therefore concerned that this might constitute 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,

yes, it is permitted, because

they are forgiving you this,

meaning: Since you did not stipulate with them that they add this amount, 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! That is, the 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, these wealthy people would come, take the fields and vineyards, and pay the tax to the king. Ravina was therefore concerned that the wine he had taken from them might be stolen property in his possession, since land cannot be stolen and remains the property of its original owners, while the produce [and wine] was stolen property in the hands of these people.

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 tax may consume the produce of the land.”

The king’s law is that whoever pays him the land tax may consume its produce. Therefore, there is no concern of theft.

Rav Pappa said to Rava: “See

look,

Master, these Sages

Torah scholars

who give money for people’s poll tax,

who pay the poll tax to the king on behalf of those who cannot pay it [the tax imposed upon every Jew].

and enslave them excessively.”

They enslave them excessively. That is, Rav Pappa was concerned that paying the tax for the poor was treated as though they had lent them money, and when the poor worked for those Torah scholars, this constituted interest.

He said to him,

Rava said to Rav Pappa:

“Now,

now,

if only

if

I had died,

I had died,

I would not have told you this matter.”

I would not have told you this matter. That is, it is fortunate that the matter happened to come before me so that I could tell you.

Thus

so

said Rav Sheshet: ‘The mark of servitude of these people

the mark [of slavery] of these people

, lies in the king’s archive,

is placed in the king’s chest,

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

The king’s law is that whoever does not pay the tax becomes enslaved to whoever pays it on his behalf; that is, 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 who purchases a slave, until the tax is repaid. Thus this is not a loan but a sale, and the additional amount they take is taken from the king. And these Torah scholars acted properly.

Rav Se’uram, Rava’s brother,

Rava’s brother,

would seize

would compel

unworthy people

people who were not decent

and put them

and place them

in the goharkei

a carriage

of Rava

to transport Rava.

Rava said

to his brother, Rav Se’uram:

“You acted correctly,

you are acting according to the law,

for we learned:

as we learned:

‘If you saw

a person

who does not conduct himself 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 with your brethren.”’

That is, the word “and with your brethren” is expounded in connection with what precedes it: If he does not conduct himself properly, you are permitted to enslave him as a slave.

One might have thought

it is possible

even if he conducts himself properly,

you are permitted to enslave him as a slave.

The verse therefore states: “And with your brethren, the Children of Israel, each man with his brother,”

[you may not oppress him with harsh labor]. That is, the word “and with your brethren” is also expounded in connection with what follows it: If he conducts himself properly, you may not enslave him as a slave, as it is stated: “And with your brethren, the Children of Israel,” and so forth.’

Rav Hama said: “One who gives money to his fellow

one who gives money to his agent

to purchase wine for him

to purchase wine at the time of the grape harvest [when wine is inexpensive], and the agent promised him that if he did not purchase it, he would pay him from his own money

and was negligent

the agent

and did not purchase it for him

and did not purchase wine for him [and the winepresses had already closed and wine had become expensive ], thereby causing the owner of the money a loss,

he must pay him

the agent must pay the owner of the money

according to the price

according to the price of the wine

at Perota of Zolshafat.”

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

Ameimar said: I stated this teaching

I said this teaching,

before him [before]

before ]

Rav Zevid of Neharde'a, and he said [to me] Rav Zevid:

Rav Zevid said to me ]:

When Rav Hama said

that the agent is obligated to pay,

that applies only in the case of generic wine

specifically, when the owner of the money did not designate a particular wine for him to send, but merely told him to send generic wine, which the agent had the authority to purchase; and since he did not purchase it, he caused the owner of the money a loss,

but in the case of 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 can say that they would sell it to him?

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

Rav Ashi said:

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

Even in the case of generic wine, as well, no,

the agent is exempt not only in the case of this wine, but even in the case of generic wine.

What is the reason? It is an asmachta!

That is to say: Since they did not perform an act of acquisition with regard to the agent’s promise [that if he did not purchase it for him, he would pay out of his own funds], the agent’s promise is not binding, as he merely “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 effect acquisition

and it is the halakha that an asmachta does not effect acquisition.

And we raise an objection:

And according to Rav Ashi, how is it different

from this case

from that which we learned

from the law that we learned in the Mishna [103a] concerning one who accepts a field [as a sharecropper] from another on the basis of half [that he will plow and sow it and they will divide the produce], but leaves it fallow [without plowing or sowing it, leaving it uncultivated], the loss is assessed according to how much it was fit to produce, and the sharecropper pays the owner of the field? The reason is that this is what he writes to him at the outset:

If I leave the field fallow [if I leave it uncultivated],

if I leave it fallow ],

and do not work it [and do not perform the work appropriate for it],

and do not perform the appropriate work on it ],

I will pay the best possible amount,

according to what it would have been fit to produce had he plowed and sown it properly. That is to say: We learn from the Mishna that since he caused him a loss, this is not governed by the law of an asmachta because he accepts upon himself to pay only the loss and no more. If so, why did Rav Ashi exempt the agent? This case resembles the law in the Mishna.