Bava Metzia 75a (עה.) — the Talmud in English

“Lend me a kor of wheat”

and the market price has not been established,

“and fix a price for him,”

the lender fixes that the borrower will repay him with money, according to the current market price. Therefore, if

the price of

wheat

has fallen,

the borrower gives him a kor of

wheat,

but if

the price of

wheat

has risen,

the borrower gives him

its monetary value,

the value of a kor of wheat according to what it was worth at the time of the loan.

The Gemara asks:

But he fixed a price!

The lender fixed that the borrower would repay him with money; if so, even when the price has fallen, the borrower should repay him its value as it was at the time of the loan. For this is like one who lent money, who takes back the same amount of money that he lent. Why, then, did we learn in the beraita that the borrower gives him wheat [since its price has fallen]? The lender thereby loses, since he receives less than he lent!

He said

he answered:

Rav Sheshet:

The beraita taught us two laws: a. If he fixed a price, whether the price fell or rose, he pays money according to the price that he fixed. b. If he did not fix a price [meaning that he lent him a kor of wheat on the condition that he repay him a kor of wheat; and since the market price had not been established, this is a loan of one se’a for one se’a, which is prohibited], then if

the price fell, he takes

the lender

his wheat,

a kor of wheat, just as he lent it to him [which is now worth less, after its price fell, than it was worth at the time of the loan].

But if

the price rose, he gives

the borrower

its monetary value.

He is prohibited from taking a kor of wheat, since that kor of wheat is now worth more than it was worth at the time of the loan, and this would be interest.

Mishna:

One may not borrow a se’a of grain in exchange for a se’a of grain if the borrower does not have wheat, and the market price has not been established.

Therefore,

a person may not say to another, “Lend me a kor of wheat and I will give”

[repay]

“it to you at the threshing season”

[at the time of the threshing season], and the reason is: We are concerned that the price may rise by the threshing season, in which case there would be interest here.

But

if the borrower has wheat,

he says to him

[the borrower]:

“Lend me [wheat] until my son comes,

or

until I find the key,”

and even though he cannot give it to him now, this is considered “he has it.” The reason for the permission is that, since the prohibition against borrowing one se’a for one se’a is only rabbinic, they did not issue the decree when “he has it.”

And Hillel

prohibits

lending one se’a for one se’a even when he has grain.

And Hillel would also say,

because he heard that the Sages permit a woman to lend a loaf to her friend even when she does not have one and the market price has not been established, since it is a small matter, he disagreed with them in this law [in addition to his disagreement above concerning one se’a for one se’a]. Therefore, he would say:

“A woman may not lend a loaf to her friend”

on the condition that she return a loaf to her

“until she fixes a monetary value for it,”

meaning that she fixes for her a certain sum of money according to the current price [as explained above in the beraita adjacent to this Mishna]. The reason for the prohibition is:

“Perhaps the price of wheat will rise”

[above what it is now]

“and they will thereby come into a situation of interest.”

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: If he has grain, it is permitted to borrow one se’a for one se’a.

Rav Huna said: “If he has

[the borrower]

one se’a, he may borrow

only

one se’a against it;

if the borrower has

two se’ot, he may borrow

against them

two se’ot.”

And

Rabbi Yitzḥak

disagrees with Rav Huna

and says: “Even if he has

only

one se’a, he may borrow several kor against it.”

The reason for the permission is that, with regard to each se’a, the se’a that he has is considered to stand in its place. For his se’a is not acquired by the lender, and the borrower is free to eat it or sell it; thus, whenever he borrows each se’a, he borrows it permissibly.

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught

[in a beraita, and from it there is]

support for Rabbi Yitzḥak,

meaning: We learned in the Mishna at the beginning of the chapter: “He said to him: ‘Behold, your wheat is reckoned upon me at thirty [dinars], and here you have wine with me in exchange for it,’ and he has no wine.” And at the end of that Mishna Rabbi Ḥiyya taught:

“And if he has no drop of wine,

or

if he has no drop of oil”

[in a case where the transaction was fixed with regard to oil], the Gemara infers from this:

If he has

a drop,

he may borrow several drops against it,

and this proves that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yitzḥak.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And Hillel prohibits”:

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel: “The halakha is in accordance with the words of Hillel.”

The Gemara concludes:

“The halakha is not in accordance with him,”

Rav Naḥman in the name of Shmuel [and the halakha follows the Sages in the Mishna, that it is permitted to lend one se’a for one se’a when he has grain].

We learned in the Mishna:

“And Hillel would also say: A woman may not lend”

[and so forth]:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: “This is the statement of Hillel, but the Sages

disagree

and say: They borrow

loaves

without specification,

and there is no need to assign them a monetary value [as Hillel requires],

and repay without specification.

The reason for the permission is that they were not so stringent concerning the prohibition of one se’a for one se’a.

And

further

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: “Members of a group

who are traveling on the road, or who are sitting in a house with each one dining separately,

who are exacting with one another

and do not waive even a small matter, but are particular to lend to one another by measure, weight, and number—when they lend on Shabbat and Festivals,

they violate the prohibition against measuring

with regard to an item that is customarily measured,

and the prohibition against

weighing

and the prohibition against

weighing an item that is customarily weighed,

and the prohibition against

counting

and the prohibition against

counting an item that is customarily counted, for all these are activities that are prohibited on Shabbat and Festivals.

And

they also violate

the prohibition against

lending and repaying on a Festival.

“Lending and repaying on a Festival”

means: We learned in the Mishna [Shabbat 148a]: A person may ask another for jugs of wine and so forth, provided that he does not say to him, “Lend me.” The Sages prohibited the expression “Lend me,” lest he write. But these members of the group do not wish to use the language of asking, because the language of asking implies that one must return the very same item that he borrowed, and they think to themselves that they will have to return it immediately; therefore, they use the language of lending. “ And repay” means that if he repays on a Festival, he should not use the expression “repay” [which the Sages prohibited lest he write], but rather the expression “return.” These members of the group, because they are exacting, use the expression “repay.”

These group members, because they are exacting, use the wording “repay.”

And in accordance with the words of Hillel

[in our Mishna], who said, “A woman may not lend a loaf,” and so forth, the members of a group who are exacting with one another, when they lend to one another,

also violate the prohibition of

interest.

interest.

And

further

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: “Torah scholars are permitted to borrow from one another with interest! What is the reason? They know that interest is prohibited

, and they are merely giving it

[giving]

to one another,

that is, to each other. This applies specifically to a small amount, which the Torah scholar knows in his heart he would have given him even without the loan; and specifically Torah scholars are permitted to do this, but not other people.