💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Bava%20Metzia%2071b captured on 2024-05-10 at 10:59:13. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 ‎[1] The Gemara asks: You may become **a guarantor for whom? If we say** it means **a guarantor for a Jew** who lends money to another Jew with interest, that is difficult. **But** this would be contradicted by that which **the Sages taught** in a mishna (75b): **These are the ones who transgress a prohibition: The lender and the borrower, the guarantor and the witnesses.** It is prohibited to serve as a guarantor for such a loan.
‎[2] **Rather,** it must mean that one may serve as a guarantor **for a gentile** who lends to another Jew with interest. This is also difficult, **since the law of the gentiles is that he goes after the guarantor** to collect the money without trying to collect first from the borrower. Under gentile law, it is the responsibility of the guarantor to pay the lender and to then retrieve the money from the borrower. Consequently, when this occurs, the guarantor is considered to have borrowed money from the gentile and lent it himself to the Jew, with the result **that** the guarantor **is** the one **who takes the interest from** the borrower, which is prohibited.
‎[3] **Rav Sheshet said:** The case is **that** the gentile **accepted upon himself to** have this transaction **judged by the laws of the Jews,** so that he may not claim repayment from the guarantor. The Gemara asks: **If** the gentile **accepted upon himself to** have this transaction **judged by the laws of the Jews, he should also not take interest,** since that is prohibited by Jewish law. In response, **Rav Sheshet said: He accepted upon himself** the laws of the Jews **with regard to this,** the procedural matter with regard to the method of collection, **but he did not accept upon himself** the laws of the Jews **with regard to that,** the prohibition against taking interest.
‎[4] § The mishna teaches: **A Jew may** serve as a middleman and **lend a gentile’s money** to another Jew **with the knowledge of the gentile,** but not with the knowledge of a Jew, i.e., the middleman himself. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **A Jew may lend a gentile’s money** as a middleman to another Jew **with the knowledge of the gentile, but not with the knowledge of a Jew. How so?** In the case of **a Jew who borrowed money with interest from a gentile and** then **wanted to return it to him,** but at that point **another Jew found** the borrower **and said to him:** Since you do not need this money anymore and I do need it, **give it to me and I will pay you** with the addition of interest **in the same way that you pay** the gentile, this is **prohibited,** since this is interest paid to a Jew. **But if** the borrower **presented** the second Jew **to the gentile** and the gentile agreed to this arrangement, it is **permitted.**
‎[5] The *baraita* continues: **And similarly, if a gentile borrowed money with interest from a Jew and** then **wanted to return it to him,** and **another Jew found** the gentile **and said to him: Give it to me and I will pay you** interest **in the same way that you pay** the Jewish lender, this is **permitted,** since he pays interest to a gentile and not to a Jew. But **if** the gentile borrower **presented** the second Jew **to** the Jew who lent him the money and the Jewish lender agreed to this arrangement, it is **prohibited.**
‎[6] The Gemara discusses the *baraita*: **Granted, the latter clause** of the *baraita*, which says that it is prohibited for a Jew to pay the gentile borrower when the Jewish lender is aware of the transaction, can be explained as **a stringency** due to concern about the prohibition of interest, **but in the first clause** the Jewish lender presents the Jewish borrower to the gentile before handing him the money, and the fact that this is permitted indicates that he acts as the gentile’s agent, not on his own. But **since** the *halakha* is that **there is no agency for a gentile,** this means that the Jew **is** the one **who takes the interest from** the second borrower. Why, then, does the *baraita* permit it?
‎[7] **Rav Huna bar Manoaḥ said in the name of Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika: Here we are dealing with** a case **where** the gentile **said to** the Jew when he returned the money: **Place it upon the ground and be dismissed,** and afterward the other Jew went and took it. Therefore, the loan was transacted directly between the second Jew and the gentile. The Gemara asks: **If that is so, what** is the purpose **of stating** it? In this scenario it is obvious that there are two separate loans and the first Jewish lender has nothing to do with the loan to the second. This is certainly permitted.
‎[8] **Rather, Rav Pappa said:** It must be speaking about a case **where** the gentile **took** the money from the first Jew **and gave** it to the second Jew **by hand.** The Gemara asks: **But still, what** is the purpose **of stating** it? In this case also, the second loan is clearly transacted directly with the gentile lender. The Gemara answers: **Lest you say: The gentile himself, when he does this, he gives it with the knowledge of the Jew,** as he trusts the second borrower due to the mediation of the first, and therefore one might have thought he is deemed involved in the loan. To counter this, the *baraita* **teaches us** that this is not the case.
‎[9] **Rav Ashi said:** It is possible to explain the *baraita* in a different way. **When we say** that the *halakha* is **that there is no agency for a gentile, this matter** applies **concerning** the separation of ***teruma*,** the portion of produce designated for a priest. It is in this context that the *halakha* that there is no agency for a gentile is derived, **but concerning the rest of the** *halakhot* of the **Torah, there is agency for a gentile.**
‎[10] The Gemara comments: **And this** opinion **of Rav Ashi is an error,** since **what is different** about ***teruma*** that a gentile **cannot** be appointed an agent? **As it is written** concerning *teruma*: “So you also shall set apart a gift unto the Lord of all your tithes” (Numbers 18:28); once the verse states **“you,”** the addition of the word “also” in the phrase **“you also”** serves to include an agent. The Sages additionally derive: **Just as you,** those who appoint agents, are **members of the covenant,** i.e., Jews, **so too, your agents** must be **members of the covenant.** A gentile cannot separate *teruma* even if appointed as an agent by a Jew.
‎[11] The Gemara continues: The concept of **agency with regard to the rest of the** *halakhot* of the **Torah is also** a matter **we learn** through tradition by a derivation **from *teruma*,** as this is the source for the *halakha* that the legal status of one’s agent is like that of himself. Therefore, the same *halakhot* apply to agency in all matters. **Rather,** it must be concluded that the opinion expressed **by Rav Ashi is an error.**
‎[12] **There are** those **who say** a different version of this discussion: **Rav Ashi said: When we say** that **there is no agency for a gentile, this matter** applies concerning **them** serving as agents **for us, but we can be agents for them.** With regard to this comment it was said: **And this** opinion **of Rav Ashi is an error,** as **what is different** that **they cannot** serve as agents **for us? As it is written** concerning *teruma*: “So you also shall set apart a gift unto the Lord of all your tithes” (Numbers 18:28). Once the verse states **“you,”** the addition of the word “also” in the phrase **“you also”** serves **to include your agents.** The Sages also derive: **Just as you,** those who appoint agents, are **members of the covenant,** i.e., Jews, **so too, your agents** must be **members of the covenant.**
‎[13] The Gemara continues: Therefore, **we also** cannot serve as agents **for them,** because the same principle **is said: Just as you,** those who appoint the agents, **are children of the covenant,** so too, all who appoint agents must be members of the covenant. **Rather,** it must be concluded that this opinion expressed **by Rav Ashi is an error.**
‎[14] **Ravina says** another answer: **Granted, a gentile is not** included in the category of **agency.** But **he has** the power, **by rabbinic law,** to **acquire** an item through an act of acquisition performed by another. This is **similar to** the *halakha* concerning a Jewish **minor.** As with **a minor, is it not** the case **that even though he is not** included in the category **of agency,**
Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings
Mishneh Torah, Agents and Partners
Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat
Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor
Version: William Davidson Edition - English
Source: https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1
License: CC-BY-NC