💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Bava%20Metzia%2073b captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:12:33. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 ‎[1] The Gemara relates: **A certain gentile mortgaged a house to Rav Mari bar Raḥel** for a loan that Rav Mari had provided him. **Afterward,** the gentile **sold** the house **to Rava.** Rav Mari **waited** for **twelve months** of **the year** to pass, **took** the amount of money necessary to pay **rent** for **the house** and **brought it to Rava,** who was now the owner of the house. Rav Mari **said to** Rava: **This** fact **that I did not bring the rental** fee for **the house to the Master until now** is **because** an **unspecified mortgage** is in effect for a period of **one year. If** that **gentile wanted to remove** me from the house by paying back the loan, **he could not remove me** from it until now. Consequently, the house actually belonged to me for that year, and I was not required to pay rent. Now, since the gentile can remove me from the house by repaying the loan, the house belongs to you. Therefore, **let the Master now take the rental** fee for **the house** for the coming year.
‎[2] Rava **said to him: Had I known that** this house **was mortgaged to the Master, I would not have purchased it** at all, as I would have given you the chance to purchase it first. **Now,** therefore, **I will act toward you according to the law** of the gentiles, as I assumed the rights previously held by the gentile. According to gentile law, **as long as** the borrower **does not remove** the lender **by** paying back the **money,** he also **does not take a rental** fee for **the house,** as there is no prohibition against a gentile paying or receiving interest. Therefore, **I too will not take a rental** fee for **the house from you until I remove you by** forcing the gentile to pay the **money** that is owed to you.
‎[3] The Gemara relates: **Rava of Barnish said to Rav Ashi: The Master sees the Sages who consume interest, as they give** people **money for wine in** the month of **Tishrei, and they select** the wine later, **in** the month of **Tevet.** Had they taken the wine immediately upon payment, there is a chance that it would have spoiled. Now, in return for paying for the wine in advance, they receive the benefit of guaranteeing that the wine they receive will not be spoiled. Rava of Barnish understood that this benefit, received in exchange for advance payment, is a form of interest.
‎[4] Rav Ashi **said to him: They too gave** the money at the outset **for wine,** but **they did not give** it **for vinegar. That which was wine at the outset is** still **wine,** and **that** which became **vinegar was vinegar** when they paid for it but they did not know it. **It was at that time** of selection **that they** merely **selected** the wine that they had paid for previously. Since they agreed to buy wine, not vinegar, the benefit of actually receiving wine does not constitute interest.
‎[5] The Gemara relates: **Ravina would give money** in advance **to the people of the fortress [*akra*] at** the river **Shanvata** in order to buy wine to be supplied after the grape harvest, **and** when they supplied the wine **they would pour an extra jug [*kufita*]** of wine **for him** as a gift, although there was no stipulation between them requiring this. Ravina **came before Rav Ashi** to ask whether this involved interest. Ravina **said to him: Is it permitted** to do this? Rav Ashi **said to him: Yes,** it is permitted, as **they forgo** payment for the extra wine **to your** benefit in order to maintain good relations with you. Since the additional wine is not provided as consideration for the advance payment, there is no problem of interest.
‎[6] Ravina **said to him: But the land is not theirs.** The people of the fortress at Shanvata worked land belonging to others who abandoned their fields because they could not pay the real estate taxes. The people of the fortress paid the taxes and were therefore able to use the fields. Ravina was concerned that perhaps they did not own the grapes and were therefore unable to forgo payment for the additional amount as it did not belong to them. Rav Ashi **said to him: The land is liened** to the king **as** payment for the **taxes [*letaska*], and the king says: Whoever pays the tax may consume** the produce of **the land.** Consequently, the ones who pay the taxes have ownership of the wine by dint of the law of the kingdom.
‎[7] The Gemara relates that **Rav Pappa said to Rava:** Let **the Master see these Sages who pay money for the tax [*akarga*] on** behalf of other **people and** afterward **make them work more** than is reasonable for the amount of money they paid. Rava **said to him: Now, if I were dead I could not say** the explanation of **this matter to you,** so it is good that you asked me while I am still alive, as I know that **this is what Rav Sheshet said: The document [*moharkayyhu*]** of servitude **of these** people **lies in the treasury of the king,** i.e., all of his subjects are considered his servants, **and the king said: The one who does not pay the head tax shall serve the one who does pay the head tax,** and consequently, by dint of the law of the kingdom they can have them work as much as they want.
‎[8] The Gemara relates: **Rav Se’oram, the brother of Rava, would forcefully** seize **people who were not** acting **properly and** have them **carry Rava’s sedan chair. Rava said to him: You acted correctly, as we learn: If you see** a Jew **who does not behave properly, from where** is it derived **that you are permitted to have him work** as a slave? **The verse states: “Of them you may take your slaves forever; and over your brothers”** (Leviticus 25:46). It is derived from the conjunctive “and” linking the two clauses of the verse that there are circumstances where it is permitted to treat a fellow Jew as if he were a slave. One **might** have thought that this is the *halakha* **even if** a Jew **acts properly.** To counter this, **the verse states** in the continuation: **“And over your brothers the children of Israel** you shall not rule, **one over another,** with rigor.”
‎[9] **Rav Ḥama said:** With regard to **one who gave money to another to purchase wine for him, and** the other, i.e., the agent, **was negligent and did not purchase** it **for him,** the agent **must pay** the one who gave him the money **according to the going** rate of wine **in the port** city **of Zolshefat,** where the main wine market was located, and he must purchase the wine according to the price in that market even if it is more expensive than the amount he was given initially.
‎[10] **Ameimar said: I said this *halakha* before Rav Zevid of Neharde’a,** and when he heard it **he said: When Rav Ḥama said** this, he said **that statement in** a case where the buyer asked the agent to purchase **wine without specification** concerning exactly which wine he wanted. **But if** he said to the agent: Buy **this** specific **wine** for me, the agent who neglected to buy the wine is **not** obligated to buy it at a higher price later, as when he was sent to buy it initially, **who says that** the owner **would have sold it to him?** The one who gave the money to the agent was aware of the fact that the agent may not be able to successfully purchase that specific wine. Consequently, the obligation of the agent is simply to return the money, and nothing may be added to that sum, due to the prohibition of interest.
‎[11] **Rav Ashi said: Even** if he asked the agent to buy wine **without specification,** the agent is **also not** obligated to buy wine later for more than the amount he was given. **What is the reason** for this? The implicit obligation that the agent accepted upon himself, to pay the one who hired him with wine of a higher value than the amount of money he received, **is a transaction with inconclusive consent [*asmakhta*],** as any situation where one will have to pay more money than he received is similar to the payment of a fine, **and** the acceptance of **an *asmakhta* does not effect acquisition,** as his acceptance is assumed to be insincere.
‎[12] The Gemara asks: **And** according **to Rav Ashi,** in **what** way **is** this case **different from that which we learned** in a mishna (104a) concerning a rental agreement for land, in which a sharecropper agreed to cultivate a field in return for a share of the produce and wrote: **If I let** the field **lie fallow and do not cultivate** it, **I will pay with the best**-quality produce? In that case, the sharecropper agreed to pay the amount he caused the owner to lose due to his lack of activity, and it was not ruled an *asmakhta*. The Gemara answers: **There,** the matter is **in his power,** as he can decide whether to work the field or not to work it.
Mishneh Torah, Agents and Partners
Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor
Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property
Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat
Version: William Davidson Edition - English
Source: https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1
License: CC-BY-NC