💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Bava%20Metzia%2069b captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:34:17. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 ‎[1] In **a case like this** it is **certainly necessary to inform** the litigant of the reasons for the decision. Although a judge is not always obligated to explain the reasons for his decision to the litigants, in a case like this, where there is room for suspicion, he must. Rav Pappa explained: Last year, when the other individual divided **money, did he take** the **good** coins **and leave** the **deficient** ones?
‎[2] The Samaritan **said to him: No,** he simply divided the money without any particular consideration, and that was acceptable, as there is no difference between one coin and another. Rav Pappa **said to him:** With regard to **wine, everyone knows that there is** wine **that is sweet and there is** wine **that is not sweet,** so it is not equitable to simply divide the barrels evenly. Therefore, I ruled that you were not entitled to divide the wine without your partner’s knowledge.
‎[3] The Gemara now returns to discuss **the** matter **itself: Rav Naḥman said: Money is considered as if** it were already **divided** and there is no need to actually divide it in the presence of both of them. The Gemara comments: **This matter** applies when he divided between **good** dinars **and good** dinars, or **heavy** dinars **and heavy** dinars, as then there is no need for evaluation. **But** if some of the coins were **good and** some were **heavy,** it is **not** permitted for him to divide them without informing the other party, as either one may have a preference for a particular type of coin.
‎[4] § The Gemara relates: **Rav Ḥama would rent out dinars at** a rate of one ***peshita*,** i.e., one-eighth of a dinar, **per day for** a dinar. He viewed this as rental of an item for use rather than as a loan. Ultimately, all of **Rav Ḥama’s money was lost** as divine punishment for violating the prohibition of interest (see 71a). The Gemara explains: He did this because **he thought:** In **what** way is it **different from** the rental of **a hoe?** He viewed the money as an item that can be rented for a fee. **But** that **is not so,** as the **hoe returns** to its owner **as is, and its depreciation is known,** but the **dinars do not return as is,** as a borrower does not return the same coins he borrowed, **and their depreciation is not known.** Therefore, this cannot be called a rental; it is a loan with interest.
‎[5] **Rava said: It is permitted for a person to say to another: Here are four dinars; go and lend money to so-and-so.** Even though the lender earns a profit from the loan, it is not prohibited because **the Torah prohibited only interest that comes** directly **from the borrower to the lender,** but not that which comes via a third party. **And Rava said: It is permitted for a person to say to another: Take four dinars for yourself and tell so-and-so to lend me money.** The Gemara explains: **What is the reason** for this? It is permitted because **he takes payment for talking** to the lender, as these four dinars are a fee for the brokerage in arranging the loan.
‎[6] This is **similar to this** situation where **Abba Mar, son of Rav Pappa, would take pans of wax from wax manufacturers and tell his father: Lend them money. The Sages said to Rav Pappa: The Master’s son consumes interest,** since the wax he receives is payment of interest for the loan. Rav Pappa **said to them: We may consume any interest of this kind.** It is totally permitted, as **the Torah prohibited only interest that comes** directly **from the borrower to the lender. Here, he takes payment for talking, and** this is **permitted.**
‎[7] **MISHNA:** **One may appraise a cow or a donkey or any item that generates** revenue **while it eats** and give it to another to feed it and take care of it in exchange **for one-half** the profits, with the one who cares for the animal benefiting from the profits it generates during the period in which he raises it. Afterward, they divide the profit that accrues due to appreciation in the value of the animal and due to the offspring it produces. In **a place where it is customary to divide the offspring immediately** upon their birth, **they divide** them, and in **a place where it is customary** for the one who cared for the mother **to raise** the offspring for an additional period of time before dividing them, he shall **raise** them.
‎[8] **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may appraise a calf** together **with its mother or a foal with its mother** even though these young animals do not generate revenue while they eat. The costs of raising the young animal need not be considered. **And** one **may inflate [*umafriz*]** the rental fee paid **for his field, and he need not be concerned with regard to** the prohibition of **interest,** as the Gemara will explain.
‎[9] **GEMARA:** **The Sages taught: One may inflate** the rental fee paid **for his field, and he need not be concerned with regard to** the prohibition of **interest. How so?** In the case of **one who rents a field from another for** the price of **ten *kor*** of **wheat per year, and** the renter **says to** the owner: **Give me two hundred dinars** as a loan **and I will** use it to cultivate the field and **equip it** by fertilizing it and hiring people to work in it, **and** then **I will pay you twelve *kor* per year** in addition to returning your two hundred dinars, this is **permitted,** as the two hundred dinars are viewed as a joint investment in improving the field, with the owner providing the capital and the renter providing the labor. The higher rental fee is therefore paid for a higher-quality field, and not as interest on the loan.
‎[10] **But one may not inflate** the rental fee paid **for a store or a ship.** The renter cannot borrow money from the owner to purchase merchandise to sell in the store or transport in the ship and in return increase the rental fee. That is considered a loan with interest.
‎[11] **Rav Naḥman says** that **Rabba bar Avuh said:** There are **times when one may inflate** the rental fee paid **for a store,** such as in a case where one needs money in order **to paint a design** on its walls, or in the case of **a ship,** where one needs money **to fashion** a new **sail [*iskarya*].** The Gemara explains: It is permitted when the money is borrowed to invest in **a store** in order **to paint a design** on its walls, **because people will want to come** to the more attractive store to purchase, **and the profits are** thereby **increased.** Similarly, it is permitted when the money is to be used for **a ship to fashion a sail, because the profits** from the use of the ship **are greater since the sail is improved.** Therefore, in these cases the arrangement is an investment, similar to the case of the field, and not interest.
‎[12] Since the subject of **a ship** was raised, the Gemara mentions a related statement of Rav. **Rav said:** For a ship, it is permitted to conduct a transaction where someone pays **rent** for the use of the ship **and** is also liable to pay for any **damage** caused to the ship. **Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: If** he receives **rent,** then he should **not** receive payment for **damage,** and **if** he receives payment for **damage,** then he should **not** receive **rent,** as, if the ship is the responsibility of the renter, it is a loan, and if he pays rent for such a loan, it is interest. **Rav was silent,** and it appeared that he could not answer this question.
‎[13] **Rav Sheshet said: What is the reason** that **Rav was silent? Did he not hear that which is taught** in a *baraita*: **Even though** the Sages **said that one may not accept a guaranteed investment [*tzon barzel*] from a Jew,** meaning one may not accept from a Jew animals to raise and receive one-half of the profits while also accepting full responsibility to pay the initial value of the animals in the event there is a loss, as this arrangement is deemed a loan with interest, **but one may accept a guaranteed investment from gentiles,** because there is no prohibition against paying them interest. **But** nevertheless, the Sages **said: If one appraised a cow for another** to raise and to divide the profits, **and** the one accepting the cow **said to** the cow’s owner: **Your cow is evaluated for me at thirty dinars** if I do not return it to you, **and I will pay you a *sela* per month** for the use of it, this is **permitted, because he did not make** it a matter of lending **money.**
‎[14] The Gemara asks rhetorically: **And did he not make it** a matter of lending money? He most certainly did, as he obligated himself to pay for the cow if he does not return it, making the transaction into a loan, and therefore the payment of a *sela* per month should constitute interest. **Rav Sheshet said:** It means that **he did not make it** a matter of lending **money while** the cow was **alive,** meaning that he did not obligate himself to return this specific sum to him if the value of the cow decreased, but **rather** agreed to pay the set payment of thirty dinars only **after** its **death.** Therefore, the transaction was not a loan and the monthly payment is not interest. According to this *baraita*, the *halakha* should be the same in the case of a ship.
‎[15] **Rav Pappa said:** In fact, the ***halakha*** is that in the case of **a ship** it is permitted to collect **rent and** payment for **damage.**
Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor
Mishneh Torah, Agents and Partners
Version: William Davidson Edition - English
Source: https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1
License: CC-BY-NC