💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Bava%20Metzia%2070b captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:19:20. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 [1] **MISHNA:** **One may not accept from a Jew** sheep to raise or other items to care for as **a guaranteed investment,** in which the terms of the transaction dictate that the one accepting the item takes upon himself complete responsibility to repay its value in the event of depreciation or loss, but receives only part of the profit. This is **because it** is a loan, as the principal is fixed and always returned to the owner, and any additional sum the owner receives **is interest. But one may accept a guaranteed investment from gentiles,** as there is no prohibition of interest in transactions with them.
[2] **And one may borrow** money **from them and one may lend** money **to them with interest. And similarly, with regard to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [*ger toshav*],** one may borrow money from him with interest and lend money to him with interest, since he is not a Jew. Also, **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, as the Gemara will explain.
[3] **GEMARA:** With regard to the ruling that a guaranteed investment is considered a loan with interest, the Gemara asks: Is this **to say that** the guaranteed investment **stands in the possession of the recipient,** i.e., the recipient is viewed as its owner? **And the** Gemara **raises a contradiction** from a mishna (*Bekhorot* 16a): In the case of **one who accepts from gentiles** an animal as **a guaranteed investment,** the **offspring are exempt from** the *halakhot* of **a firstborn.** This exemption apparently proves that the sheep still legally belong to the gentile owner.
[4] **Abaye said:** This is **not difficult. That** case, referring to the mishna in *Bekhorot*, is **where** the gentile owner of the sheep **accepts upon himself** the responsibility for losses due to **an accident or depreciation** in the market value, and that is why the sheep are considered to still belong to him. And **this** case, referring to the mishna here, is **where** the owner **did not accept upon himself** responsibility for losses due to **an accident or depreciation.** Therefore, the guaranteed investment stands in the possession of the recipient.
[5] **Rava said to** Abaye: **If the owner accepted upon himself** responsibility for losses due to **an accident or depreciation,** can **you call it a guaranteed investment?** This case is not a guaranteed investment, as the owner is not guaranteed to receive what he had given, but rather it is a type of joint business venture that is permitted between two Jews.
[6] Rava continues: **And furthermore,** even if one will grant that this arrangement can be called a guaranteed investment, there is another difficulty. **Instead of** the *tanna* **teaching** in **the latter clause** of the mishna: **But one may accept a guaranteed investment from gentiles, let** the *tanna* **distinguish within** the case **itself,** that of accepting a guaranteed investment from a Jew. He should have taught: **In what** case **is this statement,** i.e., that one may not accept from a Jew sheep to raise or other items to care for as a guaranteed investment, **said?** It is said in a case **when** the owner **did not accept upon himself** responsibility for losses due to **an accident or depreciation, but** if **the owner accepted upon himself** responsibility for losses due to **an accident or depreciation,** one may **well** enter into such an arrangement.
[7] **Rather, Rava** rejected this explanation and **said:** Both **this** case in the mishna here **and that** case with regard to the firstborn animal are discussing a situation where **the owner did not accept upon himself responsibility for** losses due to **an accident or depreciation. And with regard to the firstborn, this is the reason** that **the offspring are exempt from** the *halakhot* of **a firstborn: Since, if** for some reason the recipient **does not give the money** due to the gentile, **the gentile will come and seize the animal, and if he does not find the animal he will seize the offspring;** this means that **the hand of a gentile is in the middle,** i.e., the gentile has some degree of ownership of the bodies of the offspring.
[8] And there is a *halakha*: In **every** case where **the hand of a gentile is in the middle,** the animal is **exempt from** the *halakhot* of **a firstborn.** By contrast, in the case of the mishna concerning the *halakhot* of interest, the animal is entirely in the possession of the recipient.
[9] § Apropos the discussion concerning the *halakhot* of interest, the Gemara cites several aggadic statements on the subject. The verse states: **“He who augments his substance by interest [*beneshekh*] and increase [*vetarbit*] gathers it for him who has pity on the poor”** (Proverbs 28:8). The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of the phrase **“him who has pity on the poor”?** How does this money ultimately reach someone who has pity on the poor? **Rav said:** This is referring to one **such as King Shapur,** for ultimately the money will reach the king, who provides for the poor from the possessions of the one who lends with interest.
[10] **Rav Naḥman said:** Rav **Huna said to me** that this verse is **necessary only** to state **that even interest** that a Jew took **from a gentile** will ultimately reach the government treasury, and the one who took it will not be successful. **Rava raised an objection to** the statement of **Rav Naḥman:** The verse states: **“Unto a gentile *tashikh*”** (Deuteronomy 23:21), which indicates that it is permitted for a Jew to take interest from a gentile, as **what** is the meaning of **“*tashikh*”? Doesn’t** it mean the same as ***tishokh*,** take interest, thereby teaching that one may take interest from a gentile? The Gemara refutes this claim: **No,** it means to **pay interest,** meaning that you must pay him interest.
[11] The Gemara asks: **Is it not sufficient without this?** In other words, can the verse actually require Jews to borrow money from a gentile and to pay him interest? This cannot be. The Gemara answers: It does not mean that borrowing money with interest is a mitzva; rather, the verse mentions paying interest to a gentile in order **to exclude your brother,** to teach **that** although one may pay interest to a gentile, one may **not** pay interest to a Jew.
[12] The Gemara challenges this explanation of the verse: The prohibition against paying interest to **your brother is written explicitly** in the continuation of that same verse in Deuteronomy: **“Unto your brother you shall not lend with interest.”** Consequently, there is no need to learn this *halakha* from an inference. The Gemara responds: It is necessary in order to teach **that** if one pays interest to a Jew **he violates** both **the positive** mitzva to pay interest to a gentile but not to a Jew, **and the prohibition** against paying interest to a Jew.
[13] Rava **raised an objection to** the statement of Rav Naḥman based on another difficulty in the mishna, which teaches: **One may borrow** money **from them and one may lend** money **to them with interest. And similarly, with regard to a *ger toshav*,** one may borrow money from him and lend money to him with interest, since he is not a Jew. The mishna indicates that a Jew may lend money with interest to a gentile *ab initio*. **Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Huna, said:** This ruling of the mishna **is necessary only**
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