💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Bava_Metzia_72 captured on 2024-08-25 at 06:19:02. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2024-05-10)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 ‎[1] nevertheless, **he has** the power, **by rabbinic law,** to **acquire** an item by means of an act of acquisition performed by another? **Here, also,** it **is not different;** the Jew can perform an act of acquisition on behalf of the gentile even though there is no agency for gentiles.
‎[2] The Gemara rejects this comparison: **But** that **is not so.** A minor **Jew will** eventually **reach** the stage of eligibility for **agency,** but **a gentile will not reach** eligibility **for agency.** Consequently, the Sages did not establish the power for gentiles to acquire an item by means of an act of acquisition performed by a Jew.
‎[3] § **The Sages taught:** In the case of **a Jew who borrowed money with interest from a gentile, and** the gentile lender **established** the interest **as a loan for** the Jewish borrower, i.e., he added the amount of interest to the principal and consolidated it into a single debt, **and** then the gentile **converted,** the *halakha* depends on the circumstances. **If** the gentile **established it as a loan for him before he converted, he may collect the principal** from the borrower **and he may** also **collect the interest.** Since it had already been consolidated into a single debt, it is as though he already collected the interest while he was still a gentile. **But if he established it as a loan for him after he converted, he may collect the principal but may not collect the interest,** as it still had the status of interest when he became a Jew.
‎[4] **And similarly,** in the case of **a gentile who borrowed money with interest from a Jew and** the Jewish lender **established** the interest **as a loan for** the gentile borrower, **and** then the gentile borrower **converted, if he established it as a loan before he converted,** the Jew **may collect the principal and may** also **collect the interest. If he established it as a loan for** the gentile **after he converted, he may collect the principal but may not collect the interest,** as it still had the status of interest when he became a Jew.
‎[5] The *baraita* continues: **Rabbi Yosei says: If a gentile borrowed money with interest from a Jew** and converted, **whether** in **this** circumstance **or whether** in **that** circumstance, i.e., regardless of when the lender consolidated the interest and principal into a single debt, the Jewish lender **may collect the principal and he may** also **collect the interest. Rava says** that **Rav Ḥisda says** that **Rav Huna says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei. Rava says: What is the reasoning** behind the opinion **of Rabbi Yosei?** What is the justification for collecting interest from a Jew? It is **in order that people will not say: This** individual **converted due to** concern for **his money.** People will suspect that he converted in order to avoid paying the interest.
‎[6] § **The Sages taught:** In the case of a promissory **note in which** the details of a loan with **interest were written, we penalize** the lender, **and** therefore **he may not collect the principal and may not collect the interest;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He may collect the principal but he may not collect the interest.** The Gemara asks: **With regard to what** principle **do they disagree?** The Gemara explains: **Rabbi Meir holds: We penalize** him with regard to that which is **permitted due to** that which is **prohibited, and the Rabbis hold: We do not penalize** him with regard to that which is **permitted due to** that which is **prohibited.**
‎[7] **We learned** in a mishna **elsewhere** (*Shevi’it* 10:5): **Antedated promissory notes,** in which the date written in the document is earlier than the date the loan was actually transacted, **are not valid, but postdated** promissory notes **are valid.** The Gemara asks: **Why** are **antedated** documents **not valid? Granted, they cannot** be used to **collect from the first date,** the date written in them, because this could cause loss to people who purchased land from the borrower in the time between the date written on the promissory note and the time the loan was actually granted. The land they purchased would be subject to a lien when it fact it should not be. But at least **they should** be able to be used to **collect from the second date,** when the loan was actually granted.
‎[8] **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says:** This mishna **is subject to dispute, and it is** taught in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** who said that the lender is penalized with regard to that which is permitted due to that which is prohibited. Here too, since he wrote an incorrect date, the entire document is invalidated as a penalty. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: You** may **even say** that this *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** as here there is a rabbinic **decree** invalidating the document **lest he collect from the first date.** If the document is not invalidated, the lender will depend on it and will come to collect repayment according to the date written on it.
‎[9] The Gemara relates: There was **a certain man who mortgaged his orchard to another** as security for a loan, and the lender **consumed** the produce of the orchard for **three years.** At the end of this time the lender **said to** the borrower: **If you sell me the** orchard, that is **good. But if not, I will hide the document of the mortgage and I will say: It is purchased,** and that is why it is **in my possession,** meaning I will claim I purchased the field and lost the deed. Since the land has been in my possession for three years I do not have to bring any other proof, as the *halakha* is that after three years of use of a field there is a presumption of ownership for the one who uses it (see *Bava Batra* 29b).
‎[10] When the borrower saw that he could not protect himself against the ruse, he devised a scheme: **He went and transferred** ownership of the field **to his minor son** by means of a deed of gift, **and afterward sold** the field **to** the lender. Subsequently, he demanded that the sale be annulled, since when he sold the field, it was not his.
‎[11] The Gemara clarifies the *halakha*: **The sale was certainly not a sale,** since the field was not his to sell, but the question is: Are **the dinars** that the buyer paid **similar to a loan with** a promissory **note, and** therefore the buyer **can collect** the money he paid even **from liened property** that has been sold? **Or perhaps it is similar to a loan by oral** agreement, **and** therefore **he cannot collect** it **from liened property** that has been sold. **Abaye said: Is this** question **not** the same as that of **Rabbi Asi?** As **Rabbi Asi says:**
2 ‎[1] In the case of a debtor who **admits that he wrote** a promissory **note,** the creditor **is not required to ratify it** in court in order to collect the debt, **and he** can therefore use the document to **collect** the debt even **from liened property** that has been sold. In the present case as well, the seller admits that he received the money; therefore the document of sale should enable the buyer to collect his money from liened property.
‎[2] **Rava said to him: Are** these cases **comparable? There,** the matter detailed in the document **may be written,** as it is a substantive matter; the document attests to true events and it is therefore possible to use the promissory note to collect the debt. But **here,** the matter detailed in the document **may not be written,** as the entire sale was not genuine since it was done against the will of the seller. Consequently, this document is completely invalid and cannot be used to collect from liened property.
‎[3] **Mareimar sat and stated this *halakha*. Ravina said to Mareimar: But** if Rava’s answer is accepted, then with regard to **that which Rabbi Yoḥanan said** concerning an antedated loan document, that there is a rabbinic **decree** invalidating the document **lest he collect from the first date, let us say** that there is a better rationale, as Rava stated: The antedated document is invalid, as it **may not be written.** Mareimar **said to him: How can** these cases **be compared? There,** in the case of the antedated document, **granted, it may not be written from the first date, but it may be written from the second date. Here, it may not be written at all.**
‎[4] The Gemara further asks: **But** how does one understand **that which is taught** in a *baraita*: **What** is the case in which one appropriates property **for** the **enhancement of land?** It is a case where **one robbed another of a field and sold it to another** and that buyer **enhanced it, and it is appropriated** by the court **from his possession. When** the buyer **collects** payment from the robber, **he collects the principal,** i.e., the money he paid for the field itself, even **from liened property** that the robber had sold in the interim, **and he collects** the value of the **enhancement from** the robber’s **unsold property. Let us say** there also that this illegal sale of the field was a transaction that **may not be written,** and therefore he should not be allowed to collect even the principal from liened property.
‎[5] The Gemara refutes this suggestion: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** in the case of the field purchased from a robber, the deed of sale is meaningful **either according to the one who says that it is preferable for** the robber **not to be called a robber** by the buyer, **or according to the one who says that it is preferable for** the robber **to maintain his reliability,** i.e., to be considered an honest person; and therefore, the robber **will appease the owner of the field** by paying him for it **and** will attempt to **ratify his document** so that it is valid. But **here,** where the one who sold the field under duress **intends to remove** the buyer from it, will he then **ratify his document?**
‎[6] **MISHNA:** **One may not set** a price with a buyer **for** the future delivery of **produce until the** market **rate is publicized,** as, if he is paid for supplying produce at a later date in advance of the publication of the market rate for that type of produce, he may set a price that is too low. The money paid in advance is deemed a loan, and if the initial payment was lower than the later market value, delivery of the produce will constitute interest on the loan. Once **the** market **rate is publicized,** the seller **may set** a price, even if the produce is not yet in his possession. The reason for this is that **even though this one,** i.e., the seller, **does not have** any of the produce, **that one,** someone else, **has** it, and the seller could theoretically acquire the produce now at the price he set.
‎[7] If the seller **was first among the reapers,** having harvested his crop before the market rate was set, he **may set** a price **with** a buyer as he wishes **for a stack** of grain that is already in his possession, **or for** a large **basket of grapes** prepared for pressing into wine, **or for a vat [*hama’atan*] of olives** prepared for pressing into oil, **or for the clumps [*habeitzim*]** of clay prepared for use **by a potter, or for plaster** nearing the end of the manufacturing process at the point **after he has sunk it,** i.e., baked it, **in the kiln.** Although the market rate has yet to be set, the seller may nevertheless set a price now for their eventual delivery.
‎[8] The mishna continues: **And he may set** a price **with** a buyer **for manure** on **any** of **the days of the year,** as the manure will certainly be available and it is therefore viewed as if it is ready. **Rabbi Yosei says: One may set** the price **of manure only if he** already **had** a pile **of manure in** his **dunghill** to which the sale can immediately be applied, **but the Rabbis permit it** in all cases.
‎[9] **And one may** also **set** a price **with** a buyer **at the highest rate,** i.e., a large amount of produce sold for the lowest price, stipulating with the seller that the sale price match the lowest market rate for this product during the course of the year. **Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if he did not set** a price **with him** beforehand **at the highest rate,** the buyer **may say** to the seller: **Give me** the produce **at this** rate **or give me** back **my money.** Since he did not formally acquire the produce, if the price changed he may withdraw from the transaction.
‎[10] **GEMARA:** **Rabbi Asi says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One may not set** a price for the future delivery of produce **at the** current **market rate** because the market is not sufficiently stable. **Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi:** Does **Rabbi Yoḥanan state** this ruling **even with regard to** the rate of **this** large **central market [*dormus*]?** Rabbi Asi **said to him: Rabbi Yoḥanan stated** this ruling **only with regard to the** small-**town markets, since their rates are not fixed,** as smaller markets have greater sensitivity to fluctuations in price.
‎[11] The Gemara asks: **And according to what we thought initially, that Rabbi Yoḥanan stated** this ruling **even with regard to this large** central **market, but** then there is a difficulty with **the mishna, which teaches: One may not set** a price with a buyer **for** the future delivery of **produce until the** market **rate is publicized.** By inference, once **the** market **rate is publicized, one may set** a price. If Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling applies even to large central markets, **how can you find these** circumstances? The Gemara answers: The **mishna** may be speaking **about wheat** that comes from large **warehouses and** from **ships, as their rate lasts longer,** since this merchandise comes to market in very large quantities.
‎[12] § **The Sages taught: One may not set** a price with a buyer **for** the future delivery of **produce until the** market **rate is publicized.** Once **the** market **rate is publicized,** the seller **may set** a price, even if the produce is not yet in his possession. The reason for this is that **even though this one,** the seller, **does not have** any of the produce, **that one,** someone else, **has** it, and the seller could theoretically acquire the produce now at the price he set. If the **new** grain **was** selling **at** the rate of **four** *se’a* for a *sela* **and the old** grain was selling **at three, one may not set** the price according to the price of the new grain **until the** market **rate is publicized** both **for the new and for the old** grain. By the time payment is made, the new grain will not be entirely new and its price will be the same as that of the old grain.
‎[13] Similarly, **if the** produce sold by **gleaners** who gather wheat from various fields, the quality of which is low, is selling **at** the rate of **four** *se’a* of wheat for a *sela* **and** that **of every** other **person** is selling **at** the rate of **three** *se’a* of wheat for a *sela*, one **may not set** a price at the gleaners’ rate **until the** market **rate is publicized** both **for** wheat sold by **a gleaner and for** wheat sold by an ordinary **seller.**
‎[14] **Rav Naḥman said: One may set** a price **for gleaners** to deliver produce in the future **at the gleaners’ rate. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: What is different** about **a gleaner,** who you hold can immediately set his price at the gleaners’ rate? **As, if he has no** produce **he can borrow it from another gleaner,** and therefore it is viewed as though it were in his possession. **A homeowner as well** should be able to set a price at the gleaners’ rate, as, if he has no grain he can **borrow from a gleaner.** Rav Naḥman **said to him:** It is **degrading** for **a homeowner to borrow from a gleaner.** Consequently, there is a need to establish a market rate for ordinary sellers. And **if you wish, say** instead: **One who gives money to a homeowner** to buy his grain **gives** the money in return **for quality produce,** and he does not want the inferior produce the homeowner could borrow from gleaners.
‎[15] **Rav Sheshet says** that **Rav Huna says: One may not borrow** produce based **on the market rate,** meaning that one may not purchase produce on credit with an agreement to pay for it later at the future market price, even though there is grain sold at this price in another location. **Rav Yosef bar Ḥama said to Rav Sheshet, and some say that** it was **Rav Yosei bar Abba** who said **to Rav Sheshet: And did Rav Huna say this? But** didn’t it occur that the Sages **asked Rav Huna:** With regard to **those students** of Torah **who borrow** food **in** the month of **Tishrei and pay** for it **in Tevet** at the rate in effect then, is this **permitted or prohibited?** Rav Huna **said to them: There is wheat in** the town called **Hini and there is wheat in** the town called **Shili, and if** the students **want** to **they can buy** wheat there **and pay** the lender immediately, and since they can pay at any time, it is permitted.
‎[16] The Gemara answers: **Initially, Rav Huna thought** that **one may not borrow** produce in this manner, **but when he heard that Rabbi Shmuel bar Ḥiyya says** that **Rabbi Elazar says: One may borrow** produce in this manner, he retracted his previously stated opinion and **he also said** that **one may borrow** produce in this manner.
‎[17] **The Sages taught:** With regard to **one who transports a package** of goods **from one place,** where he bought it inexpensively, **to another place,** where the price is higher, in order to sell it at a profit, and **another found him** on the way **and said to him: Give me** the package, **and I will pay you in the manner that they pay you in that place** to which you are going,
Mishneh Torah, Ownerless Property and Gifts
Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor
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