Mesorat%20hashas for Bava Metzia 5:8

מַלְוֶה אָדָם אֶת אֲרִיסָיו חִטִּים בְּחִטִּין לְזֶרַע, אֲבָל לֹא לֶאֱכֹל. שֶׁהָיָה רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מַלְוֶה אֶת אֲרִיסָיו חִטִּין בְּחִטִּין לְזֶרַע, בְּיֹקֶר וְהוּזְלוּ, אוֹ בְזוֹל וְהוּקְרוּ, נוֹטֵל מֵהֶן כְּשַׁעַר הַזּוֹל, וְלֹא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֲלָכָה כֵן, אֶלָּא שֶׁרָצָה לְהַחְמִיר עַל עַצְמוֹ:

A man may lend his tenant-farmers wheat-for-wheat for sowing, but not for eating. [It is permitted to lend sa'ah-for-sa'ah to a tenant-farmer only when he wishes to sow it. The rationale: In a place where it is the tenant-farmer who supplies the seed, if he has no seed for sowing the field, the owner will send him away. And if the tenant-farmer borrows from the owner and sows and returns (a sa'ah of) wheat to him when the price of wheat has risen, this is not (return on) a loan, but it is as if he (the tenant-farmer) goes down to (work) it now on the understanding that the owner takes from the seed first from the share that reverts to the tenant-farmer, and the tenant-farmer takes what is left as pay for his work, having contracted to work it on this understanding — that he take less than other tenant-farmers according to the amount of the seed, and there is no ribith here.] For R. Gamliel would lend his tenant-farmers wheat-for-wheat for sowing. Whether it (wheat) were dear (when he lent it) and it were cheap (when returned), or it were cheap (when lent) and dear (when returned), he would take from them according to the cheaper price. Not because this is the halachah, but because he wished to be strict with himself. [That is, it was necessary to adduce this Mishnah because R. Gamliel was stringent, taking (the wheat back) according to the cheaper price if the price fell. The Mishnah apprises us that this is not the halachah, but that R. Gamliel wished to be strict with himself.]

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Bava Metzia 5:8. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.