Tzon-barzel no es aceptado por un judío, ya que es ribith. [Tzon-barzel es propiedad de la cual el receptor asume la responsabilidad total. Su valor se evalúa para él, y mientras él no devuelva el dinero, ellos comparten las ganancias. Y a pesar de que esta es una Mishná superflua, ya se le ha enseñado (5: 4): "Un comerciante no está configurado para obtener la mitad de las ganancias" porque asume la mitad de la responsabilidad sobre sí mismo—¡cuánto más aquí! Aún así, se enseña por lo que sigue, a saber:] Pero tzon-barzel es aceptado por un gentil. Y ellos (gentiles) son tomados prestados y prestados a interés. Lo mismo se aplica a un ger-toshav (un gentil que vive en Eretz Israel que se rige por las siete mitzvoth de Noachide). Un judío puede prestar el dinero de un gentil mediante una orden judicial de un gentil, pero no mediante una orden judicial de un judío. [Como cuando un judío pidió prestado dinero de un gentil y deseaba devolvérselo. Si otro judío lo encontró y dijo: "Dámelo y te lo levantaré (el reembolso) por ti como tú lo levantas por él"— Si él (el prestatario original) lo colocó al lado del gentil —incluso si el judío (él mismo) se lo da a instancias de los gentiles, está permitido. Y si él no lo colocó al lado del gentil, está prohibido, ya que él (el judío mismo) lo prestaría por interés.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
אין מקבלין צאן ברזל – all mortgaged property (or property which may be resorted to in case of non – payment) are upon the receiver, and he placed upon them (i.e., the property) his resources, and all the time that he (i.e., the borrower) does not give him his monies, they divide the profit/wages. And even though this is an extraneous Mishnah, for it is taught in the Mishnah above (Mishnah 4), that they do not set up a storekeeper for half the profit because he receives on it one-half with loss, all the more so, here, when he receives all the mortgaged property upon it. They took it (i.e., the language) because of the concluding section of the Mishnah: “but they do accept a flock on ‘iron terms’ from the heathens.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia
One may not accept a flock from an Israelite on “iron terms” [that the one who tends the flock shares the profits from the flock and accepts full responsibility for their value]. A person may not give his flock to another person on condition that the receiver accept full responsibility and that the two will share in the profits. Since the person giving the flock is guaranteed to receive back his flock and will also receive half of the profit this is a form of usury.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
מדעת הנכרי – such as the case where an Israelite borrowed money from a heathen at interest and he requested to return them to him. He found another Israelite and said: give them to me and I will credit you (see Bava Metzia 69b) in the manner that you credit him (as compensation). If he restored them (i.e., the monies) to the heathen, even though an Israelite gives them to him at the command of a heathen, it is permitted, but if he didn’t restore them to the heathen, it is forbidden, for he has lent him [money] at interest.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia
But one may accept a flock from a gentile on “iron terms” and money may be borrowed from them and one may lend them money. The same is true with a resident alien. An Israelite may lend the money of a gentile with the knowledge [and consent] of the gentile but not with the knowledge of an Israelite. According to Deuteronomy 23:20-21 a Jew (Israelite) may lend and borrow with interest from a gentile but not from another Jew. In order to understand this difference between gentiles and Jews we must understand that lending and borrowing with interest is not an immoral act. It is actually fair and logical that the one who gives his money to others should receive a wage in return, just as one who gives his horse to others receives a wage in return. The reason that the Torah forbids lending with interest to other Jews is that this is a form of charity. A loan without interest is in actuality one of the highest forms of charity, and has been a practice of Jews throughout the ages. According to Jewish law charity begins within one’s own community. While it might be an ideal that one should be charitable to the whole world, it is impossible to obligate one community to support all communities. A Jewish community is legally obligated to support the Jews within the community. This obligation is not extended outside the community. Since lending is not immoral it is permitted to do so with non-Jews. At the end of the mishnah we learn that if Reuven had borrowed money from a non-Jew he may loan that money to Shimon if the non-Jew consents. He may not however lend the money to Shimon without the non-Jew’s consent since this would be a loan from one Jew to another.
