S'il lui a vendu le champ et qu'il lui a donné une partie de l'argent, et qu'il (le vendeur) lui a dit: "Quand tu veux, apporte le (reste de) l'argent et prends ce qui est à toi", c'est interdit. [Comme lorsque le vendeur a dit à l'acheteur: "Lorsque vous apportez le reste de l'argent, achetez-le à partir de maintenant." Il est interdit de le faire, car si le vendeur mange des fruits (du champ) dans l'intervalle, lorsque l'autre apporte l'argent, le champ se révèle avoir été acquis par lui dès le jour de la vente, et le vendeur ( se trouve) avoir mangé des fruits pour payer l'attente. Et si l'acheteur mange des fruits à partir de maintenant, peut-être qu'il n'apportera pas le reste de l'argent et le vendeur rendra ce qu'il avait reçu de lui, de sorte que le champ se révélera ne pas lui avoir été vendu (le vendeur ayant dit : "Lorsque vous apportez le reste de l'argent, achetez-le à partir de maintenant", et il ne l'a pas apporté), et le premier paiement serait (jugé avoir été) un prêt en général à l'acheteur, et le vendeur serait reconnu avoir mangé des fruits en guise de paiement (pour avoir accordé un prêt)]. S'il lui a accordé un prêt pour son champ, et qu'il (le prêteur) lui a dit: «Si vous ne me remboursez pas d'ici trois ans, c'est à moi», c'est à lui. [Comme quand il (l'emprunteur) lui a dit: "Acquérez-le à partir de maintenant si je ne vous rembourse pas d'ici trois ans." Car ce n'est pas un asmachta (une simple "compréhension"), mais un kinyan de bonne foi (acte d'acquisition), le prêteur en prend possession maintenant pour cet argent (qu'il a donné à l'emprunteur), et il (le champ) devient moins cher en sa possession (du prêteur). Et les fruits sont déposés chez une troisième personne. Si l'emprunteur rembourse le prêt dans les trois ans, les fruits lui sont remis. Et sinon, ils sont donnés à l'emprunteur, le champ ayant été acquis par lui dès le moment du prêt, et ce prêt ayant été le paiement du champ.] Et Baitos b. Zonin l'a fait (c'est-à-dire qu'Il a emprunté sur son champ) par le conseil des sages.
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
הבא מעות וטול את שלך אסור – He who brings excess monies that are upon you [to bring] and take your field, it is forbidden to do this. As in such a case where the seller said to the purchase: Go bring me excess monies and you purchase it from now, therefore, it is forbidden to do this, for if the seller were to consume the produce during this period, when he (i.e., the purchaser) brings the money, it is found that this field was sold to him from the day of the sale, but this one (i.e., the seller) ate the produce as the reward while waiting for the monies. But if the purchaser would consume the produce from now, for perhaps he would not bring the excess monies and would return to him (i.e., the seller) what he had received and it would be that the field had not been sold to hm, for when he would bring it (i.e., the monies), it would be sold to him from now he told him, but he didn’t bring it, and the first monies are like a mere loan in regard to the seller, and he ate the produce with his payment.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia
If a man sold a field, and the buyer gave him part of the price and he said to the buyer, “Pay me the rest of the price whenever you wish and then take what is yours”, this is forbidden. The scenario described in this case is forbidden because the seller gets the use and benefit from the field in return for allowing a delayed payment from the buyer. In other words the buyer in essence loans the seller the field in return for waiting until he can gather the remainder of the money to complete the sale. This is usury.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
הרי היא שלו – in such a case as when he (i.e., the purchaser) said to him, buy it from now – if I don’t bring to you [the monies] from now until three years, it is not an Asmakhta (i.e., a collateral security with the condition of forfeiture beyond the amount to be secured – see Bava Batra 168a), but a complete purchase, for on the condition that he sold it completely, he would hold it from now with these monies and he would lower the price and sell (some of the movable goods in order to raise the money – see Bava Metzia 77a), and he who received it, if he would return him his monies within three years, would receive them, and the produce would be left in the hand of a third-party, and if the borrower returned his monies to the lender within the three years, he would release the produce to the borrower, and if not, he would give the produce to the lender, for the field was sold to him at the time of the loan, and that loan was the cost of the field.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia
If a man lent another money on the security of his field and said to him, “If you do not pay me within three years it will be mine”, then it becomes his. This is what Boethus the son of Zunin used to do with the consent of the Sages. A person may loan another person money and use the other person’s field as collateral. Even though this may look as if the borrower is selling him his field in return for the loan, the Sages did not consider this to be usury.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia
Questions for Further Thought: Mishnah three, section one: Would it be forbidden for Reuven to sell a field to Shimon and for Reuven to continue to use the field until Shimon brought him the money?
