פירוש על בבא מציעא 5:15

איזהו נשך שהוא נושך – that he took from him what he (i.e., the other) didn’t give him.

Introduction The fifth chapter of Bava Metziah deals with the Torah’s prohibition of lending money to another Jew with interest. Leviticus 25:35-37 states (JPS translation): “If your kinsman, being in straits, comes under your authority, and you hold him as though a resident alien, let him live by your side. Do not exact from him advance (neshech) or accrued interest (tarbit), but fear your God. Let him live by your side as a your kinsman. Do not lend him your money at advance interest (neshech), or give him your food at accrued interest (tarbit).” Our mishnah deals with the Rabbinic definitions of “neshech” and “tarbit”.

המרבה בפירות – he increases the reward for himself with produce, and whether by the loan of money or whether by the loan of produce it is interest, for he increases his money. But the concluding part of the Mishnah deals with Rabbinic interest, as it explains – which through the means of commercial transactions.

What is usury ( and what is increase (? It is usury ( when a man lends a sela for five dinars, or two seahs of wheat for three, because he bites ( [off too much]. Section one defines “neshech”. This is a simple form of loaning with interest, where a person gives another person a loan of either money or goods and expects to get back more in return. The mishnah understands that the Biblical word “neshech” derives from the word “noshech” which means to bite. Interest “bites” because the creditor bites off from the debtor more than he gave.

דינר זהב – twenty-five silver denars.

And what is increase? When a man increases [his gains] by [selling] produce. How is this so? (1) [If] one bought wheat at a golden dinars [=25 silver dinars] for a kor when such was the market price, and then wheat rose to thirty [silver] dinars [per kor]. (2) [If] he said to him, “Give me my wheat since I would sell it and buy wine with the proceeds” and the other said, “Let your wheat be reckoned with me at thirty dinars and you now have a claim on me for wine [to that value], although the creditor has no wine. Section two defines the word “tarbit”. This situation is more complicated. Reuven buys from Shimon wheat at 25 dinars (=one silver dinars) per kor (a unit of volume) which was the market price of wheat. Shimon does not immediately provide the wheat but rather will provide it at a later time. After the sale the market price of wheat rises to 30 dinars. Reuven requests from Shimon his wheat so that he can sell the wheat and buy wine. Reuven is allowed to purchase the wheat at the lower price since he bought it at what was at the time market value. Shimon says to Reuven that he will sell him wine in return for the wheat that he owes him. In other words Shimon promises to provide Reuven with 30 dinars worth of wine, since that is the current value of the wheat. If Shimon does not currently have this wine in his possession this is forbidden. The reason is that if the price of wine goes up Reuven will have in effect loaned Shimon 30 dinars (the amount of wheat that Shimon owes Reuven) and when he gets the wine that has gone up in price he will receive back more than he loaned. If Shimon had had the wine at the time when he said this to Reuven it would have been permitted, since by trading his wheat for wine, the wine would be in Reuven’s possession when it rose in price. The problem is that if Shimon doesn’t own the wine he is in essence borrowing Reuven’s money. If the price of wine should rise Shimon will end up returning interest to Reuven.

וכן השער – Such is how they were sold in the city, and it was permissible for him to give money now on the condition that he would give him the wheat all the days of the year with these monies according to the monetary rate, and even though that he doesn’t have the wheat right now. It is taught [in the Mishnah] of our chapter (Mishnah 7):, “when the market price is out, you may purchase, for although he (i.e., the seller) has not goods as yet, others have,” and this seller can purchase them now with these monies.

עמדו חטין בשלשים דינרים אמר לו תן לי חיטי – and this is permissible, if he gives him the wheat, but if he fixed a price to give him for them wine, it is prohibited, lest the wine become more expensive, for since he doesn’t have any wine. And even though he fixed a price with him according to the current market price of wine, and the market price had gone out. For since he doesn’t give him money that we would be able to say that he could purchase wine with these monies tha the received, but he makes the value of the wheat an obligation and to set a price on his obligation of wine, this is prohibited if he lacks wine. For if he had wine, it would be purchased to him from now to the person who comes to set a price on the obligation of wine, and when it went up in price, it was in his possession when it went up in price.

מרבים על השכר – the wages in money for waiting for the rental.

Introduction Mishnayoth two and three continue to discuss things that are forbidden since they are forms of usury.

ואין מרבין על המכר – the wages in waiting for the sale. And the reason is that the rental is not completely paid off until the end; therefore, when he takes from a Sela per month which is twelve Selas [per year], this is not the wages in waiting for the monies, for he was not obligated to pay him the rent until the end of the month, and that which he said to him: “if you give it to me now, it is yours for ten Selas, if he would give it to him early, he would forgive him the cost of the rental and diminish it for him for less than its value. But regarding a sale, then you make use of the object and the law is to give the money, and when he (i.e., the seller) says to him (i.e., the buyer): “if from now you give me, it is yours for one-thousand zuz, which is its cost and if it has already been at the granary, it is the reward for waiting for the monies [and is forbidden, as interest].

One who lends money to his fellow may not dwell in his courtyard for free or rent it from him at a reduced rate, since that counts as usury. A person who has received a loan from another may not give the other person anything in return for the loan (except of course returning the lent money itself). Usually interest is defined as extra money returned to the creditor in return for the loan. However, as our mishnah points out, interest can come in other forms of benefit as well, such as free or reduced rent. A borrower, therefore, may not allow his creditor to rent a house for free or for a reduced rate.

מכר לו את השדה – And the same law applies for movables, and all business, if he sold it to him for more than its worth with the wages for waiting for the monies, it is forbidden, for it is the dust of interest according to the Rabbis And all dust of interest (i.e., indirect interest), if he gave it, it is not reclaimed through judges, whereas stipulated/direct usury from the Torah, is reclaimed through judges [i.,e in court] (see Talmud Bava Metzia 61b).

One may increase rent-charge [not paid in advance] but not purchase price [not paid in advance]. How so? If his fellow rented him his courtyard, and said to him, “If you pay me now the cost is 10 selas per year, but if you pay me on a monthly basis, the rent is one sela per month”, this is permitted. However, if he sold him his field, and said to him, “If you pay me now it is yours for 1,000 zuz, but if you pay me at the time of threshing it will be 1,200 zuz”, it is forbidden. A renter may increase the rent-charge in return for not receiving the rent up front but a seller may not increase the price of a sale in return for a delayed payment. The mishnah now explains this principle. With regards to rent, the owner of the courtyard may say to the person renting the courtyard that he can either pay in advance 10 selas for the entire year or a monthly rate of one sela (12 selas per year) collected at the end of each month. This is not considered interest in return for delaying the payment. Since rent is reckoned on a monthly basis to be paid at the end of each month, each month of rental is considered individually, which is a permitted rental arrangement. When the owner said that he would rent it for 10 selas for the whole year he was only offering a discount which is permitted. However, a person cannot sell an item and state one price for paying immediately and a larger price for receiving the money later. This is considered interest. For instance if Reuven sells a field worth 1,000 and tells Shimon that if he pays later he must pay 1,200, it will turn out that Reuven has lent Shimon a field worth 1,000 in return for 1,200. This is usury.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

אין מושיבין חנוני למחצית שכר – the owner shall not say to the storekeeper: “Behold produce is sold in the market at four Seah for a Sela, and you sell them for pennies in the store and profit a Sela . Here is produce; return and sell them in the store and the we will [equally] divide the profits.” And the reason for the matter is that we have established this business that half of it is a loan and half of it is a deposit. A regular person who receives goods for half of the earnings, takes upon himself the responsibility for half of the principal and for accidents and the risk of reduction of prices (see Bava Metzia 64b). Therefore, that one-half since he has taken liability for accidents, it is considered a loan with him, for it is an estimation with the monies according to the market rate and the decision is tha the make take half of the profit. It is found that when he is engaged with the half [of the investment] belonging to the owner which is a deposit with him with the reward of waiting of the monies of the loan, and therefore is prohibited, unless he (i.e., the owner) gives him the salary for his labors that he is engaged in with that half [of the monies – which is a loan] like an idle worker for that labor that he is [currently] idle from, if he is a carpenter or a blacksmith – how much he wants to take to be idle from heaven labor like this and to do easier work.

Introduction Mishnah four deals with business partnerships that are forbidden because one partner is in essence lending with interest to the other partner.

אין מושיבין תרנגולים למחצה – to estimate the monetary value of the eggs for the owner of the chickens to have them is upon them to grow the chicks for one-half of the reward, when the chicks are worth more than the value of the eggs, for this person accepts the responsibility for half of the cost of the eggs, if they are ruined or if the chickens die. He has received half of monies as a loan, and he is therefore raising the second half as a salary in waiting for the monies.

One may not set up a shopkeeper on the condition of receiving half the profit, or give him the money to buy produce on the condition of receiving half the profit, unless he pays him his wage as a laborer. In the case in our mishnah Reuven gives either produce or money with which to buy produce to Shimon in order for Shimon to sell the produce and share the profits. After having sold all of the produce Shimon will owe Reuven both the value of the produce originally given or the money given to buy the produce, plus half of the profits from the sales. In other words this is a typical investment loan made by the one who has the capital, Reuven, to the entrepreneur who is willing to turn the capital into a profit. The problem is that this is a form of lending with interest. In return for letting Shimon use his money or goods Reuven will receive half of the profits. Therefore, the mishnah states that this type of deal is forbidden unless Reuven pays Shimon as a laborer. If he does so then the share of the profits that Shimon will keep is actually wages which is of course permissible.

מזונו – the food that is produced with the chicks.

One may not set out his hens [for another to raise them and hatch their eggs] in order to share the profits, nor evaluate calves or foals [and give them to his fellow to raise] in order to share the profit, unless he pays him a wage for his labor and cost of the food. This section is similar to the scenario in section one. Reuven gives Shimon either hens and eggs to raise and hatch, or young animals to raise until they mature. When the eggs hatch or the young animals mature Shimon will pay back the value of the original investment and share in the profit. Since Shimon has worked in raising these animals, unless he is paid for his wages he will in essence be giving Reuven interest on his loan. If he is paid for his work then he is acting as a wage earner which is entirely permissible.

ואין שמין עגלים וסייחין למחצה – now they are worth such and such, and he accepted for you to raise them for two years for half of the profits, and for half of the loss if they die.

But one may receive the care of calves and foals in return for half the profits, and rear them until they reach a third of their growth, and donkeys until they can carry a burden. The difference in this scenario that makes it permissible is that Shimon, who receives the animals to raise from Reuven, does not take responsibility over the animals should they die. In other words, if the animals live Shimon will return them to Reuven and split the profit (their gain in value as they mature). However, if they die Shimon will not be responsible to return the value of the animals, as he was in the scenarios in sections one and two. Since this is so, it is as if the risk involved in raising the animals is the wage that Shimon receives and when he returns a profit it is not considered interest. There is another interpretation of this clause. According to this interpretation, in the scenario in this clause Shimon is only responsible for returning half the value of the original animal plus half of the profit. In other words if Reuven gives him an animal worth 200 zuz and when it is raised it is worth 500 zuz. Shimon pays back half the value of the original animal, 100, and receives half of the profit, 150. Although Reuven in essence gave an animal worth 200 and receives back a total of 250 (500 zuz for the animal minus 250 which was paid to Shimon) this is not considered interest. In this case Shimon and Reuven are true partners who are allowed to split profits. In the previous cases mentioned in the mishnah Reuven was an investor, in which case taking interest in order to make a profit is forbidden.

אבל מקבלים עגלים וסייחם – small [calves and foals] without estimation, for if they should die, he would not have to pay anything , and if they live, they would divide [the profits] between them.

ושיהיו משולשים – which means that they have reached one-third of their growth, they are then divided up.

ובחמור עד שתהא טוענת – a burden. This was the custom to raise them prior to division.

שמין פרה – a large [cow] or a large donkey, which are worthy for labor, and their work is all for the recipient [of their labor].

Introduction Mishnah five and the beginning of mishnah six continue to deal with business arrangements that are forbidden because they are usurious. The remainder of mishnah six deals with lending with interest to gentiles.

למחצה – to divide the profit that they earn, in money and offspring

One may evaluate cows and donkeys and anything that works and eats [and give them to one’s fellow to raise] in order to share the profit. In the previous mishnah we learned that it is forbidden to give a person animals to raise in order to share the profit and losses. Since in the end the person receiving the animals will repay the value of the animals plus half the value of the increase, this is considered interest. However, we learned that if the person receives a wage for raising the animals then this arrangement is permitted, for it is not a loan but rather a work arrangement. In other words the half of the profit goes to the owner in return for the wages and not in return for the loan. Our mishnah teaches that if the animal can do work or produce profit, such as cows or donkeys, then the work that the animal does is considered the wages that the person raising them receives. In this case the business arrangement is permitted.

לחלוק את הולדות מיד – when the time arrives for their division, which for a small animal is thirty days and for a large animal fifty days.

Where the custom is to share the offspring immediately at birth, they do so; and where the custom is to first rear them [and then give them over to the owner], they do so. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “One may evaluate a calf with its mother, and a foal with its mother [and give them to one’s fellow to raise in order to share the profit.] In section one the mishnah taught that if the animal can work or otherwise produce profit, such as a milking cow or a donkey which can carry a load, it is permitted for one to give it to another person in order to share the profits and losses. If there are young born to the animal while this arrangement is in effect there is a potential problem. The young animals cannot work or produce and therefore there may be a potential problem of interest. The mishnah states, however, that the turning over of the animals immediately to the owner in order to avoid interest, is only necessary if that is the custom. If it is not the custom to turn over the young animals until they mature, there is still no problem of interest. Since the mothers will continue to produce the person raising them is still receiving a wage and not, therefore, in danger of paying interest to the owner. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel states that even from the outset young animals may be given to be raised with mature animals. Although the young animals do not produce any profit, since the mature animals do produce profit the person raising them does receive a wage and there is no problem of interest.

שמין עגל עם עמו – and it is not necessary to give work and food to a calf but rather [only] to the mother. But the Halakha is not according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.

A tenant may offer increased rent in exchange for a loan to improve his field, without fearing that this is usury. If Reuven owns a field and Shimon rents the field in order to pay a fixed yearly sum to Reuven, Shimon may ask Reuven to loan him money in order for Shimon to repay Reuven with a higher yearly sum. The extra amount added to the sum is not considered to be interest on the loan but rather an increase in rent in return for Shimon’s working a more valuable field. Since rent is permitted this business arrangement is not usurious.

ומפרין על שדהו – the language of “being fruitful and multiplying,” and there are those who read this as ומפריז with the letter “zayin” (instead of a final “nun”), in the language of (Zechariah 2:8): “Jerusalem shall be peopled as a city [without walls, so many shall be the men and cattle it contains],” that is to say, extend his field. And this is what he would tell him [the tenant on a fixed rent payable in kind to the landlord]: “You are accustomed to take your field in stipulated rent for ten Kors per year; lend me two hundred zuz that I can spend to manure this field, to sow it and to plough it and I will increase the stipulated rent to twelve Kors per year and I will return your monies” – this is permitted because it is as if he does more business him through these two Kors because he rents from him a good and praiseworthy field that his rental is better than the rental of a bad field.

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.

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.

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.

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.

היה הוא תחלה לקוצרים – and he has a stack/heap of grain but the market price has not yet been published.

Introduction Our mishnah teaches that one who wishes to advance money to a merchant in order for the merchant to provide him with produce at a later time may not fix a price for the purchase if the produce is not currently in the hands of the merchant or the market-price for the produce has not been set. The fear is that the buyer will give money to the merchant and then the produce will rise in value and it will be as if the buyer received a discount for having advanced the money. This is a form of interest since in return for giving his money in advance and letting the seller use them the buyer will get a greater deal of merchandise in return. If, however, the market-price was set or the merchant had the produce in hand this type of purchase is permitted since the buyer could have currently bought and taken hold of the produce but just chose not to.

פוסק עמו – for whatever market price that he wants, and since he has it (i.e., pile of grain), there is no interest here, since from now that heap is acquired for him, and he though he did not take possession [by drawing or seizing], since he does not have it also, it is not other than the dust of interest of the Rabbis, but if he has it, a decree was not made.

One may not set a price for produce before its market-price is known. After its market-price is known, one may set a price, for even though this one does not have [the produce] another does have it. Reuven may not set a fixed price to provide Shimon with produce at a future time unless there is an established market-price for the produce. The problem is that if the produce goes up in value then Shimon will have prepaid in return for a lower price. In such a case Shimon will receive in return more than he gave, which is a form of interest. If, however, the market-price has been set, and many people in the market are selling this type of produce, they may set a price even though Reuven does not currently have the produce. Since Shimon could have bought from others he is not benefiting by prepaying for the produce.

על העביט – a large utensil that they collect/pile up the grapes before treading and they become heated to producer their wine well, and of olives, it is called a vat or pit where olives are packed until they form a viscid mass.

If he was the first to harvest his crop, he may set a price with his fellow over grain stacked in a heap, or over grapes in their harvesting basket, or over olives in a vat, or over the clay-balls of the potter, or over lime as soon as the limestone is sunk in the kiln. The aforementioned arrangement is also permitted if Reuven already has the produce in hand, even though the market-price has not yet been set. Since Shimon could have taken the produce at the time when he paid for it, it is not a problem of interest for Shimon to pay and then take it later. This is true even if the produce is not totally ready, such as wheat that has only just been harvested but not processed or any of the other examples in the mishnah. Although it is not completed Shimon still could have nevertheless acquired it in the present.

על הביצים של יוצר – if he brought in dust and made it eggs to make of them a dishes, he sets with him on the dishes for whatever price he wants, and even though the [official] price had not been publicized.

One may set a price for manure at any time of the year. Rabbi Yose says: “One may not set a price over manure unless the seller has manure on the dungheap.” But the Sages permit it. According to the first opinion in this section it is always permitted to set a price for manure, since manure is always available. Rabbi Yose disagrees and states that the one providing the manure must have it available. Otherwise we fear that the price of the manure may rise and the buyer will profit from having advanced the money, which is interest. The Sages agree with the first opinion and disagree with Rabbi Yose.

ועל הסיד – he sets with him at whatever price that he wants from when he let them down into the kiln/furnace of wood and stones to burn them and make of them plaster.

One may set the price at the cheapest rate [that will be at the time of delivery]. Rabbi Judah says: “Even if he didn’t set the price at the cheapest rate he may say, “Give me at the such a price or give me back my money.” Although one may not set a fixed price since if the price rises the buyer will receive interest for advancing the money, they may strike a bargain that the buyer will pay the lowest price when the market-price is set. In such a manner the buyer will definitely not receive a benefit for having advanced the money. Rabbi Judah states that in general if the buyer prepaid for his produce and the produce later goes down in price, he may give the seller a choice of providing the produce at the lower amount or of returning the money. Since the buyer did not actually take the produce and thereby legally acquire it, he is not legally obligated by the sale (Bava Metziah 4:2). [The buyer is also not sanctioned by the clause of “the one who exacted punishment” (ibid.) since his acquisition was from the outset a delayed acquisition].

וחכמים מתירין – there is a difference between the Sages and the first Tanna [of the Mishnah], for the First Tanna speaks of all the days of the year and Rabbi Yosi disagrees with him and says that there is no difference between the dry season (i.e., literally, the “days of sunshine) and the days of the rainy season until the seller has manure in the dung heaps, but the Sages permit specifically during the days of sunshine, for even if he doesn’t have [manure], others have it, for everyone has manure which has decayed and became crushed during the rainy season, but not during the rainy season itself. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

כשער הגבוה – [according to the price at the height of the market – Bava Metzia 72b] – and if the market price became less than what it is now currently, give me according to the lowest market price. The height – that is the cheapest that when giving tall and much produce lesser costs.

תן לי כזה או תן לי מעותי – for since he did not take possession (by pulling/seizing), he is able to retract, and even [the curse of] “He who punished [the generation of the Flood….will punish those who do not stand by his word (although the court cannot compel him) is not [applicable] , for he did not give his monies on the condition to receive [the produce] now, but rather later, and in the midst of things, the market price changed, it is the mere opinion of people of delighting in the cheap market price. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

חטין בחטין לזרע – It is permissible to lend to a tenant farmer (who tills the owner’s ground for a certain share in the produce, as opposed to a certain rent in kind/חכיר, irrespective of the yield of the crops) a Seah for a Seah (even though this is normally forbidden) specifically when he wants to sow with them, and the reason for this is that in the place where the tenant farmer is, when he gives the seed, if he didn’t have seed to sow the field, the owner would remove him, and when the tenant farmer borrows from the owner, and he sows [the field], when the wheat go up in price, he gives back wheat, this is not a loan, but rather for the tenant farmer, it is like he goes down into it (i.e., the field) from this moment, on the condition that the owner will take the seed first from the part that will arrive to the tenant farmer, and the tenant farmer will take the rest as the payment for his trouble, and on this condition, he will take less that the other tenant farmers according the measure of the seed, and there is no interest here.

Introduction Mishnayoth eight and nine deal with a person who lends produce in order to receive produce in return. As we have learned previously, if after the loan the value of the type of produce rises, for instance at the time of the loan wheat was 1 dollar a pound and afterwards it was 2 dollars a pound, the borrower will end up returning more value to the lender, which is a form of interest.

שהיה רבן גמלאל – that is to say, for this purposes, it was necessary to teach this Mishnah, for Rabbi Gamaliel was more stringent, for if thing became cheaper, he would take according the cheaper set price, and our Mishnah comes to teach us not the Halakha is as such, but rather that he wished to be more stringent upon himself.

[A landowner] may lend his tenants wheat to be repaid in wheat, if it is for planting but not if it is for food. For Rabban Gamaliel used to lend his tenants wheat to be repaid in wheat when it was for planting. And if he lent it when the price was high and it afterward fell, or when it was low and it afterward rose, he used to take wheat back at the lower rate, not because such was the rule but because he wanted to be strict upon himself. A person may not lend another person a seah of wheat on the condition that the other person pay back a seah of wheat. The reason is that if the wheat rises in price after the loan the lender will receive in return more than he gave, and that is considered to be a form of interest. Rather he would have to state an amount, such as 100 dollars worth of wheat and when he gets the loan back he will receive 100 dollars worth of wheat at whatever the rate is at the time of repayment. Our mishnah teaches that although one cannot loan wheat in order to be repaid in wheat when the wheat was intended for eating, one may do so when it is for planting and there is no concern that this be considered interest. The simplest way of understanding this is that it is as if the owner is giving him a better field to work, which he is allowed to do. The second half of the mishnah teaches a stringency that Rabban Gamaliel took upon himself. Although it is permitted to lend wheat for wheat if the wheat is for planting, Rabban Gamaliel would always collect upon the lower rate. In this way there was no potential that he would receive back a higher value than he gave in the beginning and thereby loan with interest.

הלויני עד שיבוא בני – because he has it (i.e., a Kor of wheat), it is all right. For the Rabbis did not make the decree other than when he didn’t have i. And if he didn’t have it other than one Seah, he would lend upon it several Kors, and on each one we would say, “this is in its place,” for it is not purchased/acquired by the lender, and it is in the hand of the borrower to sell it or to consume, and when he lends it ech one of them, he is lending with legal permission (i.e., it is a legitimate action).

One should not say to his fellow, “Lend me a kor of wheat and I will repay you at the threshing time”, but he may say, “Lend it to me until my son comes”, or “until I find my key”. As we learned in the previous mishnah one cannot lend wheat and ask to receive the same amount of wheat in the future lest the wheat rise in price. If, however, the borrower has other wheat at the time he borrows from the other person, then it is permitted. The reason that this is permitted is that the borrower could have repaid the wheat immediately after receiving the loan before the price might potentially rise. The mishnah states that the borrower may say “loan me some wheat and I will repay you wheat as soon as my son comes to open my storehouse or I find the key to my storehouse”, where assumedly the borrower has wheat.

וכן היה הלל אומר לא תלוה אשה – but the Halakha is not according to Hillel, but rather the Halakha is according to the Sages who say that we lend undefined and collect debts undefined.

But Hillel used to forbid this. Moreover Hillel used to say, “A woman may not lend a loaf of bread to her neighbor unless she determines its value in money, lest wheat should rise in price and they are found to be engaging in usury.” Hillel was stricter in this matter and forbid this type of loan even if the borrower has wheat in his possession. Hillel forbid even a casual loan of a loaf of bread from one woman to her neighbor unless she set a price in money. Again, Hillel is concerned that the price of wheat would rise and she would receive interest in return for giving her bread to her friend.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Why would the mishnah teach a stringency that Rabban Gamaliel accepted upon himself if it is not obligatory upon others?
• What is the difference between Rabban Gamaliel and Hillel?

נכש עמי – [weed with me] today, and I will weed with you tomorrow. Weeding is the removal of bad grasses that grow in the grain.

Introduction The first half of mishnah ten deals with a person who strikes a bargain with another person that each will help the other to do some field work. As we will see such an arrangement can be potentially usurious. In the second half of the mishnah Rabban Gamaliel gives a general definition of two different types of usury and Rabbi Shimon discusses verbal usury. Mishnah eleven completes our discussion about usury by stating that all who are involved in an usurious contract violate the Torah and discussing which specific commandments they violate.

עדור – dig

One may say to his fellow, “Help me weed and I will help you weed” or “Help me hoe and I will help you hoe.” But one may not say, “Help me weed and I will help you hoe”, or “Help me hoe and I will help you weed”. Reuven is allowed to make an arrangement with Shimon that one day he will work for Shimon and the other day Shimon will work for him, as long as both are doing the same work. If, however, Reuven helps weed and Shimon helps hoe or vice versa, and one of the labors is more difficult than the other, the bargain is forbidden because of usury. The problem is that the one who does the work for his friend second may do a more difficult type of labor in return for having his work done first. This is a form of usury, since one person will get back more in return for waiting to be paid for his work.

לא יאמר לו נכש עמי ואעדור עמך – sometimes this one is harder than that one, and there is here compensation for waiting (i.e., advancing the money to the seller – see Bava Metzia 63b).

All days of the dry season are accounted alike, and all days of the rainy season are accounted alike. One may not say to another, “Help me plow in the dry season and I will help you plow in the rainy season.” Just as two different types of labor may not be exchanged for one another, so too the same labor may not be exchanged for the same labor if they are done during different seasons. Since working in one season may be harder than working in another, if the one who does the work for his friend second does the work in a harder season he is in essence repaying the loan of his friend’s work with interest.

כל ימי גריד אחד – and we are not troubled if one day is greater than its neighbor (i.e., during the dry season/summer); and similarly, all the days of rainfall [in the autumn] are one, and it is permissible to say, hoe/dig with me on this day of the dry season/days of sunlight and I hoe/dig with you one day of the dry season/days of sunlight, and similarly with the days of rainfall.

Rabban Gamaliel says: “There is interest that is paid in advance and interest that is paid afterward. How is this so? If a one intended to borrow from another and made him a present and said, “This is so that you will lend to me”, this is interest that is paid in advance. If one borrowed from another and repaid it to him, and then sent a present and said, “This is for your money of which you have not had use while it was with me”, this is interest that is paid afterward. Rabban Gamaliel explains that it is forbidden to pay interest either before or after the loan is executed. Therefore, a person cannot give another person a present in order that that person would loan him money, since this is prepaid interest. Neither can a person give another a present for having loaned him money, since this is interest paid afterwards.

גריד – days of the sunlight.

Rabbi Shimon says: “There is interest paid in words: one may not say to his creditor, “Know that such and such a person has come form such and such a place.” According to Rabbi Shimon, interest need not only be a gift of things, money or work from the borrower to the creditor. Interest may even be verbally given to the creditor. If the debtor passes needed information to the creditor in return for the loan, this is interest through words alone. [In our days this might be akin to giving a stock tip to someone in return for a loan.]

רביעה – days of rainfall.

Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah ten, section three: Why does Rabban Gamaliel use the example of a present given as interest as opposed to money? Is he trying to teach some additional information?

ואני אחרוש עמך ברביעה – for the days of rainfall are more difficult for the work in the fields

עוברים משום לא תתן וכו' – the lender transgresses in all of them; the borrower transgresses (Deuteronomy 23:20): “You shall not deduct interest from loans to your countrymen,” which is the language of activating others, that you should not cause that your brother will lend at interest, and he violates(Deuteronomy 23:21): “Do not deduct interest from loans to your countrymen”, and (Leviticus 19:14): “or place a stumbling block before the blind.” The guarantor and the witnesses transgress only on (Exodus 22:24):“Exact no interest from them.”

These are the one who transgress a negative commandment: the lender, the borrower, the guarantor, and the witnesses. And the Sages say, “The scribe also.” When a loan with interest is executed it is not only the lender and borrower who violate a negative commandment but everyone involved in the loan. According the Sages, even the scribe transgresses a negative commandment if he draws up a document which contains in it a usurious loan.

They transgress the commandment, (1) “You will not give him your money upon interest” (Leviticus 25:37), and (2 “You shall not take usury from him” (Leviticus 25:36) and (3) “You shall not be to him as a creditor” (Exodus 22:24), and (4) “Nor shall you place upon him usury” (ibid.) and (5) “You shall put a stumbling block before the blind, and you will fear your God, I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:14). The mishnah now lists the specific transgressions that a person commits when a loan with interest is executed. Since there are several verses in the Torah that forbid lending in interest the Rabbis understood that each verse added another commandment. One loan with interest can therefore cause a person to violate several commandments. In the Talmud it is explained that the lender violates all of these commandments, the borrower violates the first two and number five. The witnesses violate number four and according to the sages the scribe violates number four as well.

Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah eleven, section one: Why does the mishnah expand the list of those who transgress when a usurious loan is committed from the lender and borrower to all parties involved? What is this meant to teach us?