Bava Metzia 73: כִּדְקָא אָזֵיל אַפַּרְווֹתָא דְזוּלְשְׁפָט

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 73

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Shmuel said to those who lend seed grain to the sharecroppers to be returned in new grain (which should be forbidden on account of lending a se’ah for a se’ah): Cultivate the land for yourselves in the field that you may solely own this portion of the land (and the seeds given back from this portion will be your seeds to begin with, and not a loan), for if not, it will be accounted as a loan to you, and therefore forbidden.

We explore the legal concept of adverse possession in Roman and Jewish law.

Bava Metzia 72: אֲפִילּוּ כַּדּוֹרְמוּס הַזֶּה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 72 


To download, click/tap here: PDF

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.

We explore the history of price-fixing in markets.

Bava Metzia 71: מַלְוֶה יִשְׂרָאֵל מְעוֹתָיו שֶׁל נׇכְרִי

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 71

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The passage in Sefer Shemot (22:24) teaches im kesef talveh et ami et he-ani imakh – “if you lend money to any of My people, even to the poor” – which is understood by Rav Yosef in the Gemara as teaching that lending to a Jewish person takes precedence over lending to a non-Jewish person; similarly lending to a poor person takes precedence over lending to a wealthy person.

We explore the history of Jewish Free Loan societies especially in early American history.

Bava Metzia 70: לַנׇּכְרִי תַשִּׁיךְ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 70

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishna teaches us that a Jew may not care for the sheep of another as a guaranteed investment. This particular investment offers partial profit but full responsibility for the care of the animal - far too close to interest. This practice is permitted with non-Jews, for interest is not an issue.

One is not allowed to put money into a business venture where he shares in profits but not in losses or even where his proportionate share of profits is greater than that of his losses. The guaranteed part of the investment is then a loan, and its profit is a form of interest prohibited by the Sages.

We continue our exploration of the talmudic attitude to gentiles and usury in antiquity.

Bava Metzia 69: אַגְרָא וּפַגְרָא

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 69

To download, click/tap here: PDF

One may increase the rent for his land (although he intends to lend money to the renter), and he need not be concerned that this is interest.

What is the case? If one rents a field from his fellow for ten kor annually, and proposes, “Loan me two hundred zuz to improve the land, and I will pay you twelve kor annually,” it is permitted (for it is not a loan; rather, the renter is merely an agent of the landowner to improve the field). But an increased rental may not be offered for a store or a ship (if the money will be used for merchandise for the store or the ship; it would only be permitted if it would be used for the store or the ship itself).

And the men of pitch [benei kufera], i.e., sailors, are accustomed to paying rent at the time of pulling and paying for damage at the time of breakage.

"Men of Pitch” בְּנֵי כוּפְרָא allows us to explore the history of shipbuilding and the use of resins like pine tar.

Bava Metzia 68: דִּנְפִישׁ טִרְחֵיהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 68

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishnah states that an investor cannot set up a storekeeper to sell his goods in order that the storekeeper should receive half of the profits.

[Being that the storekeeper is also responsible for half of the stock, even under forced circumstances, it is as if he is giving the storekeeper a loan in order that he should make money, which is deemed interest ]

The braisa states: [When the Mishna says he receives wages,] It means like a worker who is paid for his time (but he does not have to expend any effort). The Gemora asks: How is this applicable here (he has to put in effort to sell the fruit)?

Abaye says: It means that he is paid to rest from his difficult work and do this instead.

We return to the Halacha of Iska and Rav Lichtenstein’s analysis of the miderabanan innovations thereof.

Bava Metzia 67: בְּאַתְרָא דִּמְסַלְּקִי

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 67

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Does the law that asmachta is not a valid sale apply only to land or also to moveable property? If someone is allows someone to take something of theirs without complaining mechila and later finds out that it was a mistake, is this valid or not? Does it depend on the situation?

Cases are discussed regarding one who eats fruit off of property given to him as collateral – does it need to be returned or not (is it interest from the rabbis or from the Torah)?

We continue our exploration of medieval jewish money lenders and the tragic outcome in Vienna 1420.

Bava Metzia 66: אַסְמַכְתָּא קָנְיָא

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 66

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna had stated: If someone lends someone else using his field as security (and said to him, “If you do not pay me back within three years, the field (which is worth more than the value of the loan) will belong to me (the lender),” this is permitted).

Rav Huna said: If this stipulation (to give up the field) was made at the time of the loan, he (the lender) acquires it all (if he defaults on the loan – even if the field is worth more than the amount of the loan).

[This is not regarded as an asmachta (some type of commitment that a person undertakes only to convince the other party that he is serious regarding the deal). Rav Huna is of the opinion that an asmachta is not legally binding; however, here, when the borrower is benefitting from the lender, we assume that he is serious regarding his forfeiture of the field should he default on the loan.]

We explore the Halacha of Heter Iska.

Bava Metzia 65: אֶלָּא לִי בַּדָּמִים הַלָּלוּ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 65

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we have seen on the previous dapim, when offering a discount on a sale for pre-payment, there may be a problem of ribit (forbidden interest), since the pre-payment can be viewed as a loan, and by offering a discount, the merchant may be seen as repaying more than he received.

The Mishna on our daf teaches that there is a difference between offering a discount on rent and offering a discount on a purchase.

If one sold another a field and received partial payment, and then told the buyer that whenever he wants, he should bring the rest of the money and take the field, it is forbidden. If one made a loan to someone using his field as security, and he (the lender) said to him, “If you do not pay me back within three years, the field will belong to me, this is permitted.

This is how Baysos ben Zunin would lend money upon the advice of the Sages.

We continue our review of usury and predatory lending practices…

Bava Metzia 64: דִּמְרַקֵּיד בֵּי כוּבֵי עַבְדֵי

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 64

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rav Yosef b. Minyumi in the name of R’ Nachman teaches that if Reuven lends money to Shimon, Reuven is not allowed to live in a house owned by Shimon without paying rent, as this would constitute a form of collecting interest for his having advanced a loan.

In fact, this is true even if Reuven has access to other lodging and he is not in need of a rented room, and Shimon is not looking to rent out his dwelling.

Although Reuven is not receiving any financial gain and Shimon is not providing any financial benefit, this is still prohibited.

We continue to explore the history of Jewish Banking.

Bava Metzia 63: מָה לִי הֵן וּמָה לִי דְּמֵיהֶן

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 63

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara teaches that according to Rebbi Yehudah, "Tzad Echad b'Ribis" is permitted. "Tzad Echad b'Ribis" refers to a transaction which can have two possible outcomes, one of which involves Ribis.

He maintains that a transaction that involves Ribis is prohibited only when Ribis definitely will be involved, but not when the presence of Ribis depends on the outcome of the transaction. The classic case of "Tzad Echad b'Ribis" is where a borrower gives his field to the lender and stipulates that if he does not repay the loan, the lender will acquire the field (for the money of the loan) retroactively.

In the interim, the lender eats the produce of the field. According to the Tana Kama in the Beraisa, this is forbidden as Ribis, because if the borrower pays back the loan on time and repossesses his field, the sale will be invalidated and all the fruit that the lender ate will have constituted Ribis.

We explore the world of Jewish banking fro the Czar to the British Mandate.

Bava Metzia 62: חַיֶּיךָ קוֹדְמִים לְחַיֵּי חֲבֵירֶךָ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 62

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yoḥanan, what does he do with this verse: “And your brother shall live with you”?

The Gemara answers: He requires the verse for that which is taught in a baraita: If twopeople were walking on a desolate path and there was a jug [kiton] of water in the possession of one of them, and the situation was such that if both drink from the jug, both will die, as there is not enough water, but if only one of them drinks, he will reach a settled area, there is a dispute as to the halakha.

Ben Petora taught: It is preferable that both of them drink and die, and let neither one of them see the death of the other. This was the accepted opinion until Rabbi Akiva came and taught that the verse states: “And your brother shall live with you,” indicating that your life takes precedence over the life of the other.

We explore the balance between loving one’s neighbor and self preservation in Halacha.

Bava Metzia 61: נֶשֶׁךְ בְּלֹא תַּרְבִּית

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 61

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our new perek V discusses the laws of interest

The Mishna had stated: What is tarbis? One who increases his assets through produce.

The Gemora asks: Were all the cases stated previously not cases of ribbis?

Rabbi Avahu says: Until now we mentioned cases prohibited by Torah law. Now we are mentioning cases prohibited by Rabbinic law.

Rava asks why the Torah must give three specific prohibitions against stealing -- Ribis, Gezel, and Ona'ah, when one of them would suffice to teach the others. The Gemara concludes that in truth the prohibition of Gezel could have been derived from the prohibitions of Ribis and Ona'ah (through a Tzad ha'Shaveh).

The Gemara makes it clear that the prohibition of Ribis stems from the concept of Gezel. There are, however, other ways of understanding the nature of Ribis.

We begin an exploration of the halachot of Ribis.

Bava Metzia 60: מַתִּיר בְּדָבָר הַנִּטְעָם

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 60

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz write”

Who invented loss-leaders? Free giveaways? Sales promotions are not modern inventions – they have been with us since time immemorial.

The Mishna on our daf discusses these kinds of promotions and the permissibility of their use. We find that Rabbi Yehuda forbids a storekeeper from giving out treats to small children, since that will give him an unfair advantage. Similarly, he forbids a storekeeper from lowering his prices to attract clients, since he is taking them from his competitors.

We continue to explore a Jewish theory of economics.

Bava Metzia 59: לְעוֹלָם יְהֵא אָדָם זָהִיר בְּאוֹנָאַת אִשְׁתּוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 59

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf continues with the theme that A man must be especially careful not to offend his wife with his words - or any other woman - because she may bring retribution on him with her tears. One must also be very careful about his wife's honor because a person's house is blessed only on account of his wife.

One must be very careful not to cause Ona'ah to his wife because her tears are frequent. (Shulchan Aruch CM 228:3)

Because a woman is naturally very soft and as a result of just a little bit of pain she cries and Hashem Yisbarach is Makpid on the tears because the gate of tears is never closed. (Sma)

We explore the complexity of marriage and spousal verbal abuse.

Bava Metzia 58: הַמַּלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵירוֹ בָּרַבִּים

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 58

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf teaches that ona’a – a term that we have defined as “monetary exploitation” or “unfair business transactions” – applies not only to buying and selling, but to other areas of personal interaction, as well. Thus, it is prohibited for a person to ask a shopkeeper for the price of an object that he has no interest in purchasing. This ona’at devarim (verbal mistreatment) applies in a range of other situations, as well – the Mishna includes reminding a ba’al teshuva (a penitent) of his earlier sins, or the child of a convert of the sins of his parents.

We discuss verbal abuse and shame and humiliation form the rabbinic perspective.

Bava Metzia 57: כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 57

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Sages conclude from the pasuk in Vayikra (25:14) – which is the source for the prohibition of ona’a – that ona’a applies only when something is sold or bought me-yad amitekhah – from your fellow’s hand.

Thus we conclude that ona’a does not apply in a number of cases, including the purchase of slaves, contracts, real estate, and things consecrated to the Temple.

Our daf further discussed these exceptions to ona’ah...

The mishna teaches: An unpaid bailee does not take an oath if these items were stolen or lost. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse that discusses an unpaid bailee:

“When a man delivers to his neighbor money or vessels to safeguard, and it is stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief is found, he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, then the master of the house shall approach the judge” (Exodus 22:6–7).

“When a man delivers to his neighbor” is a generalization; “money or vessels” is a detail. And when the verse states: “And it is stolen out of the man’s house,” it then generalizes again.

We explore this hermenutical principle of klal Pratt klal….כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל

Bava Metzia 56: אִם הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא בְיָדוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 56

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The first rule of the Mishna is that the rules of ona’ah (exploitation) – rules that forbid overcharging or undercharging at the time of sale – do not apply in any of the four cases.

The Gemara explains that this is learned from the passage that is the source of the prohibition of ona’ah (Vayikra 25:14), where the Torah teaches that ona’ah is forbidden when something is sold or bought me-yad amitekhah – from your fellow’s hand.

This is understood to exclude real estate which does not transfer from hand to hand.

The other cases are derived by the Gemara from the law about real estate.

We continue our exploration of canonized texts, early rabbinic authority and transmission.

Bava Metzia 55: שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּיָּינִין

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 55

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishna reminds us that an ona'a is defined as at least four silver me'a from the twenty-four silver me'a that make up a sela, or one-sixth. The smallest monetary court claim where a person can require an accused to take an oath is two silver me'a. A person is required to go to court only if their wrongdoing was worth at least one peruta.

The Gemara wonders whether demai, doubtful produce, should be in the same category as the other halachot which are Torah-given laws. They are reminded of Rabbi Meir's ruling regarding divorce. Laws regarding divorce were considered to be as important as Torah-derived laws.

We examine the notion of עָשׂוּ חֲכָמִים חִיזּוּק לְדִבְרֵיהֶם כְּשֶׁל תּוֹרָה and the development of rabbinic authority after the priesthood.

Bava Metzia 54: הַדְּמַאי – אֵין לוֹ חוֹמֶשׁ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 54

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Second tithe is the section of produce separated after a farmer has already separated and given teruma of their harvests to the priests and then first tithe to the levis. That second tithe is another tenth of the farmer's harvest.

On years one, two, four and five, it is brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. It is given to the poor on years three and six (year seven is shemita and farms are not harvested).

Because it may not be practical to bring that much produce to Jerusalem, farmers are allowed to redeem their second tithe for money which is spent on food bought and eaten only in Jerusalem. It costs an additional one-fifth to bring that money to Jerusalem. But is this payment required? Is a person punished for eating food paid for with the second tithe money if that person has not paid the additional fee?

TheMishnah (Demai) states The [second tithe of] demai is not subject to [the rules of adding a] fifth. It has no mandated time of removal. It may be eaten by an onen. It may be brought into Jerusalem and taken out again. They may allow a small amount to be lost on the road. One may give it to an am haaretz and consume its equivalent in Jerusalem. [Second tithe money of demai] may be redeemed silver [coins] for [other] silver [coins], copper [coins] for [other] copper [coins], silver for copper, and copper for produce, provided that the produce is again redeemed for money, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the produce itself must be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem.

Maimonides states "In the age of Yochanan the High Priest who served after Shimon the Just, the High Court sent emissaries who searched throughout the entire territory of Israel. They discovered that everyone was careful with regard to the great terumah and would separate it. But with regard to the first tithe, the second tithe, and the tithe for the poor, the common people among Israel would be lax and would not separate it. “

Which brings us to the Yochanan kohen Gadol ….He forced Idumaea to convert to Judaism, the first example of conversion imposed by the Jews in their history.