Commentary for Bava Metzia 120:19

ת"ר (ויקרא כה, לז) את כספך לא תתן לו בנשך ובמרבית לא תתן אכלך אין לי אלא נשך בכסף וריבית באוכל נשך באוכל מנין ת"ל (דברים כג, כ) נשך אוכל ריבית בכסף מנין תלמוד לומר נשך כסף

WHICH WAS THE CURRENT PRICE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One may purchase 'futures' in wheat at the current price, paying for it at the time of purchase and receiving it later, even if the price advances, without infringing the prohibition of usury. ');">¹⁹</span> AND [SUBSEQUENTLY] WHEAT APPRECIATED TO THIRTY <i>DENARII</i> PER <i>KOR</i>. THEN [THE PURCHASER] SAID TO HIM, 'GIVE ME MY WHEAT, AS I WISH TO SELL IT AND BUY WINE WITH THE PROCEEDS;' TO WHICH [THE VENDOR] REPLIED, 'LET THE WHEAT BE CHARGED TO ME AS A DEBT OF THIRTY <i>DENARII</i> [PER <i>KOR</i>]. AND YOU HAVE A CLAIM OF WINE UPON ME FOR ITS VALUE;'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pricing the wine too at current rates. ');">²⁰</span> BUT HE ACTUALLY HAS NO WINE [AT THE TIME]. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Now, since he [the Tanna] disregards<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In his explanation of marbith. ');">²¹</span> the Biblical [meaning of] interest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is usury on a loan transaction. ');">²²</span> and defines its Rabbinical [connotation]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The illustration of marbith by way of purchase in the Mishnah being a Rabbinical extension of the law.] ');">²³</span> it follows that Biblically speaking <i>neshek</i> and <i>tarbith</i> are Synonymous: whereas [in fact] there are Scriptural expressions, <i>neshek</i> of money, and <i>ribbith</i> of food!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thou shalt not give him any money upon neshek, nor lend him thy victuals for marbith. Lev. XXV, 37. ');">²⁴</span> — Do you think then that there can be <i>neshek</i> [loss to the debtor] without <i>tarbith</i> [profits to the creditor], or <i>tarbith</i> without <i>neshek</i>? How might there be <i>neshek</i> without <i>tarbith</i>? If he lent him a hundred [perutahs] for one hundred and twenty [perutahs], at first [when the loan is made] a <i>danka</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pers. dankh; [G], a small Persian coin, the sixth of a denar, in general, one-sixth. ');">²⁵</span> being valued at a hundred [perutahs], and subsequently [when the loan was repaid] at a hundred and twenty,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Rashi. Tosaf., however, points out that the current value of a sixth of a denar was 32 perutahs, and it is inconceivable that the perutah should depreciate to such an extent. Tosaf, therefore renders: a hundred ma'ahs (ma'ah = a sixth of the denar = a danka) for a sixth of a maneh (maneh = 100 common shekels or zuz); or 100 issars (issar = 8 perutahs) for a sixth of a gold denar. ');">²⁶</span> there is <i>neshek</i>, for he 'bites' him [the debtor] by taking from him something which he [the creditor] did not give; yet there is no <i>tarbith</i> [to the creditor], for there is no profit, since he lent him a <i>danka</i> and received back a <i>danka</i>! But, after all, if the original rate is the determining factor,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if you go according to the beginning'. ');">²⁷</span> there is both <i>neshek</i> and <i>tarbith</i>; if the subsequent rate, there is neither <i>neshek</i> nor <i>tarbith</i>? Furthermore, how is <i>tarbith</i> [profit to the creditor] conceivable without <i>neshek</i> [loss to the debtor]? If he lent him a hundred [perutahs] for a hundred, the hundred being worth a <i>danka</i> at first, and now a fifth:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a denar, or, as stated above in n. 3. ');">²⁸</span> if you regard the first rate, there is neither <i>neshek</i> nor <i>tarbith</i>; if the final rate, there is both <i>neshek</i> and <i>tarbith</i>! — But, said Raba, you can find neither <i>neshek</i> without <i>tarbith</i> nor <i>tarbith</i> without <i>neshek</i>, and the only purpose of Scripture in stating them separately<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXV, 37, quoted in n. 1. ');">²⁹</span> is [to teach] that one transgresses two prohibitions [by taking interest].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each involving the penalty of lashes. ');">³⁰</span> Our Rabbis taught: [<i>Thou shalt not give him thy money upon <i>neshek</i> [usury], nor lend him thy victuals for <i>marbith</i> [interest]</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 37. ');">³¹</span> [from this] I only know that the prohibition of <i>neshek</i> applies to money, and that of <i>ribbith</i> to provisions:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that in lending money on interest, the prohibition of neshek, and in lending provisions on interest, the prohibitions of ribbith, are violated. ');">³²</span> whence do we know that [the prohibition] <i>neshek</i> applies to provisions [too]? From the verse, [Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother <i>neshek</i> of money], <i>neshek</i> of victuals.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 20. ');">³³</span> Whence do we know that the prohibition of <i>ribbith</i> applies to money? From the verse, <i>neshek</i> of money:

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 120:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.