Commentary for Bava Metzia 125:12

אמר רבא השתא דאמר רבי ינאי

— But, e.g., he assigned a corner [of the granary] to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Declaring, 'The wheat in this corner be yours for my debt.' R. Oshaia thus teaches that mere assignation has legal validity to render it his, and no longer a debt. ');">¹²</span> Samuel said: This is taught in accordance with R. Judah, who ruled: One-sided usury is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that which might result in an appearance of usury, as in the case under discussion. For he may give him the crops, in which case there is no suspicion of usury: only when he gives money in lieu thereof, does it appear as such. ');">¹³</span> For it has been taught: If a man was his neighbour's creditor for a <i>maneh</i>, for which he [conditionally] sold him his field;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'If I do not repay by a certain date, the field is sold to you from now;' v. infra 65b. ');">¹⁴</span> if the vendor enjoys the usufruct, it is permitted; if the purchaser, it is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For should the money be repaid, he will have received usury thereon. ');">¹⁵</span> R. Judah ruled: Even if the purchaser has the usufruct, it is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is not certain that the field will be redeemed, in which case there is no usury. Hence it is regarded as 'one-sided' usury', which R. Judah permits. ');">¹⁶</span> R. Judah said to them: It once happened that Boethus b. Zunin [conditionally] sold his field, with the approval of R. Eleazar b. Azariah, and the purchaser took the usufruct. Said they to him: [Would you adduce] proof from thence? The vendor enjoyed its usufruct, not the purchaser. Wherein do they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah and the Rabbis who oppose him. ');">¹⁷</span> differ? — Abaye said: They differ with respect to one-sided interest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained above. ');">¹⁸</span> Raba said: They differ with respect to interest [received] on condition that it shall be returned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even R. Judah admits that if the purchaser retains the crops after repayment, it is forbidden. But they differ where it is stipulated that if the loan is repaid, the creditor must return the value of the crops he has taken. R. Judah permits this arrangement, since thereby an infringement of usury is precluded, whilst the Rabbis maintain that even this is forbidden, for when he enjoys the usufruct it is actually interest on money lent (Rashi). Tosaf. explains that there is a real possibility of interest. Thus: should he fail to repay the entire loan, the creditor retains the whole value of the crops, even if it exceeds the deficit. ');">¹⁹</span> Raba said: Now that R. Jannai ruled:

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 125:12. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.