Responsa for Bava Metzia 114:19
אם משנתרמה התרומה
is again a general statement: now in a general proposition followed by a specialization and again by a general proposition you must be guided by the peculiarities of the specialization. Just as the specialization is clearly defined as something movable and of value in itself, so everything movable and intrinsically valuable [is included]. Thus real estate is excluded, not being movable; slaves are excluded, being assimilated to real estate; bills [too] are excluded, for though movables, they are not intrinsically valuable. As for sacred objects, Scripture writes, <i>[and if a man shall deliver unto] his neighbour</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 6. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> but not <i>hekdesh</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 94b, where it is stated that this passage, viz., Ex. XXII, 6-8, refers to a gratuitous bailee. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> NOR DOES A PAID BAILEE MAKE IT GOOD [etc.]. How do we know this? — For our Rabbis taught: <i>If a man deliver unto his neighbour</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 9. V. infra 94b, where this is said to refer to a paid bailee. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> — that is a general proposition; <i>an ass, or an ox, or a sheep</i> — that is a specialization; <i>or</i> any<i> beast to keep</i> — that is again a general proposition. Now, in a general proposition followed by a specialization followed again by a general proposition you must be guided solely by the specialization. Just as the specialization is clearly defined as a movable article which is intrinsically valuable, so everything movable which is intrinsically valuable [is included]. Thus real estate is excluded, not being movable; slaves are excluded, being assimilated to real estate; bills [too] are excluded, for though movables, they are not intrinsically valuable. As for sacred objects, Scripture saith, [<i>If a man deliver unto</i>] his neighbour; <i>'his neighbour'</i>, but not <i>hekdesh</i>. [FURTHERMORE,] A GRATUITOUS BAILEE DOES NOT SWEAR etc. But the following contradicts this: If townspeople sent their <i>shekels</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A capitation tax of one shekel was levied for the expenses of the communal sacrifices. Shek. 2a. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> and they were stolen or lost,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the hands of the messengers. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> — if [this happened] after the separation of the funds,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The shekels were arranged in three baskets at different periods of the year. The translation follows Tosaf. Rashi: If the court proceedings took place after etc. ');"><sup>23</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
A. This is undoubtedly prohibited. But since the lending of charity-funds at a definite rate of interest became such a widespread custom throughout the Kingdom that the prohibition of the practice would not be heeded even if the law became known we refrain from publicising this prohibition. This opinion is expressed, however, in order to urge the compliance with this prohibition in the future (but R. Meir would express no opinion as to the necessity of repaying the interest already collected).
SOURCES: Pr. 73; L. 478. Cf. L 234; Cr. 101, 109; Tesh. Maim. Mishpatim, 14; R. Asher, Responsa 13, 8; Agudah B.M. 73.
Teshuvot Maharam
A. B should not give the ten quarter-marks to the poor of that community, since it would constitute unlawful usury. If, however, B earned profit with the ten marks, he must give part of the profit to the poor of another city, since one is not permitted to profit from charity money.
SOURCES: Pr. 999.