Bava Metzia 123

(ויקרא כה, לו) וחי אחיך עמך אהדר ליה כי היכי דניחי

[<i>Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God;] that thy brother may live with thee;</i> [implying] return it to him, that he may be able to live with thee.

ורבי יוחנן האי וחי אחיך עמך מאי עביד ליה מבעי ליה לכדתניא שנים שהיו מהלכין בדרך וביד אחד מהן קיתון של מים אם שותין שניהם מתים ואם שותה אחד מהן מגיע לישוב דרש בן פטורא מוטב שישתו שניהם וימותו ואל יראה אחד מהם במיתתו של חבירו עד שבא ר' עקיבא ולימד וחי אחיך עמך חייך קודמים לחיי חבירך

Now how does R. Johanan interpret, <i>'that thy brother may live with thee</i>?' — He utilises it for that which was taught: If two are travelling on a journey [far from civilisation], and one has a pitcher of water, if both drink, they will [both] die, but if one only drinks, he can reach civilisation, — The Son of Patura taught: It is better that both should drink and die, rather than that one should behold his companion's death. Until R. Akiba came and taught: 'that thy brother may live with thee:' thy life takes precedence over his life.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With thee implies that thy life takes first place, but that he too has a right to life after thine is assured. [For an excellent exposition of R. Akiba's dictum, v. Simon, Leon, Essays on Zionism and Judaism by Achad Ha-am (1922}, pp. 236ff.] ');">¹</span>

מיתיבי הניח להם אביהם מעות של רבית אע"פ שיודעים שהן של רבית אינן חייבין להחזירן הא אביהן חייב להחזיר

An objection was raised: If their father left them usury money, though they know it to be usury, they are not bound to return it. [This implies,] But their father is bound to return it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus contradicting R. Johanan's ruling. ');">²</span>

בדין הוא דאבוהון נמי לא מיחייב להחזיר ואיידי דקא בעי למתני סיפא הניח להן אביהם פרה וטלית וכל דבר המסוים חייבין להחזיר מפני כבוד אביהם תני נמי רישא בדידהו

— In truth, their father too is not bound to return it: but because the second clause desires to state, 'If their father left them a cow, or a garment, or any distinguishable object [received as interest], they must return it for the sake of their father's honour,' the first clause too is taught with reference to them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But the father himself cannot be compelled to make restitution. ');">³</span>

והני מפני כבוד אביהם מי מיחייבי קרי כאן (שמות כב, כז) ונשיא בעמך לא תאר בעושה מעשה עמך

But are they then bound to make restitution for the sake of their father's honour? [Why not] apply here, Thou shalt not curse a ruler of thy people,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 27: this is interpreted as a general injunction to safeguard another Jew's honour. ');">⁴</span>

כדאמר ר' פנחס משמיה דרבא בשעשה תשובה הכא נמי בשעשה תשובה אי עשה תשובה מאי בעי גביה שלא הספיק להחזיר עד שמת

[which means], only if he acts as is fitting for 'thy people'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., righteously. But if a man took usury, his children are under no obligation to safeguard his honour. ');">⁵</span>

מיתיבי הגזלנין ומלוי רבית אע"פ שגבו מחזירין גזלנין מאי אע"פ שגבו איכא אי גזול גזול אי לא גזול גזלנין קרית להו אלא אימא גזלנין מאי ניהו מלוי רבית אע"פ שגבו מחזירין

— It is as R. Phinehas [in another connection] said in Raba's name: If he repented; so here too, [we deal with a case] where he repented. But if he repented, how came it [the money] to be still in his possession?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For true repentance necessitates the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken. ');">⁶</span>

תנאי היא דתניא רבי נחמיה ורבי אליעזר בן יעקב פוטרין את המלוה ואת הערב מפני שיש בהן קום עשה מאי קום עשה לאו משום דאמרינן להו קומו אהדורו

— He died before he had time to return it.

מכלל דתנא קמא סבר לאו בני אהדורי נינהו לא מאי קום עשה לקרוע שטרא

An objection was raised: Robbers, and those who lend on usury, even when they have exacted it, must make restitution. Now, how can 'even when they have exacted it' apply to robbers? If it is robbed, it is robbed; and if not, can you call them robbers? But say thus: Robbers; and those meant thereby are those who lend upon usury, even when they have exacted it, must make restitution! — It is a dispute of Tannaim. For it was taught: R. Nehemiah and R. Eliezer b. Jacob exempt the lender and the surety [from punishment],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The penalty of lashes attached to the injunction against interest. ');">⁷</span>

מאי קסבר אי קסבר שטר העומד לגבות כגבוי דמי והא עבדו איסורייהו ואי לאו כגבוי דמי הא לא עבוד ולא כלום

because they have a positive duty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'because there is " arise="" and="" do"="" in="" their="" case.'="" the="" transgression="" of="" a="" negative="" command="" is="" punished="" by="" flagellation,="" but="" not="" if="" it="" can="" be="" remedied="" subsequent="" positive="" action.="" ');"="">⁸</span>

לעולם קסבר שטר העומד לגבות לאו כגבוי דמי והא קא משמע לן דשומא מילתא היא

Now, what is meant by a 'positive duty'? Surely that we bid them, 'Arise and return [the usury];' from which it follows that the first Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The existence of another Tanna who disputes this is assumed, since this is stated in the name of particular teachers, instead of anonymously. ');">⁹</span>

הכי נמי מסתברא דתנן אלו עוברים בלא תעשה המלוה והלוה הערב והעדים בשלמא כולהו עבוד מעשה אלא עדים מאי עבוד אלא לאו שמע מינה דשומא מילתא היא ש"מ

maintains that they are not bound to make a return.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [And consequently the wrong they had committed cannot be remedied.] ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רב ספרא כל שאילו בדיניהם מוציאים מלוה למלוה בדינינו מחזירין ממלוה ללוה כל שאילו בדיניהם אין מוציאין מלוה למלוה בדינינו אין מחזירין ממלוה ללוה

No! By 'positive duty' is meant [that they are bid] to tear up the bond [of indebtedness].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., having lent money upon interest, and drawn up a bond, it is the lender's duty to tear it up, thus rendering it invalid. [Where, however, payment was exacted, restitution effects no remedy of the offence.] ');">¹¹</span>

א"ל אביי לרב יוסף וכללא הוא והרי סאה בסאה דבדיניהם מוציאין מלוה למלוה ובדינינו אין מחזירין ממלוה ללוה אמר ליה אינהו בתורת פקדון אתא לידיה

But what is his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Nehemiah's and R. Eliezer b. Jacob's. ');">¹²</span>

א"ל רבינא לרב אשי והרי משכנתא בלא נכייתא דבדיניהם מוציאין מלוה למלוה

opinion? If he maintains: A bond, which is destined to be exacted, is as though it were already exacted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that tearing up the bond is the equivalent of returning the interest. ');">¹³</span> they have [already] committed their transgression!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [And if the tearing up of the bond is considered a remedial action, why should the return of the interest, where actually exacted, not be considered so?] ');">¹⁴</span> Whilst if it is not as already collected, they have committed no wrong!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who then can dispute that they are exempt from punishment? ');">¹⁵</span> — In truth, in his view a bond, destined to be exacted, is not as though already exacted, and what he teaches us is that the [mere] 'putting on' [of usury] is a transgression.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex. XXII, 24. For which, in the view of the first Tanna, punishment is incurred, whilst R. Eliezer b. Jacob and R. Nehemiah exempt them therefrom, because it may be followed by a positive action remedying it. ');">¹⁶</span> This also stands to reason. For we learnt: The following transgress the negative injunction: the lender, the borrower, the surety and the witnesses.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 75b. ');">¹⁷</span> Now, with respect to all, it is well, [since] they commit an action. But what have the witnesses done? Hence it surely must be that the [mere] 'putting on' [of usury] is a substantial act [and in this case, a transgression]. This proves it. R. Safra said: Wherever by their law [i.e., non-Jewish law] exaction is made from the debtor for the creditor, restoration is made by our law from the creditor to the debtor; wherever by their law there is no exaction from the debtor to the creditor, there is no restoration by our law from the creditor to the debtor. Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Now, is this a general rule? Behold, there is the case of a <i>se'ah</i> [lent] for a <i>se'ah</i> which, by their law, the debtor is forced to repay the creditor, yet by ours it is not returnable from the creditor to the debtor!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jewish law prohibits the lending of a measure of wheat for the return of a similar measure, as the wheat may at the time of repayment stand at a higher price (v. infra 75a); by Gentile law, this transaction is permissible, and the debtor must repay it to the creditor. Yet though Jewish law forbids it, the debtor cannot demand its return after repayment, since it is only indirect interest. ');">¹⁸</span> He replied, They [regard it] as having come into his possession merely as a trust.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in their view, it is not interest at all. A entrusts a se'ah to B, and then B returns it. But R. Safra referred to what the Gentiles recognised as interest, which by their code is permissible. ');">¹⁹</span> Rabina said to R. Ashi: But mortgages without deduction,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the debtor mortgages a field of which the creditor takes possession and enjoys the usufruct without deducting its value from the principal. This is prohibited; v. 67b. ');">²⁰</span> which by their law is exacted from the debtor for the creditor,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the debtor retained the produce for himself the creditor can claim it from him at law. ');">²¹</span>