Bava Metzia 125

דמתרצנא מתני' כוותיה

for I interpret the Mishnayoth in accordance with his views. For R. Oshaia taught: If a man was his neighbour's creditor for a <i>maneh</i>, and he went and stood at his granary and said, 'Repay me my money, as I wish to purchase wheat therewith,' and he [the debtor] replied, 'I have wheat which I will supply you; go and charge me therewith against my debt at the current price.' The time came for selling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There was a time when wheat was generally sold, when it generally appreciated in value. ');">¹</span>

דתני ר' אושעיא הרי שהיה נושה בחבירו מנה והלך ועמד על גורנו ואמר תן לי מעותי שאני רוצה ליקח בהן חטין ואמר לו חטין יש לי שאני נותן לך צא ועשאן עלי כשער של עכשיו הגיע זמן חטין למכור אמר לו תן לי חטין שאני רוצה למוכרן וליקח בהן יין אמר לו יש לי יין שאני נותן לך צא ועשאן עלי כשער של עכשיו

and he said to him, 'Give me the wheat,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He had not given it to him before. ');">²</span>

הגיע זמן יין למכור ואמר לו תן לי ייני שאני רוצה למוכרו וליקח בו שמן אמר לו שמן יש לי שאני נותן לך צא ועשהו עלי כשער של עכשיו כולם אם יש לו מותר אין לו אסור ומאי לקח לקח בהלואתו

which I wish to sell and purchase wine with the proceeds;' to which he replied, 'I have wine; go and assess it for me at the current price.' Then the time came for selling wine, and he said to him, 'Give me my wine, for I wish to sell it and purchase oil for it;' to which he replied, 'I have oil to supply you; go and assess it for me at the current price:' in all these cases, if he possesses [these commodities] it is permitted; if not, it is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the debtor actually possesses these commodities, as soon as he agrees to furnish him with a certain quantity thereof, that quantity belongs to the creditor, even if he does not actually take it; and if it appreciates, his own appreciates, and there is no suggestion of usury, even if the transaction is made several times, each time at an enhanced value. But if the debtor lacks them, and when the bargain is struck, actually receives no money, it has the appearance of a ruse to increase his indebtedness (v. p. 373, nn. 4, 6), and is thus like usury, and consequently forbidden. ');">³</span>

אמר רבא שמע מינה מדר' אושעיא תלת שמע מינה דמעמידין מלוה על גבי פירות ולא אמרינן דלא כאיסרו הבא לידו הוא וש"מ הוא דיש לו וש"מ איתא לדרבי ינאי

[So in the Mishnah.] And what is meant by 'IF A MAN PURCHASED'? He purchased against his debt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus: A owing a gold denar to B, credited him with a kor of wheat for it, which was the current price; then the kor appreciated to 30 denarii, and A credited B with wine to the value of 30 denarii. Actually Raba's explanation coincides with Rabbah's (supra 62b); this is particularly evident from the reading of R. Han. and Alfasi, given p. 374, n. 4, in which Raba uses the same words as Rabbah; Raba merely quotes R. Oshaia's dictum to dispose of the difficulties urged against Rabbah's explanation, as is seen in the deductions he makes: v. n. 2. ');">⁴</span>

דאמר רבי ינאי מה לי הן מה לי דמיהן

Raba said: Three deductions follow from R. Oshaia: [i] the debt may be offset against provisions, and we do not say, it is not as if the <i>issar</i> had come to his hand;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This disposes of the criticism levelled on 62b against Rabbah's explanation on the strength of the Baraitha quoted there&nbsp;… R. Oshaia's dictum differs from that Baraitha, and Rabbah's interpretation, with which Raba's is identical (v. preceding note), agrees with R. Oshaia. ');">⁵</span>

דאתמר רב אמר עושין אמנה בפירות ואין עושין אמנה בדמים ור' ינאי אמר מה לי הן ומה לי דמיהן

[ii] but only if he [the debtor] possesses [these commodities]; and [iii] R. Jannai's view is correct, viz., what is the difference between them themselves [sc. the provisions] and the value thereof?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Talmud proceeds to explain this. ');">⁶</span>

מיתיבי כולם אם יש לו מותר אמר רב הונא אמר רב בשמשך אי בשמשך צריכא למימר אלא כגון שיחד לו קרן זוית

For it was stated: Rab said: One may buy on trust against [future delivery of] crops, but not against [repayment of] money at [future prices].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a man may buy crops at present prices, paying immediately, for delivery at some future date, even though they may have appreciated in the meanwhile. But he may not arrange to receive the future value of the crops, for since he may thus receive in actual money more than he gave, it has the appearance of usury. ');">⁷</span>

ושמואל אמר הא מני רבי יהודה היא דאמר צד אחד ברבית מותר

But R. Jannai said: What is the difference between them themselves [sc. the crops] and the value thereof?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he may receive the crops, though they represent more than was paid, he may also receive money in lieu thereof. R. Oshaia's ruling, that the creditor may be credited with wine calculated on the low price and according to the appreciated value of the wheat, supports this view, that the crops owing to him may be deemed as actual money. ');">⁸</span>

דתניא הרי שהיה נושה בחבירו מנה ועשה לו שדהו מכר בזמן שהמוכר אוכל פירות מותר לוקח אוכל פירות אסור ר' יהודה אומר אף בזמן שהלוקח אוכל פירות מותר

An objection was raised: In all these cases, if he possesses [these commodities], it is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Quoted from the Baraitha of R. Oshaia cited above; as this supports R. Jannai (v. preceding note), it refutes Rab. ');">⁹</span>

א"ל רבי יהודה מעשה בביתוס בן זונין שעשה שדהו מכר על פי ר' אלעזר בן עזריה ולוקח אוכל פירות היה אמרו לו משם ראיה מוכר אוכל פירות היה ולא לוקח

— R. Huna answered in Rab's name: This means that he drew [the produce into his possession].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is actually his own, and not merely a debt, and therefore the subsequent transactions are permitted; v. p. 374, n. 8. ');">¹⁰</span>

מאי בינייהו אמר אביי צד אחד ברבית איכא בינייהו רבא אמר רבית ע"מ להחזיר איכא בינייהו

If he drew it into his possession, need it be taught?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is then obvious! ');">¹¹</span>

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: