Bava Metzia 140

Chapter 140

א <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אין מקבלין צאן ברזל מישראל מפני שהוא רבית אבל מקבלין צאן ברזל מן העכו"ם
1 <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. ONE MAY NOT ACCEPT FROM AN ISRAELITE AN 'IRON FLOCK' [INVESTMENT WITH COMPLETE IMMUNITY FOR THE INVESTOR], BECAUSE THAT IS USURY. BUT SUCH MAY BE ACCEPTED FROM HEATHENS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 405, n. 3. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב ולוין מהן ומלוין אותן ברבית וכן בגר תושב מלוה ישראל מעותיו של עכו"ם מדעת העכו"ם אבל לא מדעת ישראל:
2 AND ONE MAY BORROW FROM AND LEND TO THEM ON INTEREST. THE SAME APPLIES TO A RESIDENT ALIEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. [H], one who, for the sake of acquiring citizenship in Palestine, renounced idolatry and undertook to observe the Seven Noachian laws, the laws binding upon all mankind. [For a full discussion of the term v. Moore, G. F., Judaism I. 338ff.] ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> למימרא דברשותא דמקבל קיימא ורמינהו המקבל צאן ברזל מן הנכרים ולדות פטורין מן הבכורה
3 AN ISRAELITE MAY LEND A GENTILES MONEY [ON INTEREST] WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE GENTILE, BUT NOT OF THE ISRAELITE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The meaning of this is discussed in the Gemara. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד אמר אביי לא קשיא הא דמקבל עליה אונסא וזולא הא דלא קביל עליה אונסא וזולא
4 <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Shall we say that it stands under the ownership of the contractor?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is regarded as interest. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה א"ל רבא אי דקביל עליה מרה אונסא וזולא צאן ברזל קרית ליה
5 But the following is opposed thereto: If one undertakes [to breed sheep] on 'iron flock' terms for a heathen,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to divide the profit, whilst guaranteeing the heathen full security against loss. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו ועוד אדתני סיפא אבל מקבלין צאן ברזל מן העכו"ם ליפלוג בדידיה במה דברי' אמורים דלא קביל עליה אונסא וזולא אבל קביל מרה אונסא וזולא שפיר דמי
6 the young are exempt from [the law of] firstlings!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated above (Mishnah, 69b), the young are equally divided between the investor and breeder. Now, if the young themselves calved, though half of them belong to the Jew, the obligation of firstlings does not apply to them. This proves that they are regarded as the property of the investor, not the contractor. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ז אלא אמר רבא אידי ואידי דלא קביל עליה מרה אונסא וזולא וגבי בכורות היינו טעם דולדות פטורין מן הבכורה כיון דאי לא יהיב זוזי אתי נכרי תפיס לה לבהמה ואי לא משכח לה לבהמה תפיס להו לולדות והוי ליה יד נכרי באמצע
7 — Abaye answered: There is no difficulty; in the one case, he [the owner] accepted [the risk of] unpreventable accident and depreciation; in the other, he did not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the investor accepts these risks ([H]), the property stands under his ownership, and hence the law of firstlings does not apply. If the contractor accepts full risks, there is usury, which in the case of a Jewish investor is forbidden. [Gulak, Tarbiz. III, p. 140, suggests that the phrase [H] means accident due to fall in the market price. Abaye accordingly was referring to the original type of 'iron flock' investment in which the responsibility assumed by the contractor was limited to injuries to the 'body of the investment itself.'] ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ח וכל יד נכרי באמצע פטור מן הבכורה
8 Said Raba to him: If the owner accepts the risk of depreciation and [unpreventable] accidents, do you designate it 'iron flock'? Moreover, instead of the second clause teaching, BUT SUCH MAY BE ACCEPTED FROM GENTILES, let a distinction be drawn and taught in that [sc. the first clause] itself, [thus:] When does this hold good [that 'iron flock' may not be accepted from a Jew], only if he [the investor] does not bear the risk of unpreventable accidents or depreciation; but if the investor accepts these risks, it is permissible? — But, said Raba, in both cases [viz., as taught in our Mishnah and with reference to firstlings] he [the investor] does not accept the risk of accidental damage or depreciation; but with respect to the firstlings, this is the reason that the young are exempt thereof: since if he [the breeder] did not render the money,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Due pursuant to the agreement. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ט (משלי כח, ח) מרבה הונו בנשך ותרבית לחונן דלים יקבצנו מאי לחונן דלים אמר רב כגון שבור מלכא
9 the heathen would come and seize the cow [entrusted to the breeder in the first place], and should he not find the cow, seize the young, it is a case of 'the hand of a heathen coming in the middle',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the heathen retains certain rights therein. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
י אמר רב נחמן אמר לי הונא לא נצרכא אלא דאפילו רבית דעובד כוכבים איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן (דברים כג, כא) לנכרי תשיך מאי תשיך לאו תשוך לא תשיך
10 and wherever that is so, there is exemption from the law of firstlings:
יא לא סגי דלאו הכי לאפוקי אחיך דלא
11 <i>He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that pitieth the poor</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XXVIII, 8. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יב אחיך בהדיא כתב ביה ולאחיך לא תשיך לעבור עליו בעשה ולא תעשה
12 Who is meant by, for him that pitieth the poor? — Rab said: e.g., King Shapur.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shapur I, King of Persia, and a contemporary of Samuel (third century), with whom he was on terms of intimacy. He took money from the Jews and made grants thereof to poor heathens. (Rashi: To heathens, who are poor in that they have no fulfilment of precepts and good deeds to their credit.) ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יג איתיביה לוין מהן ומלוין אותם ברבית וכן בגר תושב אמר רב חייא בריה דרב הונא לא נצרכא אלא
13 R. Nahman observed: Huna told me that [this verse] is needed to show that usury [taken] even from a heathen [leads to loss of one's wealth]. Raba objected to R. Nahman: Unto a stranger <i>tashshik</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 21. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> now, what is meant by <i>'tashshik</i>': surely that 'thou mayest receive usury'? — No: 'thou mayest give usury.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 363, n. 4. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> [What!] Cannot one do without?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This objection is based on the hypothesis that the verse cannot be merely permissive, 'thou mayest give usury to heathens', since there was never any reason for supposing otherwise. Hence it can only mean (on R. Nahman's interpretation), 'thou must give usury to a Gentile', which is absurd. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> — It is to exclude 'thy brother,' [to whom thou mayest] not [give usury].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the law is only permissive, but stated in order to exclude a Jew, by implication. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> As for thy brother, is it not explicitly stated, <i>but unto thy brother thou shalt not give usury</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So rendered on R. Nahman's views. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> — [To intimate] that both a positive and negative injunction are violated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By giving usury to a Jew. For the negative implication of 'unto the Gentile thou mayest give usury' is technically a positive command, since cast in that form. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> He [further] raised an objection: ONE MAY BORROW FROM AND LEND MONEY TO THEM ON INTEREST, AND THE SAME APPLIES TO A RESIDENT ALIEN!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus distinctly stating that it is permitted. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> — R. Hiyya, the son of R. Huna, said: This [permission] is granted only [up to]