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]