Bava Metzia 142

ערב למאן אילימא ערב לישראל והא תנא אלו עוברין בלא תעשה המלוה והלוה הערב והעדים

A surety to whom? Shall we say to an Israelite?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., on behalf of a Jew borrowing from a Jew. ');">¹</span>

אלא לנכרי וכיון דדיניה דנכרי דאזיל בתר ערבא איהו ניהו דקא שקיל מיניה רביתא

But we learnt: The following violate the negative precept: The lender, the borrower, the surety, and the witnesses!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 75b. ');">²</span>

אמר רב ששת שקיבל עליו לדון בדיני ישראל אי קיבל עליו לדון בדיני ישראל רבית נמי לא לשקול אמר רב ששת שקיבל עליו לזו ולא קיבל עליו לזו:

Again if it means to a heathen:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a surety on behalf of a Jewish borrower to a Gentile lender. ');">³</span>

מלוה ישראל מעותיו של נכרי מדעת הנכרי כו': תנו רבנן מלוה ישראל מעותיו של נכרי מדעת הנכרי אבל לא מדעת ישראל כיצד ישראל שלוה מעות מן הנכרי ברבית וביקש להחזירם לו מצאו ישראל אחר ואמר לו תנם לי ואני אעלה לך כדרך שאתה מעלה לו אסור ואם העמידו אצל נכרי מותר

since, however, it is the law of the heathen<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., according to Persian law, v. B.B. 173b.] ');">⁴</span>

וכן נכרי שלוה מעות מישראל ברבית וביקש להחזירם לו מצאו ישראל אחר ואמר לו תנם לי ואני אעלה לך כדרך שאתה מעלה לו מותר ואם העמידו אצל ישראל אסור

to claim direct from the surety, it is he [the surety] who borrows from him!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the point of view of Jewish law there are two transactions in this loan: the surety borrows money from the Gentile and pays interest thereon, and lends money to the Jew, upon which he receives interest. Hence it should be forbidden. ');">⁵</span>

בשלמא סיפא לחומרא אלא רישא כיון דאין שליחות לנכרי איהו ניהו דקא שקיל מיניה רביתא

— R. Shesheth answered: It means that he engaged himself to bring his actions in accordance with Jewish law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Should the debtor fail to repay, he would bring an action against him first. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רב הונא בר מנוח משמיה דרב אחא בריה דרב איקא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דאמר ליה הניחם על גבי קרקע והיפטר אי הכי מאי למימרא

But if he engaged to abide by Jewish law, he should not take usury either! — R. Shesheth replied: He pledged himself for the one but not for the other.

אלא אמר רב פפא כגון שנטל ונתן ביד ואכתי מאי למימרא מהו דתימא נכרי גופיה כי עביד אדעתא דישראל קא גמיר ויהיב קמ"ל

AN ISRAELITE MAY LEND A HEATHEN'S MONEY [ON INTEREST] WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE HEATHEN, BUT NOT OF THE ISRAELITE. Our Rabbis taught: An Israelite may lend a heathen's money [on interest] with the knowledge of the heathen, but not of the Israelite. E.g., if an Israelite borrowed money from a heathen on interest, and was about to repay it, when another Israelite met him and proposed. 'Give it to me and I will pay you as you pay him' — that is forbidden; but if he presented him to the heathen,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., obtained the Gentile's authority for the transaction. ');">⁷</span>

רב אשי אמר כי אמרינן אין שליחות לנכרי הני מילי בתרומה אבל בכל התורה כולה יש שליחות לנכרי

it is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For then the Jew is merely the agent of the Gentile, and it is the latter who makes the loan, not the former. ');">⁸</span>

והא דרב אשי ברותא היא מאי שנא תרומה דלא דכתיב (במדבר יח, כח) אתם גם אתם מה אתם בני ברית אף שלוחכם נמי בני ברית

Similarly, if a heathen borrowed money from an Israelite on interest, and was about to repay it, when another Israelite met him and proposed. 'Give it to me, and I will pay you as you pay him,' it is permitted; but if he presented him to the Israelite, it is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For then the Gentile is merely the agent of the Jew. ');">⁹</span>

שליחות דכל התורה כולה נמי מתרומה גמרינן לה אלא דרב אשי ברותא היא

Now, the second clause is well, for there the ruling is in the direction of greater stringency; but as for the first clause, since the law of agency does not apply to a heathen, it is he [the Israelite] who takes interest from him [his fellow-Israelite]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is a well-defined principle in Jewish law that a man's agent is legally as himself. But this does not hold good between a Jew and a heathen. Now, in the second clause, where the heathen presents the Jewish borrower to the Jewish lender, yet actually gives his own money, the transaction should be permitted, because he cannot be legally regarded as the Jew's agent. Nevertheless, since the transaction does appear as between two Jews, the heathen acting merely as a vehicle of delivery, the Rabbis recognised the principle of agency, and forbade it. But in the first clause, where the Jew actually gives the money to his fellow-Jew, why should he be regarded as an agent of the heathen, and the transaction rendered legal? ');">¹⁰</span>

איכא דאמרי אמר רב אשי כי אמרינן אין שליחות לנכרי הני מילי אינהו לדידן אבל אנן לדידהו הוינא להו שליח והא דרב אשי ברותא היא מ"ש אינהו לדידן דלא דכתיב אתם גם אתם לרבות שלוחכם מה אתם בני ברית אף שלוחכם בני ברית

— R. Huna b. Manoah said in the name of R. Aha, the son of R. Ika: Here it is meant that he [the heathen] said to him [the Israelite], 'put it [the money] on the ground and you may go.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the second Jew does not receive it from the first. ');">¹¹</span>

אנן לדידהו נמי מה אתם בני ברית קאמר אלא הא דרב אשי ברותא היא

If so, why state it? — But, said R. Papa, it means, e.g., that he [the heathen] took it [from the first creditor] and personally gave it [to the second]. Yet even so, why state it? — I might think that the heathen himself, in acting so, transfers the money pursuant to the wish of the Israelite,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that he is merely the means of the actual loan from one Jew to another. ');">¹²</span>

רבינא אמר נהי דשליחות לנכרי לית ליה זכיה מדרבנן אית ליה מידי דהוי אקטן קטן לאו אף על גב דלית ליה שליחות

therefore it is taught otherwise. R. Ashi said: When do we maintain that agency cannot be vested in a heathen, only in reference to <i>terumah</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. A Jew cannot appoint a heathen to separate his terumah for him. ');">¹³</span> but in all other Biblical matters the principle of agency holds good in the case of a heathen. This [distinction], however, of R. Ashi must be rejected.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] V. Supra, p. 47, n. 1. ');">¹⁴</span> For why does <i>terumah</i> differ, that [agency] is not [allowed to a heathen]? Because it is written, [<i>Thus</i>] <i>ye, ye also</i> [<i>shall offer an heave offering</i> etc.],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 28. It would have been sufficient to state, 'Thus ye shall offer etc.'; it is a general principle of exegesis that 'also' ([H]) denotes extension; hence 'ye also' implies that someone besides yourselves may separate your terumah. At the same time, since the extension is directly applied to 'ye', those whom it includes must be similar to 'ye'. ');">¹⁵</span> [teaching], just as ye are members of the Covenant, so also must your deputies be members of the Covenant! But [is not] the principle of agency, as applied to all Biblical matters, derived from <i>terumah</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Kid. 41b; hence just as a heathen cannot be deputed to separate terumah, so he is invalid in all other matters. ');">¹⁶</span> Hence R. Ashi's distinction is to be rejected. Others state: R. Ashi said: In what sense do we maintain that agency cannot be vested in a heathen, only that they cannot be agents for us; but we can be agents for them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence in the first clause under discussion the loan is permissible, if the second Jew was presented to the heathen, even if the money passed directly from one Jew to another. ');">¹⁷</span> But this [distinction] of R. Ashi is to be rejected. For why the difference, that they cannot be agents for us? Because it is written, 'Ye, ye also', which teaches the inclusion of your agents; just as 'ye' are members of the Covenant, so must your agents be members of the Covenant? But with reference to ourselves being agents to them, does not the same [exegesis] apply: by 'just as "ye" [who appoint agents],' members of Covenant are meant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the same exegesis which shows that the agents must be Jews, also shews that the principals must be Jews. ');">¹⁸</span> Hence R. Ashi's distinction is non-acceptable. Rabina said: Though a heathen has no power of agency, yet, by Rabbinical law, one can obtain possession on his behalf. For this is similar to a minor: surely, a minor, though excluded from the principle of agency,