Bava Metzia 143

אית ליה זכיה מדרבנן הכא נמי לא שנא

is nevertheless, by Rabbinical law, eligible to [vicarious] possession;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., an adult may take possession on behalf of a minor. ');">¹</span>

ולא היא ישראל אתי לכלל שליחות עכו"ם לא אתי לכלל שליחות

so here too, there is no difference.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence in the first clause, where the second borrower is presented to the heathen, the first Jew takes possession of the money which he was about to repay on behalf of the heathen, and therefore it is the latter's money that is lent on interest, and hence permissible. ');">²</span>

תנו רבנן ישראל שלוה מעות מן הנכרי ברבית וזקפן עליו במלוה ונתגייר אם קודם שנתגייר זקפן עליו במלוה גובה את הקרן וגובה את הרבית ואם לאחר שנתגייר זקפן עליו במלוה גובה את הקרן ואינו גובה את הרבית

But the analogy is false; an Israelite [minor] comes [eventually] within the principle of agency, but a heathen never does.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For to take possession on another man's behalf is akin to becoming his agent. Thus the Rabbis conferred upon a minor the privilege of being so benefited, because he is potentially an agent or a principal, but a heathen is not even potentially so. [Levinthal, I.H., JQR, (N.S.) XIII, p. 150, suggests the principal reason swaying the Rabbis in their decision barring the heathen from acting as agent to have been the fact that the agent in Jewish law is frequently compelled to take an oath, and the oath being considered a most sacred role in the life of the people there was no desire to force a heathen to comply with the strictness of that act.] ');">³</span>

וכן נכרי שלוה מעות מישראל ברבית וזקפן עליו במלוה ונתגייר אם עד שלא נתגייר זקפן עליו במלוה גובה את הקרן וגובה את הרבית אם משנתגייר זקפן עליו במלוה גובה את הקרן ואינו גובה את הרבית

Our Rabbis taught: If an Israelite borrowed money on interest from a heathen and then recorded them [Viz., the principal and the interest] against him as a loan,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., drew up a bond in which the combined principal and interest figured as the principal. ');">⁴</span>

רבי יוסי אומר נכרי שלוה מעות מישראל ברבית בין כך ובין כך גובה את הקרן וגובה את הרבית אמר רבא אמר רב חסדא אמר רב הונא הלכה כרבי יוסי אמר רבא מאי טעמא דרבי יוסי כדי שלא יאמרו בשביל מעותיו נתגייר זה

and he [the creditor] became a proselyte: if this settlement preceded his conversion, he may exact both the principal and the interest; if it followed his conversion, he may collect the principal, but not the interest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the bond was drawn up when he was forbidden usury. ');">⁵</span>

תנו רבנן שטר שכתוב בו רבית קונסין אותו ואינו גובה לא את הקרן ולא את הרבית דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים גובה את הקרן ואינו גובה את הרבית במאי קמיפלגי רבי מאיר סבר קנסינן התירא משום איסורא ורבנן סברי לא קנסינן התירא משום איסורא

Similarly, if a heathen borrowed money on interest from an Israelite, and then recorded them [the principal and the interest] against him as a loan, and became a proselyte: if the settlement preceded his conversion, he [the Israelite] may exact both the principal and the interest; if it followed his conversion, he may exact the principal but not the interest. R. Jose ruled: If a heathen borrowed money from an Israelite on interest, then in both cases [whether conversion preceded the settlement or the reverse] he may collect both the principal and the interest. Raba said in the name of R. Hisda in the name of R. Huna: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Jose. Raba said: What is the reason of R. Jose? That it should not be said that he turned a proselyte for the sake of money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To evade the payment of interest. ');">⁶</span>

תנן התם שטרי חוב המוקדמין פסולין והמאוחרין כשרין מוקדמין אמאי פסולין נהי דלא גבו מזמן ראשון ניגבו מזמן שני

Our Rabbis taught: If a bond contains interest written therein, he [the note-holder] is penalised and can collect neither the principal nor the interest; this is R. Meir's view. The Sages maintain: He may exact the principal, but not the interest. Wherein do they differ? — R. Meir is of the opinion that we inflict the forfeiture of what is permissible on account of what is forbidden; whilst the Sages hold that we do not inflict the forfeiture of the permissible on account of the forbidden.

אמר ר' שמעון בן לקיש במחלוקת שנויה ור"מ היא ורבי יוחנן אמר אפי' תימא רבנן גזירה שמא יגבה מזמן ראשון

We learnt elsewhere: Ante-dated bonds are invalid; post-dated bonds are valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sheb. X, 5; v. supra 17a. ');">⁷</span>

ההוא גברא דמשכין ליה פרדיסא לחבריה אכלה תלת שני א"ל אי מזבנית לה ניהלי מוטב ואי לא כבישנא לה לשטר משכנתא ואמינא לקוחה היא בידי

But why invalid? Though a seizure cannot be made by means of them as from the earlier [incorrect] date, why not seize [estate for repayment] as from the later [correct] date?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it is only right that the creditor should not seize land sold after the date of the bond but prior to the actual loan, why should he not seize land sold after the loan was made? ');">⁸</span>

אזל קם אקנייה לבנו קטן והדר זבנה ניהליה

— R. Simeon b. Lakish said: This was taught as a matter of dispute, and agrees with R. Meir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintains that we inflict the forfeiture of what is permissible on account of what is forbidden. So here too. ');">⁹</span>

זביני ודאי לא הוי זביני זוזי כמלוה בשטר דמו וגובה מנכסים משועבדים או דילמא כמלוה ע"פ דמו ואינו גובה מנכסים משועבדים אמר אביי ולאו היינו דרבי אסי דאמר ר' אסי

R. Johanan said: It may agree even with the Rabbis; but it is a precautionary measure, lest he exact [his debt from sold property] as from the earlier date.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To prevent this, such a bond was declared entirely invalid. ');">¹⁰</span> A man once pledged an orchard to his neighbour for ten years.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So according to some texts; v. D.S.] ');">¹¹</span> After he [the creditor] had taken its usufruct for three years, he proposed to him [the debtor], 'If you sell it to me, it is well; if not, I will hide the mortgage deed and claim that I have bought it.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Three years' possession of an estate establishes a presumptive title thereto, even without a deed of sale, the onus of disproof lying upon the first owner. ');">¹²</span> Thereupon he [the debtor] went, arose, transferred it to his young son [a minor], and then sold it to him. Now, the sale is certainly no sale;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it no longer belonged to the debtor (Rashi). ');">¹³</span> but is the [purchase-]money accounted as a written debt, and collectable from [sold] mortgaged property, or perhaps it is [only] as a verbal debt, which cannot be collected from mortgaged property?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When one sold land, he indemnified the purchaser against its possible seizure for the vendor's debt by mortgaging his other property to him, which he could in turn seize even if subsequently sold. Similarly, in a written loan the debtor's estates were held to be pledged, even if subsequently sold; but if the loan was merely verbal, the debt could be exacted only from the free estate. Now the question arises whether the purchase money in this case, which of course, the vendor must return, ranks as a written debt, or only as a verbal one. ');">¹⁴</span> Said Abaye: Is this not covered by R. Assi's dictum? Viz.,