Talmud - Bava Metzia 60b בבא מציעא ס׳ ב׳

The Gemara explains: It is due to the fact that by lowering the price he eases the market rate, i.e., his actions lead to the establishment of a lower market price.

The mishna teaches: And one may not sift ground beans to remove the waste and charge a higher price; this is the statement of Abba Shaul. And the Rabbis permit doing so. The Gemara comments: Who are the Rabbis whose opinion is cited in the mishna? It is Rabbi Aḥa, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Aḥa permits mixing, and sifting, and the like, in the case of an item in which the change is obvious.

The mishna taught: One may neither adorn a person, nor an animal, nor vessels. The Sages taught: One may neither stiffen the hair of an animal to create the impression that it is more voluminous than it is, nor inflate innards sold as meat to create the impression that it is a more substantial piece of meat, nor soak meat in water in order to change its color and create the impression that it is a choice cut. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: One may not stiffen the hair of an animal? Here, in Babylonia, they explained that it means to feed the animal bran water, which inflates its intestines and causes its hair to stand on end. Ze’eiri said in the name of Rav Kahana: It means scrubbing the hair clean to increase its volume.

The Gemara relates: Shmuel permitted sellers to place fringes on a cloak; Rav Yehuda permitted them to clean and adorn ornamented garments; Rabba permitted them to taper linen garments to cause them to appear more fine; Rava permitted them to draw arrows to ornament garments; Rav Pappa bar Shmuel permitted them to draw baskets for ornamentation. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: One may neither adorn a person, nor an animal, nor vessels? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this series of cases, where the Sages permitted adorning merchandise, are cases of new merchandise. It may be decorated, as doing so merely enhances its intrinsic beauty. That ruling in the mishna, according to which adornment is prohibited, is referring to cases of old merchandise, as the adornment is meant to conceal its flaws.

The Gemara asks: Adornment of a person, what is it? The Gemara relates: It is as in that incident involving a certain elderly slave who went and dyed his head and beard black to create a younger impression. He came before Rava and said to him: Purchase me as your slave. Rava said to him that there is a rabbinic adage: Let the poor be members of your household. I follow their advice and therefore do not require a slave. If I need assistance, the paupers who frequent my house can assist me.

The slave came before Rav Pappa bar Shmuel, who purchased him. One day Rav Pappa said to the slave: Give me water to drink. The slave went and removed the dye and whitened the hair on his head and his beard. The slave said to Rav Pappa: See that I am older than your father, and I am unfit to serve you. Rav Pappa read about himself: The righteous person is delivered from trouble, and another comes in his stead (see Proverbs 11:8). Rav Pappa applied the verse to the incident of the slave. The righteous person, Rava, was spared the problem of the slave; while another, Rav Pappa bar Shmuel, came in his stead.

MISHNA: The Torah states the prohibition against taking interest: “And if your brother becomes impoverished, and his hand falters with you, then you shall support him; whether a stranger or a native, he shall live with you. You shall not take from him interest [neshekh] or increase [tarbit]; you shall fear your God and your brother shall live with you. You shall not give him your money with neshekh and with marbit you shall not give him your food” (Leviticus 25:35–37). The mishna asks: Which is neshekh, and which is tarbit?

Which is the case in which there is neshekh? With regard to one who lends another a sela, worth four dinars, for five dinars to be paid later, or one who lends another two se’a of wheat for three se’a to be returned later, this is prohibited, as it is taking interest [noshekh].

And which is the case in which there is tarbit? It is the case of one who enters into a transaction that yields an increase in the produce beyond his investment. How so? For example, one acquired wheat from another at the price of one kor of wheat for one gold dinar, worth twenty-five silver dinars, with the wheat to be supplied at a later date, and such was the market price of wheat at the time he acquired it. The price of one kor of wheat then increased and stood at thirty dinars.

At that point, the buyer said to the seller: Give me all of my wheat now, as I wish to sell it and purchase wine with it. The seller said to him: Since it is ultimately wine that you want, not wheat, each kor of your wheat is considered by me to be worth thirty dinars, and you have the right to collect its value in wine from me. And in this case, the seller did not have wine in his possession. If wine then appreciates in value, the result will be an interest-bearing transaction, as the buyer collects from the seller wine worth more than the wheat for which he paid.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From the fact that in explaining the term tarbit, the tanna sets aside the topic of interest by Torah law, which is interest decided upon at the time of a loan, and instead explicates a case of lending with interest that is prohibited by rabbinic law, one can conclude by inference that by Torah law, neshekh and tarbit are one matter, and there is no halakhic distinction between them. The Gemara asks: But aren’t the verses written using the term neshekh for interest that is on a loan of money and tarbit or marbit, which are cognates of the term ribit, for interest that is on a loan of food? This is as the verse states: “You shall not give him your money with neshekh and with marbit you shall not give him your food” (Leviticus 25:37).

The Gemara asks: And can you understand that there is neshekh without tarbit, and tarbit without neshekh? The term neshekh, from a root meaning bite, connotes loss to the borrower, while the term tarbit, literally increase, connotes profit for the lender. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances where there could be neshekh without tarbit?

If it is in a case where one lends to another one hundred perutot with the agreement to be repaid one hundred and twenty, and initially one hundred copper perutot are worth one-sixth [bedanka] of a dinar, and ultimately, when he pays, one hundred and twenty perutot are worth one-sixth of a dinar, this is not an example of one without the other. Although one might say that there is neshekh, as the lender reduces the borrower’s assets since the lender takes in payment from the borrower coins that he did not give him in the loan, and there is no tarbit, as there is no profit for the lender in this transaction, since he lent him one-sixth of a dinar and he received from him one-sixth of a dinar, that is not correct.

The Gemara explains: Ultimately, if you go according to the initial value, when the loan was granted, there is neshekh and there is tarbit, as the borrower agreed to pay more than he received. If you go according to the ultimate value, when the loan was repaid, there is neither neshekh nor is there tarbit, as he repaid only the value he received.

Additionally, what are the circumstances in which there could be tarbit without neshekh? If it is in a case where one lends to another one hundred perutot with the agreement to be repaid one hundred, and initially one hundred copper perutot are worth one-sixth of a dinar, and ultimately, when he is repaid, one hundred perutot are worth one-fifth of a dinar, this is not an example of one without the other.

The Gemara explains: If you go according to the initial value, when the loan was granted, there is neither neshekh nor is there tarbit, as he is repaid only the value that he lent. If you go according to the ultimate value, when the loan was repaid, there is neshekh and there is tarbit, as the value of one hundred perutot has increased.

Rather, Rava said: You do not find neshekh without tarbit nor tarbit without neshekh, and the verse distinguished between them only so that lending with interest always involves violating two prohibitions.

The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “You shall not give him your money with neshekh and with marbit you shall not give him your food” (Leviticus 25:37). I have derived only that there is a prohibition of neshekh for a loan of money and a prohibition of ribit for a loan of food. From where is it derived that there is neshekh with regard to a loan of food as well? The baraita answers: A different verse states: “You shall not lend with interest [tashikh] to your brother: Neshekh of money, neshekh of food, neshekh of anything that is lent with interest [asher yishakh]” (Deuteronomy 23:20). The baraita continues: From where is it derived that there is ribit with regard to a loan of money? The verse states: “Neshekh of money.”

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Bava Metzia 60b examines fair trade rules, debating permissible sprucing of animals, meat, and garments versus deceptive market practices.