Talmud - Bava Metzia 65a בבא מציעא ס״ה א׳

as it is satisfactory for the master that the work habits of his slave not be undone.

Rava said to him: This statement of Rav Daniel applies when the one who seizes the slave is not owed money by the owner of the slave. But since the Master is owed money by the owner of the slave, this has the appearance of interest, as Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says: Even though the Sages said that one who resides in another’s courtyard without his knowledge does not have to pay him rent, nevertheless, if he lent a courtyard owner money and then resides in his courtyard, the lender must pay him rent. Rav Yosef bar Ḥama said to him: I retract my opinion, and I will no longer seize the slaves of my debtors.

§ Abaye said: In the case of this one, who was owed a dinar of interest by another, and wheat was going for the price of four se’a [gerivei] for a dinar in the market, and the borrower gave the lender five se’a of wheat as the interest payment, when we, the court, remove the interest the lender took from the borrower, we remove only four se’a, worth one dinar, from the lender. As the other, additional se’a is a discount he granted him, it is merely a favor, not counted as part of the interest. Rava said: We take all five se’a from him, as all of the wheat initially came into his possession in the form of interest, and therefore it is all classified as interest.

And Abaye said: In the case of this one, who was owed four dinars of interest by another, and the borrower gave him a cloak as payment for it, when we take the interest from the lender we take four dinars from him, but we do not take the actual cloak from him, as the giving of the cloak is considered a sale. Rava said: We take the cloak from him. What is the reason for this? So that people should not say that the cloak so-and-so is wearing is a cloak procured as interest.

Rava further said: Consider the case of this one, who was owed twelve dinars of interest by another, and the lender rented a courtyard from the borrower that was generally rented for ten dinars, but he rented it to him with the price inflated to twelve dinars. The borrower agreed to forgo the entire rental payment, thereby effectively repaying the twelve dinars of interest. When we take the interest from the lender we take twelve dinars from him to pay for the rental, as this was the amount of interest he is considered to have collected from him.

Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: But let the lender say to the borrower: If I were to rent it now, I would pay not twelve dinars, but only ten. As when I rented it from you at the higher price it was because I profited from it by not having to pay for it, but now that I am not profiting, I will rent it as everyone else rents, for ten. The Gemara responds: This claim is rejected, as we say to him: You considered and willingly accepted it for the price of twelve dinars.

MISHNA: One may increase the price of rent to be received at a later date instead of at an earlier one, but one may not similarly increase the price of a sale. How so? If a courtyard owner rented his courtyard to a renter, and the owner said to the renter: If you give me the payment now, the rental is yours for ten sela a year, but if you pay on a monthly basis it will cost a sela for each month, equaling twelve sela a year. Such a practice is permitted, despite the fact that he charges more for a monthly payment. If a field owner sold his field to a buyer and said to him: If you give me the payment now, it is yours for one thousand dinars, but if you wait and pay me at the time of the harvest, it is yours for twelve hundred dinars, this transaction is prohibited as interest.

GEMARA: The Gemara poses a question: What is different in the first clause of the mishna, and what is different in the latter clause? Why is the additional charge for later payment permitted in the case of rent but prohibited in the case of a sale? Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: The halakha is that the obligation to pay a rental fee is incurred only at the end of the rental period, and therefore, in this case, since its time to be claimed had not yet arrived at the beginning of the rental, the early payment is not considered payment for waiting. Rather, the opposite is the case: This higher price is the value it is worth, and that which he says to him: If you give me payment now it is yours for ten sela a year, is a discount that he offers him for the early payment, and therefore it is not interest.

By contrast, in the latter clause, since it is a sale, and the owner of the field wants to take the money from now, if he agrees to a later payment at a higher price, this is therefore considered payment for waiting, and it is forbidden. Rava said: The Sages examined this matter closely and established that this halakha is derived from the verse that states: “Like a hired laborer, year by year” (Leviticus 25:53). It is derived from this verse that the obligation to pay the rental fee of this year is incurred only in the following year.

§ The mishna teaches: If the field owner said: But if you wait and pay me at the time of the harvest, the field is yours for twelve hundred dinars, this is prohibited. Rav Naḥman said: Tacit interest [tarsha] is permitted. In other words, one may make a contract for a sale with a later payment date at an increased price, as long as he does not specify that the higher price is due to the delay but merely states a price and a date.

Rami bar Ḥama raised an objection to Rav Naḥman, and some say it was Rav Ukva bar Ḥama who raised the objection to Rav Naḥman: The mishna states: But if you wait and pay me at the time of the harvest, the field is yours for twelve hundred dinars, this is prohibited. Rav Naḥman said to him: There is a difference between the two cases. There, in the case of the mishna, he fixed the price for him as interest, as he explicitly stated that there was an additional cost for a later payment, whereas here, in the case concerning which I stated my ruling, he did not fix it for him as interest, but merely quoted a higher price.

Rav Pappa said: My tacit interest arrangement that I offer customers, where I sell my liquor at the times when the market price is low and agree to have the buyer pay me for it later on when the market price is higher, is permitted. What is the reason for this? My liquor would not be lost were I to store it for a while, and I do not need money at the present time. I could therefore simply hold it to sell at a higher price later. I sell it early because it is I who am performing a beneficial matter for the customer, by selling it to him earlier without demanding immediate payment, and this is not interest.

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said to Rav Pappa: What does the Master see to indicate that you should follow yourself, i.e., consider this matter from your perspective, and therefore conclude that it is permitted because you are not earning interest? You could equally follow their side, and consider the matter from the perspective of your customers, as, if they had money available they would buy liquor at the current price, but now that they have no money available they buy it in accordance with the future, more expensive rate. Consequently, they are actually paying interest in exchange for the delay in payment. Rav Pappa did not respond.

Rav Ḥama said: My tacit interest arrangement is certainly permitted. He would contract to sell merchandise in a location where its price was low while setting the price according to the more expensive rate in effect in a different location. Those who would purchase the merchandise from him would then take the merchandise to the other location to sell at the highest price, while Rav Ḥama would accept upon himself a certain measure of responsibility for the risks incurred during transport. This deal is considered a sales partnership, not interest.

What is the reason for this? Rav Ḥama said: It is convenient for them that the merchandise remains established in my domain, as anywhere that they go, the authorities leave them alone with regard to taxes and other people maintain the market for these sellers. The merchants selling Rav Ḥama’s wares received preferential treatment, as Rav Ḥama was a scholar from the house of the Exilarch, whose members would receive assistance from all. The higher price they paid was in consideration for these advantages; it was not payment for waiting.

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

BavaMetzia 65a examines rabbinic debates over prohibited interest payments, including disputes on reclaiming loaned goods like wheat, cloaks, and rental property.