Talmud - Bava Metzia 65b בבא מציעא ס״ה ב׳

The Gemara summarizes the rulings in a number of the cases discussed above: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥama, that his type of tacit interest agreement is permitted. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, that fixed interest can be reclaimed in court. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yannai, who says: What difference is it to me if he referred to the produce, and what difference is it to me if he referred to the produce’s value? In other words, if one gave an item or money to another as payment of his loan, this is considered a sale without interest.

MISHNA: If one sold another a field and the buyer gave him some of the money, and the seller said to him: Whenever you wish, bring the outstanding money and take your field at that point, this is prohibited. If one lent money to another on the basis of the borrower’s field serving as a guarantee, and said to him: If you do not give me the money now and instead delay your payment from now until three years have passed, the field is mine, then after three years, the field is his. This is permitted even if the field is worth more than the amount of the loan. And this is what Baitos ben Zunin would do, with the consent of the Sages, when he lent money.

GEMARA: The ruling of the mishna is unclear, as it requires clarification: In a sale such as this, when the buyer has made only a partial payment, who enjoys the profits of this field in the interim period, until the entire transaction is complete? Rav Huna says: The seller enjoys the profits until he receives the full payment, while Rav Anan says: In the meantime they deposit the profits in escrow with a third party until the transaction is finalized. The Gemara comments: And Rav Huna and Rav Anan do not disagree. This one is referring to a case where the seller says: When you bring all the money you will acquire the field, whereas that one is referring to a case where he says at the time of the transaction: When you bring all the money you will acquire it from now.

The Gemara relates: Rav Safra taught the following halakhot of interest as a baraita of the school of Rabbi Ḥiyya: Sometimes they are both permitted to enjoy the profits of the field, as this does not constitute interest at all; sometimes they are both prohibited from doing so. And sometimes it is permitted for the seller to enjoy the profits of the field but it is prohibited for the buyer to do so; and sometimes it is permitted for the buyer to enjoy the profits of the field and it is prohibited for the seller to do so.

When Rav Safra taught this baraita, Rava answered after him, in explanation: Sometimes they are both permitted to benefit from the field. For example, if the seller said to him: Acquire the field for yourself in accordance with the measure of your money, he effectively acquires the field incrementally in small portions, which is certainly permitted. Sometimes they are both prohibited from benefiting from the field. For example, if the seller said to him: When you bring the money you will acquire it all from now, if the seller enjoys the profits until the remainder of the money is paid, he has clearly taken interest. If the buyer does not make the final payment, the field will remain the property of the seller and his partial payment will be returned, and the field will be considered a loan given to the seller. If the buyer enjoys the profits of the field in the interim, he will have taken interest.

Rava continues: Sometimes the seller is permitted to benefit from the field and the buyer is prohibited from benefiting from it, i.e., the transaction is considered interest from the perspective of the buyer but not the seller. For example, if the seller said to him: When you bring the money you will acquire the field. And sometimes the buyer is permitted to benefit from the field and the seller is prohibited from benefiting from it. For example, if the seller said to him: Acquire it from now, and the money you still owe me will be considered a loan in your possession. In this case, if the seller enjoys the profits he benefits from the extended payment of the loan.

The Gemara poses a question: Who is the tanna who taught that they are both prohibited from benefiting from the field if he says: When you bring the money you will acquire it from now? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says that the opinion of this tanna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, doesn’t Rabbi Yehuda say that uncertain interest is permitted? In this case as well, it is uncertain whether the arrangement will result in the payment of interest, as it depends on whether or not the rest of the payment is given.

§ It is taught in a baraita: If a borrower pledged a house to the lender or pledged a field to him as a guarantee for the loan, and the lender said to the borrower: When you want to sell the house or the field, you must sell them only to me for this specified monetary value, it is prohibited, as the selling of the field for a low price is considered interest paid in exchange for the granting of the loan. But if he said: You must sell them to me according to their value at the time of the sale, this is permitted.

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that if he said: You must sell them only to me for this specified monetary value, it is prohibited? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, doesn’t Rabbi Yehuda say that uncertain interest is permitted? The interest in this case is uncertain, as there is no guarantee that the sale will ever be implemented.

If one sold another a house or sold him a field, and said to the buyer: When I have money, give the property back to me in exchange for the return of the money that you paid for it, it is prohibited, as this transaction is essentially a loan, with the buyer enjoying the profits of the field in the interim. But if the buyer said to him of his own accord: When you have money I will return the property to you, this is permitted. The Gemara again asks: Who is the tanna who taught this ruling? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, doesn’t Rabbi Yehuda say that uncertain interest is permitted?

The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause and what is different in the latter clause? Why does it matter who stated the condition? Rava says: The first clause is referring to a situation where the seller did not tell the buyer that the decision to return the field will be of the buyer’s own accord, but made it a condition of the sale. Consequently, the seller always retains the option to return the money and recover his field, which means it was essentially a loan with the temporary use of the field serving as a substitute for interest. Conversely, in the latter clause, it is referring to a situation where the buyer said he would return the field of his own accord. Since the buyer can choose to keep the field, it is a proper sale.

§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who sold land to another without a guarantee that if the field is repossessed, the seller will compensate the buyer for his loss. He observed that the buyer was distressed, as he was concerned that the field might have been designated as a pledge to a creditor and would be taken from him, which would cause him to lose his investment. The seller said to the buyer: Why are you distressed? If the creditor seizes the field from you, I will pay you from my best-quality land, and I will also provide compensation for your investment in the improvement of the field, and in addition, I will give you the value of any produce taken from you.

Later, the legal status of this promise was called into question. Ameimar said:

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

BavaMetzia 65b examines rulings on interest agreements and a Mishnah case about deferred field sales secured by loans, debating who profits meanwhile.