Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) BOTH LAVIN APPLY TO BOTH

(a) (Beraisa): "Es Kaspecha Lo Siten Lo b'Neshech uve'Marbis Lo Siten Ochlecha" - we only find Neshech by money and Tarbis by food;
(b) Question: How do we know that Neshech also applies to food?
(c) Answer #1: "Neshech Ochel".
(d) Question: How do we know that Tarbis also applies to money?
(e) Answer #1: "Neshech Kesef" - we could have learned Neshech by money (regarding the borrower) had it said "Lo Tashich...(anything that bites)" - Neshech Kesef is extra to teach Tarbis by money.

1. Question: These are written by the borrower - how do we know that the lender also transgresses Neshech by food and Tarbis by money?
2. Answer: We learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Neshech-Neshech" - just as by the borrower, both Lavim apply to both, also by the lender.
3. Question: How do we know to include everything else (as well as money and food)?
4. Answer: "Neshech Kol Davar Asher Yishach".

(f) Answer #2 (to questions (b) and (d) - Ravina): We already learn Neshech by food and Tarbis by money from "Es Kaspecha Lo Siten Lo b'Neshech uve'Marbis Lo Siten Ochlecha".

1. Indeed, had it said 'Es Kaspecha Lo Siten Lo b'Neshech v'Ochlecha b'Tarbis', we would need another source;
2. But the verse reversed the order, in order that we expound "Es Kaspecha Lo Siten Lo b'Neshech uve'Marbis" (both apply to money), and "B'Neshech uve'Marbis Lo Siten Ochlecha" (both apply to food).

(g) Question: But the Tana learns from a Gezeirah Shavah!
(h) Answer: The Tana teaches, had the verse not put Neshech and Tarbis next to each other, we could have learned from the Gezeirah Shavah;

1. Since Neshech and Tarbis are written next to each other, we do not need the Gezeirah Shavah.

(i) Question: What does the Gezeirah Shavah teach?
(j) Answer: "Neshech Kol Davar Asher Yishach" (everything else), for this was only written by the borrower.

(a) Question (Rava): Why must the Torah write Lavim by usury, robbery and Ona'ah?
(b) Answer (Rava): It must teach all three:

1. If it only taught usury - we could not learn to the others, for usury is a Chidush - the borrower is forbidden to give!
2. If it only taught robbery - that is against the will of the victim, we could not learn to Ona'ah, where the victim (buys or sells) willingly.
3. If it only taught Ona'ah - we could not learn to the others, for a victim of Ona'ah does not know he was cheated, he cannot pardon it - by the others, the victim can pardon his loss.

(c) Suggestion: We cannot learn the others from one - but perhaps one could be learned from the other two!
(d) Question: Which could be learned from the others?

1. We could not learn usury, for the victim willingly gives his money!
2. We could not learn Ona'ah, for one might have thought, it is normal to overcharge or undercharge in commerce;

(e) Answer: We could learn robbery.

1. We could not learn from usury, because it is a Chidush - Ona'ah is not a Chidush, we can learn from it!
2. We could not learn from Ona'ah, because the victim does not know he was cheated - we can learn from usury, where the victim knows what he paid!
3. The stringency of each is unlike the stringency of the other; the common side of both is that he steals - we can learn to robbery!

(f) Question: So why did the Torah write a Lav by robbery?
(g) Answer: For withholding wages.
(h) Question: There is a Lav for withholding wages - "Lo Sa'asok Sachir"!
(i) Answer: The Lav of robbery is a second Lav forbidding withholding wages.
(j) Question: We can say, it is a second Lav for usury and Ona'ah!
(k) Answer: We learn it from context, the Torah speaks (there) of a worker.

(l) Question: What do we learn from "Lo Tignovu"?
(m) Answer (Beraisa): "Lo Tignovu" - in order to cause pain, or in order to pay double.

(a) Question (Rav Yemar): Why is there a Lav by (false) weights?
(b) Answer (Rav Ashi): To forbid putting one's weights in salt (Rashi - to make them heavier, to get more when buying; R. Tam - to make them lighter, to give less when selling).
(c) Objection: That is pure robbery, no extra verse is needed!
(d) Answer: One transgresses the Lav of weights from the time he puts them in salt, even before he uses them.
(e) (Beraisa): "Avel be'Mishpat be'Midah" - this is measuring land;

1. Land that should be divided equally, one may not measure to one party in winter (Rashi - when the rope is moist and stretches out properly; R. Chananel - when the land contracts) and to the other party in summer.
2. "Be'Mishkal" - this forbids putting one's weights in salt;
3. "Uva'Mesurah" - one who sells wine may not make it foam (to make it look like the buyer's vessel is full).

i. We may learn a Kal va'Chomer: Mesurah is a tiny measure, a 36th of a Log, the Torah warns about it - all the more so, one who steals a larger measure!

(f) Question (Rava): Why does the Torah mention the Exodus from Mitzrayim by usury, Tzitzis, and weights?
(g) Answer (Rava): Just as in Mitzrayim, Hash-m knew everyone's true father to kill the firstborns, Hash-m knows (and will punish) one who falsely claims that his money belongs to a non-Jew in order to lend it with usury, one who puts his weights in salt, and one who uses blue tree sap to (cheaply) feign the Mitzvah of putting threads dyed with Techeles on the corners of his garment.
(h) Question (Rav Chanina of Sura): Why does the Torah mention the Exodus from Mitzrayim by rodents?
(i) Answer (Ravina): Just as in Mitzrayim, Hash-m knew the fathers and could kill the firstborns, Hash-m knows (and will punish) one who mixes innards of Tamei fish (mentioned in that Parshah) with those of Tahor fish and sells them to Yisrael.
(j) Question (Rav Chanina of Sura): My question was, why does the Torah say "Ha'Ma'aleh" (who brings you up (from Mitzrayim)) by rodents?
(k) Answer (Ravina - Beraisa - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): The merit that Yisrael would not become Teme'im through rodents was sufficient for Hash-m to redeem them from Mitzrayim.
(l) Question: Is the reward for refraining from Tum'ah of rodents greater than that of refraining from usury and false weights and fulfilling Tzitzis?
(m) Answer: Even though the reward is not greater, they are exceedingly disgusting to eat.

(a) (Mishnah): What is Tarbis? One who increases produce: Reuven bought a Kor of wheat...
(b) Question: Were the previous examples not Tarbis?! (We concluded that every case of Neshech is Tarbis!)
(c) Answer (R. Amah and Rava): The previous cases were mid'Oraisa usury, the coming cases are mid'Rabanan;

1. In the previous cases, "Yachin v'Tzadik Yilbash" (if the lender died, his heir may keep the usury).

i. Question: But in the later cases (mid'Rabanan usury), the heir must return it?!
ii. Correction: Rather, even in the previous cases, the heir may keep it.

2. The previous cases are fixed usury - the coming cases are Avak (dust of) usury.

(d) (R. Elazar): Beis Din forces the lender to return fixed usury, but not Avak usury.
(e) (R. Yochanan): Beis Din does not force the lender to return even fixed usury.
(f) (Question: What is R. Yochanan's source?)
(g) Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak): "Ba'Neshech Nosan v'Tarbis Lakach va'Chai Lo Yichyeh" - he will die (at the hands of Heaven), it will not help to return the usury.
(h) Answer #2 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): "...v'Yaresa me'Elokecha" - one returns usury because he fears Hash-m, Beis Din does not force him.
(i) Answer #3 (Rava): He learns from the end of the first verse "(Lo Yichyeh) Mos Yumas Damav Bo" - those who lend on usury are compared to murderers;

1. Just as one cannot undo murder, one cannot undo usury by returning it.