Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) MUST ONE RETURN FIXED USURY?

(a) (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): R. Elazar learns from "Va'Chai Achicha Imach" - return it, in order that the borrower will live.
(b) Question: What does R. Yochanan learn from this verse?
(c) Answer (Beraisa - ben Petura): Two people were in a wilderness, one had a flask of water sufficient to enable one of them to return to civilization; if they share it, both will die. It is best that they share the water, neither should see the other die;
(d) R. Akiva: "V'Chei Achicha Imach" - your own life takes precedence over another's life.
(e) Question (against R. Yochanan - Beraisa): A man died, leaving his orphans money he collected as usury - even though they know this, they need not return it.

1. Inference: They need not return it - but their father would have to return it!

(f) Answer: Really, even their father is exempt; the Beraisa spoke of the children for parallel structure to the end of the Beraisa.

1. (End of the Beraisa): If their father left them a cow, garment or any specific item, they must return it because of the honor of their father.

(g) Question: Why should they have to return it for the honor of their father?!

1. "Do not curse a Nasi of your people" - one who acts as your people (but we are not concerned for honor of the wicked)!

(h) Answer: As Rav Pinchas answered (elsewhere) - the case is, the father repented.

1. Question: If he repented, he should have returned it!
2. Answer: He died before he was able to.

(i) Question (Beraisa): Thieves or people that lent on usury - even if they collected, they return it.

1. Question: The language 'collected' does not apply to thieves!

i. If they stole - they stole!
ii. If they did not steal - why are they called thieves?

2. Answer: 'Thieves' means people that lent on usury, even if they collected, they return.

(j) Answer: Tana'im argue whether it must be returned.

1. (Beraisa - R. Nechemyah and R. Eliezer ben Yakov): The lender and cosigner do not transgress a Lav and they are not lashed because they can correct their sin through a Mitzvas Aseh.
2. Suggestion: The Aseh is returning the usury; Chachamim argue, they say there is no such Aseh.

(k) Rejection: No - the Aseh is to tear the loan document.
(l) Question: Do R. Nechemyah and R. Eliezer ben Yakov hold that we consider a document as if it was already collected (because it puts a lien on the borrower's land)?

1. If yes - the lender and cosigner already transgressed when they wrote the document, and they must tear the document;

i. Similarly, it the usury was paid, they must return the money!

2. If we do not consider a document as if it was already collected, they did not transgress anything - why do Chachamim argue?

(m) Answer: They consider a document as if it was already collected; Chachamim obligate for Shuma (setting usury upon the borrower).
(n) Support (Mishnah): The following transgress a Lav: the lender, the borrower, the cosigner and the witnesses.

1. Question: The first three did an action - but what did the witnesses transgress?
2. Answer: We conclude that they are liable for Shuma.

(o) (Rav Safra): Any case in which the courts of Nochrim force the borrower to pay the lender, we make the lender return to the borrower; when they do not force the borrower to pay, we do not make the lender return it.
(p) Question (Abaye): But they force the borrower to pay by a loan of a Se'ah of produce on condition to return a Se'ah, and we don't force the lender to return it!
(q) Answer (Rav Yosef): They consider that return of a deposit - Rav Safra refers to what they collect as usury.
(r) Question (Ravina): But one who takes land as collateral and eats the produce without deducting from the loan - they force the borrower to pay (if he took some of the produce), and we do not make the lender return it!

(s) Answer (Rav Ashi): They considered that a sale (the lender bought the land, the borrower may redeem it).
(t) Question: What Chidush did Rav Safra come to teach?
(u) Answer: Any case in which Nochrim force the borrower to pay - fixed usury - we make the lender return it, i.e. R. Elazar's law;

1. What they do not force the borrower to pay - usury before or after the loan - we do not make the lender return it.

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven bought a Kor of wheat from Shimon for 25 Dinarim, which was the going rate...(if Shimon has no wine, it is forbidden).
(b) Question: Even if Shimon has no wine, it should be permitted!

1. (Beraisa): We may not contract to supply produce for a set price until there is a set price in the market; when there is a set price, we may contract - even if this seller does not have, others have (and the seller could buy and supply the produce now).

(c) Answer #1 (Rabah): In our Mishnah, Reuven never gave money, he bought on credit (so we cannot say that Shimon could have supplied the wine with Reuven's money).

1. Support (Beraisa): Yehudah told Levi 'Give me the Maneh you owe me so I can buy wheat'; Levi answered 'I accept to supply to you a Maneh's worth of wheat (at today's price) over the course of the year' - this is forbidden (even though Levi has wheat), for it is unlike giving money (for then, Levi could have supplied the wheat with Yehudah's money).

(d) Rejection (Abaye): If Reuven never gave money, the Mishnah should forbid this even if Shimon has wine!
(e) Answer #2 (Abaye): Our Mishnah is as Rav Safra taught.

1. (Rav Safra): Some things are permitted (letter of the law), but forbidden because they look like usury. For example, Yehudah asked to borrow 100 (Dinarim); Levi said, 'I don't have money - take that value of my wheat'. Levi bought it back for 96 - (letter of the law) this is permitted, but it is forbidden because it looks like usury.
2. Also in our Mishnah, Reuven asked to borrow 30 Sela'im; Shimon said, 'I don't have money - take that value of my wheat'; Shimon bought it back for 25;
3. If Shimon has wine - this is as a sale, it is permitted; if he has no wine, it is forbidden to take their value in money, for this looks like usury.

(f) Question (Rava): If so, the Mishnah should not say 'Give me my wheat', rather, 'Give me the money for my wheat'!
(g) Answer: Indeed, that is the correct text.
(h) Question (Rava): The Mishnah should not say 'That I want to sell', rather, 'That I sold to you'!
(i) Answer: Indeed, that is the correct text.
(j) Question (Rava): If so, why does the Mishnah say 'I consider your wheat as 30' - that is what he gave him!
(k) Answer: He means, 'As payment for the wheat which you took from me in place of 30 Dinarim'.
(l) Objection (Rava): How can the Mishnah say ''You now have that value of wine by me', and Shimon really has no wine' - it said that he bought a Kor of wheat for 25, that was the price!