Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) ONE WHO CONVERTS AMIDST A LOAN ON USURY

(a) (Beraisa): Reuven borrowed money from a Nochri on usury; they calculated how much he owes (principal and usury combined), and wrote a document for this amount. The Nochri converted.

1. If he converted after they made the calculation, he collects it all;
2. If he converted before they made the calculation, he only collects the principal.

(b) Similarly: Reuven lent a Nochri on usury; they calculated how much he owes and wrote a document for this amount. The Nochri converted.

1. If he converted after they made the calculation, he pays it all;
2. If he converted before they made the calculation, he only pays the principal.
3. R. Yosi says, a Nochri that borrowed, in either case he pays it all.

(c) (Rava): The law is as R. Yosi.
(d) (Rava): R. Yosi's law is an enactment, in order that people will not say that he converted in order to be exempt from the usury.

(a) (Beraisa - R. Meir): A document for a loan on usury - we fine the lender, he cannot use it to collect even principal;
(b) Chachamim say, he can use it to collect principal, not usury.
(c) Question: On what do they argue?
(d) Answer: R. Meir holds that we fine the permitted part on account of the forbidden part; Chachamim say, we do not fine the permitted part on account of the forbidden part.
(e) (Mishnah): Predated loan documents are invalid, postdated documents are valid.
(f) Question: Why are predated documents invalid?

1. Granted, they may not be used to collect from the date written, but they should be valid to collect from the date of the loan!

(g) Answer #1 (Reish Lakish): Indeed, Chachamim say that they may be used to collect from the date of the loan; this Mishnah is R. Meir (who fines the permitted part on account of the forbidden part).
(h) Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): Chachamim admit in this case - it is a decree, lest he come to collect from the written date.
(i) Reuven lent Shimon and took his orchard as collateral; he ate the produce for three years and told Shimon 'if you do not sell it to me, I will conceal the document saying it was collateral, and I will claim that I bought it (eating three years is a Chazakah, he would be believed). Shimon gave it to his son, then Shimon sold it to Reuven - clearly, the sale to Reuven is invalid.
(j) Question: Is the money Reuven paid considered a loan with a document, so it can be collected from sold property?

1. Or - is it considered an oral loan, so it cannot be collected from sold property?

(k) Answer (Abaye): We learn this from R. Asi's law!

1. (R. Asi): If Levi admits that he authorized a document, Yehudah can use it against him, Levi cannot demand that he validate it. (Shimon admits that Reuven paid him for the orchard, as the document says. It is invalid to acquire the orchard, but it shows that Shimon owes him money1)

(l) Rejection (Rava): The case of the orchard is different, for that document should never have been written!
(m) Question (Ravina): If so, why does R. Yochanan say, we cannot collect from the latter date, this is a decree lest he collect from the date written?

1. He should say, it is invalid because the document should never have been written!

(n) Answer (Mereimar): A predated document was meant to be written - from the date of the loan;

1. The document of the orchard should never have been written at all!

(o) Question (Beraisa): Compensation for improvements: Yehudah stole David's field and sold it to Levi; when David takes it back, Levi collects principal (what he paid) even from property Yehudah sold, and improvements from Yehudah's unsold property.

1. We should say, that document should never have been written, it is invalid!

(p) Answer: Both according to the opinion that Yehudah does not want to be called a thief, and according to the opinion that he wants to act faithfully, he will later buy the field from David to establish the document;

1. Here, Shimon wrote the document to prevent Reuven from keeping the field - surely, he has no intention of fulfilling it!

(a) (Mishnah): We may not contract to supply produce for a set price until there is a set price (in the market);

1. Once there is a set price, even someone without produce may contract, since other people have available produce.

(b) Reuven may contract (to supply the finished product) before there is a set price, if he already has a stack of grain, a container of grapes or olives, clay formed to make pots, or wood and stones that were put in the furnace to make plaster;
(c) One may contract for manure all year round;
(d) R. Yosi only permits this if he has a pile, Chachamim permit it.
(e) He may contract at the cheap price;
(f) R. Yehudah says, even if he did not contract at the cheap price, he can demand the cheap price or his money back.
(g) (Gemara - R. Asi citing R. Yochanan): We may not contract according to the price in the market.
(h) Question (R. Zeira): Did R. Yochanan say that even regarding a great market?
(i) Answer (R. Asi): No, only regarding a market of medium size cities, for the price is unstable.

1. Question: R. Zeira thought that perhaps R. Yochanan meant even a great market - if so, how does he establish the Mishnah?
2. Answer: The Mishnah speaks when people open their storehouses to sell and ships arrive with grain, for then the price is stable for a long time.

(j) (Beraisa): We may not contract to supply produce for a set price until there is a set price; once there is a set price, even someone without produce may contract, since other people have.

1. If new grain was selling for four (Se'im for a Sela), and old grain for three, one may not contract (Rashi - to buy new grain for four) until the prices equalize (Rashi - at four).
2. If Leket (dropped grain collected by poor people, which is inferior) was selling for four (Se'im for a Sela), and regular grain for three, one may not contract to buy regular grain for four until that becomes the price.

(k) (Rav Nachman): One may contract with one selling Leket according to the price for Leket.
(l) Question (Rava): Why is that permitted - because the seller could borrow from another seller of Leket?

1. Also a regular seller could borrow from a seller of Leket!

(m) Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): A regular seller would not borrow from a seller of Leket (it is below his dignity).
(n) Answer #2 (Rav Nachman): One who buys from a regular seller pays for higher quality grain.
(o) Version #1 - Rashi - (Rav Sheshes citing Rav Huna): We may not borrow (money, on condition that if he does not repay by a fixed date, he will give produce) based on the market price (of today, which is cheaper).
(p) Version #2 - Bahag - (Rav Sheshes citing Rav Huna): We may not borrow (a Se'ah on condition to return a Se'ah) even though there is produce in the market. (One might have thought, since a Se'ah can be bought, it is as if the borrower has at home, in which case it is permitted.)
(q) Question (Rav Yosef bar Chama): That contradicts another teaching of Rav Huna!

1. Question: May Talmidim borrow (Rashi - money; Bahag - produce) in Tishrei and repay produce in Teves (at the cheaper price of Teves)?
2. Answer (Rav Huna): Yes - the money could be used now to buy produce elsewhere (Rashi - where it is cheap).

(r) Answer: Originally, Rav Huna ruled that it was forbidden, until he heard that R. Shmuel bar Chiya permits it.