Previous daf

1)

(a) The Tana finally learn that the La'av of Ribis pertains to money regarding to the creditor too (since this is now the only remaining case not to emerge directly from the Pesukim) - from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Neshech" "Neshech" from the debtor.

(b) From "Ribis Kol Davar Asher Yishach" - we extend the La'av of Ribis to everything (besides just money ad food).

(a) Ravina disagrees with the previous D'rashah. According to him, all computations are written explicitly in the Pasuk by the creditor too. He Darshens the Pasuk "es Kaspecha Lo Siten Lo be'Neshech u've'Marbis Lo Siten Ochlecha" as if the Torah had written "es Kaspecha Lo Siten Lo be'Neshech u've'Marbis, be'Neshech u've'Marbis Lo Siten Ochlecha".

(b) And he learns like that - because otherwise, the Torah ought to have written "es Kaspecha Lo Siten Lo be'Neshech, ve'Ochlecha Lo Siten be'Marbis".

(c) Ravina does not argue with the Beraisa. According to him - what the the Tana is saying is that if the Torah had not worded the Pasuk the way it did, we could have learned it from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' anyway.

(d) The 'Gezeirah-Shavah' comes to teach us - that "Neshech Kol Davar Asher Yishach" applies to the creditor as well.

(a) Rava discusses the three La'avin that concern depriving someone of his money - Ribis, Gezel and Ona'ah.

(b) It would not have sufficed for the Torah to write just one of them. We could not learn the other two ...

1. ... from Ribis - because Ribis is unique, inasmuch as the debtor transgresses, too (an indication that this La'av has nothing to do with depriving someone of his money).
2. ... from Gezel - because it is against the will of the victim.
3. ... from Ona'ah - because he does not know to be Mochel, whereas the other two, where the owner is Mochel, might well not transgress.

(c) Neither could the Torah have even dispensed with one of them? We could not learn ...

1. ... Ribis from Gezel and Ona'ah - because they are both done without the owner's consent, whereas the debtor pays Ribis willingly.
2. ... Ona'ah from Ribis and Gezel - because unlike them, it is part of a business transaction, which we might have thought the Torah permits.

(a) We conclude that we could in fact, learn Gezel from Ribis and Ona'ah. Nevertheless, the Torah found it necessary to write "Lo Sa'ashok es Re'acha *ve'Lo Sigzol" - to add a second La'av to "Lo Sa'ashok" (witholding a worker's wages).

(b) The Pasuk comes to add a La'av to someone who witholds a worker's wages rather than to add a La'av to Ribis or Ona'ah, because that is where it is written (and presumably, for the same reason that is why it does come to add a La'av to itself [Gezel], too).

(c) The Torah needs to write "Lo Tignovu" (not to teach us the La'av of Geneivah, which we can learn from Ribis and Ona'ah, but) - teach us that prohibition applies even of one steals only in order to pull the owner's leg, or in order to pay double (in the form of a gift, which he knows the owner will not otherwise accept from him).

5)

(a) We do not ask the same Kashya that we just asked on "Lo Tignovu", on "Lo Tignov" in the Aseres ha'Dibros (why we cannot learn it from Ribis and Ona'ah) - because that is a prohibition on kidnapping and has nothing to do with stealing money.

(b) We do however, go on to ask why the Torah needs to write a La'av by weights and measures. Initially, we attempt to answer - that the Pasuk is coming to teach us that one even contravenes the La'av if one dips one's weights in salt to make them heavier (because some of the salt sticks to the surface).

(c) After pointing out that this is pure theft, we establish the La'av - as a second La'av for Geneivah.

(d) The Torah writes in Kedoshim "Lo Sa'asu Avel ba'Midah, ba'Mishkal u'va'Mesurah". We just ascertained the significance of "ba'Mishkal". The Tana interprets ...

1. ... "ba'Midah" as - the rope with which they used to measure land-measurements (i.e. that one may not measure one partner's section in the summer (when the rope contracts) and that of the other, in the winter (when it expands).
2. ... 'ba'Mesurah" as - the froth that gathers when pouring liquid into a container.

(a) 'Mesurah' is - a thirtieth of a Lug (a fifth of an egg-volume).

(b) If one contravenes a La'av for stealing such a small measure, then how much more so for stealing a Hin ... a Lug ... or even a quarter of a Lug.

(a) Rava comments that the Torah mentions Yetzi'as Mitzrayim in three places; by Ribis by Tzitzis - and by Mishkolos (weights and measures).

(b) Yetzi'as Mitzrayim has the same connotation with regard to all three La'avin, namely - as a warning that, Hashem was able to distinguish in Egypt between who was a Bechor and who was not. If for example, ten Egyptians men had relations (over the course of a number of years) with the same Egyptian woman, who bore each of the men a firstborn son, then at Makas Bechoros, each firstborn son died, because Hashem knew that they were all firstborns to their fathers.

(c) The connection to ...

1. ... Ribis is - that, so too, will Hashem know when the money that Reuven lends Shimon, claiming that it belongs to a Nochri (whose money is not subject to Ribis), really belongs to Reuven.
2. ... Tzitzis is - that, so too, will He know when the Kala Ilan (a cheap fake-Techeles dye that someone used to dye one's Tzitzis, instead of the expensive blood of the Chilazon fish that appearsout of the sea only once every seventy years) on one's is not really Techeles ... .
3. ... Mishkolos is - that He will also know when a weight has been tampered with by dipping it in salt. And in all three cases, He will punish the perpetrators accordingly.

(a) Rav Chanina from Sura di'P'ras asked Ravina why the Torah mentions Yetzi'as Mitzrayim in connection with Sheratzim, to which he replied - that it was a warning (following the same pattern as the previous cases) that Hashem is aware, when someone mixes the innards of non-Kasher fish with those of Kasher fish, and sells the mixture with a Kasher label.

(b) Rav Chanina however, explained that this was not what bothered him. What bothered him - was the Lashon "ha'Ma'alah Eschem" which the Torah uses in connection with Sheratzim.

(c) Ravina resolved his problem by citing Tana de'Bei de'Rebbi Yishmael, who says - that Hashem considered it worthwhile to take us out of Egypt just so that we should desist from contaminating ourselves by eating Sheratzim. And "ha'Ma'aleh" is a Lashon of superiority, in the sense that people who degrade themselves by eating them are inferior.

(d) And this is in spite of the fact - that someone who desists from eating Sheratzim does not receive a greater reward than someone who desists from contravening the three previous La'avin.

(a) "ve'Eizehu Tarbis, ha'Marbeh be'Peiros Keitzad ... '. This does not mean, Rebbi Avahu explains, that the Reisha (the case of Neshech) is not Ribis - but that the Tana is now beginning to explain Ribis de'Rabbanan (whereas the Reisha speaks about Ribis d'Oraysa, as we explained earlier).

(b) When Rebbi Avahu added 'Ad Ka'an Yachin Rasha ve'Yilbash Tzadik', he meant - that in the Reisha (by Ribis d'Oraysa), should the creditor die, his children are permitted to benefit from the Ribis that their father left them.

(c) This does not come to preclude the Seifa (Ribis de'Rabbanan) - where the same leniency obviously applies. What the Tana means is '*Afilu* ad Ka'an ... , and certainly in the Seifa'.

(d) Rebbi Avahu goes on to describe ...

1. ... Ribis d'Oraysa as - Ribis Ketzutzah.
2. ... Ribis de'Rabbanan as - Avak Ribis.

(a) Rebbi Elazar rules - that 'Ribis Ketzutzah Yotz'ah be'Dayanin' (Beis-Din will obligate the creditor to return the Ribis to the debtor); whereas Avak Ribis 'Einah Yotz'ah be'Dayanim.

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan - even 'Ribis Ketzutzah Einah Yotz'ah be'Dayanim'.

(c) Various Amora'im extrapolate Rebbi Yochanan's ruling from different Pesukim.

1. Rebbi Yitzchak learns it from the Pasuk "be'Neshech Nasan ... ve'Chai Lo Yichyeh ... " - 'le'Miysah Nitan, ve'Lo le'Heshavon' (the Navi indicates that he has to die, not to pay).
2. ... Rav Ada bar Ahavah from the Pasuk "Al Tikach me'Ito Neshech ve'Sarbis, ve'Yareisa me'Elokecha ... " - le'Mora Naiten, ve'Lo le'Heshavon'.
3. ... Rava learns it directly from the Pasuk in Yechezkel, which continues "Mos Yumas, Damav Bo Yih'yeh". The Pasuk is comparing the creditor to a murderer (because sometimes the interest impoverishes the debtor, causing his death) - and a murderer is Patur from paying for any damage that the stroke which killed causes simultaneously.

(d) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak extrapolates Rebbi Elazar's opinion from the end of the Pasuk of Ribis "ve'Chei Achicha Imach" - and returning the Ribis will help the debtor to live.