Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Kahana attended Rav's Shiur, and although he could not catch the gist of the D'rashah, he did hear the word 'Kari' mentioned a number of times. 'Kari' - means pumpkins or gourds.

(b) The gist of Rav's Shiur was - that if someone pays a gardener money in advance for ten pumpkins, when the end of the season arrives, the gardener is permitted to give him pumpkins the size of an Amah provided that, when he received the money, he already had pumpkins of that size growing in his garden.

(c) Although we have already learned above, 'Ein Lo, Asur' - we might have thought that here it will suffice for him to have small half-Amah pumpkins growing, because half-Amah pumpkins inevitably turn into Amah-pumpkins.

(a) Rav's ruling concurs with the ruling of the Tana of a Beraisa, who ...

1. ... permits Reuven on his way to milk his goats, to sheer his sheep or take the honey from his beehive, to offer Shimon, whom he meets on the way, whatever milk, wool or honey he obtains from his animals for a fixed sum, irrespective of how much he collects (since the condition gave the purchaser as much chance of losing as of gaining).
2. ... forbids him to do the same, should he offer it to him at a fixed, (special) price (as a reward for Shimon's early payment), in accordance with how much he collects.

(b) We see from here - that Rav's S'vara (that the fact that the gain will inevitably come from the same source, does not remove the aspect of Ribis) has the backing of a Beraisa.

(c) The removal of honey from the honey-combs is called 'Rediyah' - because that is the term used for the removal of loaves of baked bread from the oven, and the honey is stuck 'Chalos Chalos' to the side of the honey-comb, like the loaves to the side of the oven.

(a) In a second Lashon, we quote Rava, who disagrees with Rav. Based on the fact that little pumpkins inevitably become big ones, he maintains that selling the small ones on credit does not constitute Ribis. This is not the same as the case in the Beraisa that we just quoted, he argues - where the additional milk, wool and honey grow from the same source, but not directly from the original batch, in the way that pumpkins do.

(b) And he proves this difference logically - from the fact that in the case of the pumpkins, if one were to detach the young pumpkins from the ground, large ones would not grow in their place, whereas if one removed the milk, wool or honey from their source, they would soon be replaced.

(a) Abaye rules that Reuven giving Shimon four Zuz for a barrel of wine, stipulating that if the wine turns sour, the sale is invalid, but if the price rises or falls, the sale will be valid - is permitted.

(b) Rav Sheravya queries Abaye's ruling from a Beraisa later - which labels a purchaser who buys on credit, entering into a transaction where the odds are that he is likely to gain but unlikely to lose, a Rasha.

(c) Abaye vindicates his ruling however - by pointing out that in the current case, the purchaser also accepted to bear any price reduction, increasing the likelihood of his losing.

5)

(a) If a creditor is looking for a place to stay, and his debtor offers him accommodation, the Tana of our Mishnah - prohibits him from either accepting it free, or even from paying less than the going rate, because it constitutes Ribis.

(b) We learned in Bava Kama that if Reuven resides in Shimon's Chatzer without the latter's consent, he does not need to pay rent - because of the principle 'Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Lo Chaser, Patur' (i.e. in a case where Reuven has somewhere else to stay and Shimon does not usually rent out his apartment).

(c) Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman however, forbids a creditor do so. This is not clearly stated in our Mishnah, which we would otherwise have established in a case where either the creditor has nowhere else to stay, or the debtor would otherwise have rented out the apartment to someone else.

(a) In the second Lashon, Rav Nachman concludes that in spite of the ruling of the Sugya in Bava Kama *'Halveini*, ve'Dur ba'Chatzeri, Tzarich Le'ha'alos Lo S'char' - only because the creditor stipulated accordingly, but if he had not, the creditor would not be required to pay rent (as opposed to the first Lashon, which obligates him to pay rent either way).

(b) In the previous case, which forbids the creditor to reside in the debtor's apartment free only if the debtor stipulated it - it will make no difference whether the stipulation was made at the time of the loan or afterwards (although the Lashon 'Halveini ve'Dur ba'Chatzeri' suggests that had he stipulated later, it would be permitted).

(c) We can extrapolate from the first Lashon that a creditor may not take a house as a security in order to live in it (even if he deducts the rent from the debt) - since he has constant benefit from it, and it looks like Ribis (see also Tosfos DH 've'Lo and Hagahos ha'G'ra).

(d) This differs from taking a vineyard as a security, which we will permit later in the Perek - because there it is not at all certain that the creditor will derive benefit from the fruit (depending on that year's harvest), and seeing as he deducts from the loan anyway, it transpires that he is really purchasing the fruits on a Safek.

(a) Rav Yosef bar Chama - used to take the Avadim of his debtors - and work with them.

(b) The reason for this, he explained to his son Rava, was - because he held like Rav Nachman, who said that an Eved is not worth the bread that he eats.

(c) By drawing a distinction between Dari (Rav Nachman's Eved) and other Avadim, Rava his son meant - that Rav Nachman was referring specifically to his own Eved, who would dance in the wineries (in order to obtain a drink), but not to other Avadim.

(a) So Rav Nachman based his rationale on a ruling of Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina, who ruled that someone who grabbed his friend's Eved and worked with him - did not need to pay the owner (who would be only too pleased that his Eved was being kept busy and out of mischief).

(b) Rava B'rei de'Rav Yosef forced his father to retract however, by quoting Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman - who said above that even though someone who resides in his friend's apartment without the owner's consent is not required to pay, a creditor who resides in the apartment belonging to his debtor, because it looks like Ribis.