Previous daf

1)

(a) The Torah writes in Mishpatim "Im Kesef Talveh es Ami es he'Ani Imach". The Tana of the Beraisa learns that ...

1. ... a Jew who needs a loan has priority over a Nochri - from "es Ami".
2. ... a poor man has priority over a rich one - from "es he'Ani".
3. ... a poor man from one's own town has priority over one from another town - from "Imach".

(b) Rav Nachman quoting Rav Huna (in the second Lashon) explains the Torah's obligation to give precedence to a Jew over a Nochri - even when it is a question of lending the Jew without Ribis and the Nochri with Ribis (entailing a financial loss for himself).

(c) Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa extrapolate the 'blindness' of those who lend on interest, from one man, who will persecute another as if he would have struck him, when all he did was to call him a Rasha - and here we have a person who brings witnesses and a Sofer, a quill and ink in order for them to write and sign that he denies the G-d of Yisrael (the mark of a Rasha).

(d) We reject the interpretation of 'Yored Imo le'Chayav' as being that he is permitted to interfere with his Parnasah on the grounds that - a. it is unlikely that Chazal would allow a Jew to take revenge in this manner, and b. 'Yored Imo le'Chayav' mentioned in Kesuvos in connection with the Chinuch of one's child, would then make no sense.

(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar extrapolates from the Pasuk "Kaspo Lo Nasan be'Neshech ... Oseh Eileh Lo Yimot Le'olam" - that someone who does lend money on interest will lose all his money.

(b) Rebbi Elazar reconciles this with the fact that there are people who lose all their money, even though they did not transgress this sin - by explaning that they will build themselves up again, whereas someone who lends on interest, will not.

(c) And he extrapolates this from the above Pasuk - which implies that someone who does not lend on interest will not lose all his money forever - implying that someone who does, will.

(d) Rav Huna extrapolates from the Pasuk "Lamah Sabit Bogdim Tachrish *ke'Vala Rasha Tzadik Mimenu"* - that it is only someone who is more righteous than himself (a relative Tzadik) that the Rasha will be able to overcome, but not a genuine Tzadik, whom he might defeat temporarily, but whose star will rise again (as we just explained with regard to sinners in areas others than Ribis).

(a) Rebbi, in a Beraisa, Darshens the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yamuch Achicha Imach ve'Nimkar Lach O le'Ger Toshav O le'Eiker Mishpachas Ger". He interprets ...

1. ... "le'Ger Toshav" - as a Ger Tzedek and a Ger Toshav respectively.
2. ... "Mishpachas Ger" - as a Nochri.
3. ... "O le'Eiker" - as idolatry itself (to clean and sweep ... in front of it).

(b) The problem that Rebbi has with the fact that a Ger Tzedek can acquire an Eved Ivri is - from a S'tam Beraisa, which appears to say that he cannot, as we shall now see.

(c) The Beraisa learns that he cannot - from the fact that he cannot himself be sold as an Eved Ivri, as we shall now see.

(d) He learns that ...

1. ... a Ger cannot be sold as Eved Ivri - from the Pasuk "ve'Shav el Mishpachto", and a Ger has no family to which to return.
2. ... a woman cannot be sold as an Eved Ivri - because that is what logic dictates (due to the immoral undertones that would accompany such a master-servant relationship).

(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak resolves Rebbi's problem - by interpreting 'a Ger cannot be sold as Eved Ivri' of the Beraisa to mean that he cannot acquire with the Dinim of a Jew who acquires an Eved Ivri, but of a Nochri, he can.

(b) A Nirtza (who wishes to continue as an Eved until the Yovel) and an Eved who is sold to a Nochri (and a Ger Tzedek who is sold to a Jew) differ from a regular Eved Ivri who is sold to a Jew - inasmuch as they do not continue to work for their master's son or daughter in the event that he dies before the Yovel (an Eved Ivri who is sold to a Nochri works initially until the Yovel, and not six years).

(c) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa permits a woman to acquire Shefachos, but not Avadim. Raban Shimon ben Gamiel Avadim - oermits her to acquire Avadim too.

(d) We reconcile Raban Shimon ben Gamliel with the previous Halachah (which forbids a woman to acquire an Eved Ivri) - by confining the prohibition specificaly to an Eved Ivri, who she knows, will be discreet about their relationship, unlike a Cana'ani, who will publicize it, and with whom she will consequently be careful afraid to keep at bay.

(a) Besides having Talmidei-Chachamim as guests - the Tana of the Beraisa quoted by Rav Yosef also forbids an Almanah to own dogs, and for the same reason.

(b) The Almanah will not be afraid of discovery when everyone sees how closely attached the dog is to her - because she can attribute that to the fact that whenever he is hungry, she throws him a bone.

(a) Rebbi also had a problem with the Pasuk there concerning Ribis "ve'Chi Yamuch Achicha u'Matah Yado Imach ve'Hechezakta Bo Ger ve'Toshav ... Al Tikach me'Ito Neshech ... ve'Chei Achicha Imach". A S'tam Beraisa seems to contradict this - when it permits lending to and borrowing from, a Nochri and a Ger Toshav.

(b) Once again, it is Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak who answers Rebbi's Kashya. When he points out that the Torah writes (not "Al Tikach me'Itam", but) "Al Tikach me'Ito", he means - that the Torah's prohibition is confined to a Jew lending to "Achicha" mentioned in the Pasuk, and does not extend to the Ger Toshav mentioned there.

(c) And when the Torah inserts Ger Toshav in the Pasuk - it is with regard to "ve'Chei Imach" that is written earlier in the Pasuk (obligating the Beis-Din to enable him to live among us).

7)

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa extrapolates from the Pasuk "Al Yikach me'Ito Neshech ve'Sarbis" - 'Aval Atah Na'aseh Lo Areiv' (that one can be an Areiv for a loan that includes Ribis).

(b) This cannot be referring to being a guarantor for a Jew, because we have learned in a Mishnah (later) - that an Areiv, as well as the creditor, the debtor and the witnesses, transgresses the La'av of "Lo Sasimun".

(c) So we establish it with reference to a Nochri who is lending a Jew. That too, however, constitutes Ribis - because, since the custom among Nochrim is to claim immediately from the guarantor, it is as if the Jew borrowed from the Nochri, and the debtor, from him (which means that he will be claiming Ribis from the debtor).

(d) To resolve this problem, Rav Sheishes establishes the Beraisa when the Nochri undertook to follow Jewish law (by claiming first from the borrower - see Hagahos ha'G'ra) - though he did not agree to go so far as not to take Ribis at all (as Jewish law demands).

(a) When the Beraisa says ...

1. ... 'Malveh Yisrael Ma'osav shel Nochri mi'Da'as ha'Nochri', it means - that if a Jew who borrowed from a Nochri on interest is asked to lend the money to a fellow-Jew, he may do so, provided he did so with at the behest of the original Nochri creditor (which will be explained shortly).
2. ... 'Aval Lo mi'Da'as Yisrael' - but not if he lends him so on his own volition.

(b) The equivalent Din in the reverse case, if a Nochri borrowed money from a Yisrael on interest, and a Jew asked to borrow the money from him on the same terms is - that it would be permitted, provided he lent him the money on his own volition, but not if he did it at the behest of the Jew?

(c) The problem with the Halachah of 've'Im He'emido Eitzel Nochri Mutar' which, as we just explained, the Reisha permits is - the principle 'Ein Shelichus le'Akum' (since we learn from "Atem", "Gam Atem" from Terumah that a Nochri cannot be a Sheli'ach for a Jew or vice-versa).

(d) This is not however, a problem in the Seifa, which forbids the loan when the Nochri is the Sheli'ach of the Jew - because, even though the Nochri cannot be the Sheli'ach of a Jew min ha'Torah, the Rabbanan were nonetheless strict.

(a) To answer this Kashya, Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika establishes the Beraisa, when the Nochri instructed his borrower to put the money on the ground and become free of the debt. The problem with this answer is - that it is obvious, and contains no Chidush.

(b) So Rav Papa amends that answer - and the Beraisa speaks when the Nochri actually took the money out of his debtor's hands before handing it to the second creditor.

(c) This time, the Chidush is - that the Nochri is lending the money of his own volition, and not on account of the debtor's request, as we might otherwise have thought (in which case we would have considered him a Sheli'ach mi'de'Rabbanan, as we explained earlier).

(d) Rav Ashi's answer, that the preclusion of a Nochri from the institution of Shelichus is confined to Terumah, but does not extend to other Halachos, is considered a joke - since, seeing as we learn Shelichus throughout the Torah from Terumah, the qualifications that pertain to Terumah will pertain everywhere else too.

(a) Alternatively, Rav Ashi confines the preclusion of a Nochri from Shelichus to a Nochri acting as the Sheli'ach of a Jew, but not vice-versa (as is the case in the Reisha).

(b) We reject this answer too, however - on the grounds that just as "Atem" "Gam Atem" precludes a Nochri Sheli'ach, so too, does it preclude a Nochri Meshale'ach.

(a) Ravina answers the original Kashya (that, since there is no Shelichus by a Nochri, it transpires that the one Yisrael is taking Ribis from the other), by differentiating between Shelichus and Zechiyah. He says that - although a Jew cannot be the Sheli'ach of a Nochri, he *can* be Zocheh for him mi'de'Rabbanan.

(b) And he proves his point from a Katan - who cannot be a Sheli'ach, but who can nevertheless be Zocheh mi'de'Rabbanan.

(c) We know that 'Ein Shelichus 'le'Katan' - from the Pasuk in Terumah (in connection with the donations for the Mishkan, which the Torah refers to as Terumah) "me'es Kol *Ish* Asher Yidvenu Libo" which the Torah refers to as Terumah).

(d) We differentiate between a Nochri and a Katan on the grounds - that the latter is destined to become a Gadol, whereas the former is not destined to become a Jew.