Previous daf

1)

(a) If a Nochri who lent a Jew money on interest, issues a new document converting the Keren (the principle) and the Ribis into one joint loan, and also converts to Judaism - he will be permitted to claim the Ribis, provided he converted the loan before he converted to Judaism, but not if he converted first.

(b) And the same will apply in the equivalent case, if a Jew who lent a Nochri money on interest, issues a new document converting the Keren and the Ribis into one joint loan, and the Nochri converts to Judaism. He will he permitted to claim the Ribis - as long as he converted the loan before he himself converted, but not if he converted first.

(c) The above is the opinion of the Tana Kama in a Beraisa. Rebbi Yossi argues with him in the latter case - permitting the Jewish creditor from claiming either way, to prevent people from saying that the Nochri only conv erted in order to get out of paying the Ribis that he owed the Jew.

(d) Rav Chisda Amar Rav Huna rules like Rebbi Yossi.

(a) According to Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, the creditor cannot even claim the *Keren* with a Sh'tar which includes Ribis. The Rabbanan however - restrict the prohibition to claiming the Ribis; but they permit him to claim the Keren.

(b) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether Chazal decreed on the part of the Sh'tar that is permitted, on account of the part that is forbidden (Rebbi Meir) or not (the Rabbanan).

(a) Sh'tarei Chov ...

1. ... ha'Mukdamin are - pre-dated documents.
2. ... ha'Me'ucharin are - post-dated documents.

(b) The Mishnah in Shevi'is invalidates the former - because that will enable the creditor to claim from fields which the purchaser's bought before the loan took place, which is unlawful; but not the former, since no harm will come from the creditor claiming from the debtor's fields which the purchasers bought *after* the loan took place.

(c) Resh Lakish establishes the author of this Mishnah as Rebbi Meir - because according to the Rabanan, Sh'tarei Chov ha'Mukdamin ought at least to be valid as far as claiming the debt from after the date that the loan took place is concerned.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan however establishes the Mishnah even according to the Rabbanan - who will concede here that the Sh'tar is totally invalid (not because we decree what is permitted on account of what is not, but) because, due to the fact that the second date is not written in the Sh'tar, we are afraid that the creditor will claim from the date written in the Sh'tar (and the purchaser, unaware that the loan took place after the date on the Sh'tar, will not object either).

(a) Three years after the debtor gave him a field as a security - that creditor threatened the debtor that, unless he sold him the field, he would quash the document declaring the field to be a security, and claim that he had purchased it from him and that he had lost the document of purchase.

(b) This threat was based on the principle - that, after three years, a person who makes such a claim is believed.

(c) To counteract this - the debtor donated the field to his young son before selling it to his creditor.

(d) The sale was obviously invalid. The query then arose whether (bearing in mind that he had sold him the field with Achrayus), the money that the debtor now owed the creditor (and which was contained in the document of sale) was considered a documented loan or an oral one. The ramifications of the She'eilah are - whether the creditor was now permitted to claim from the Meshubadim that the debtor had sold in the interim or not.

(a) Abaye tried to resolve the She'eilah by quoting Rebbi Asi, who stated that, if a debtor admitted to the validity of the Sh'tar that the creditor produced against him - the creditor may subsequently claim even from the debtor's Meshubadim, without having to search for witnesses to substantiate it.

(b) In our case too - the debtor admitted that the Sh'tar of sale was valid, in which case, by the same token, the creditor ought to be able to claim from the debtor's Meshubadim.

(c) Rava refuted Abaye's comparison to Rebbi Asi's case - on the grounds that, whereas there, in the case of Rebbi Asi, the Sh'tar was legitimate, the field here had already been donated to the seller's son, and its sale was therefore illegal.

6)

(a) We just cited Rava, who draws a distinction between a regular Sh'tar, which is legal, and the field in our case, which had already been donated to the seller's son, in which case its sale was illegal. A little earlier, we cited Rebbi Yochanan, who attributed the prohibition on the creditor to claim even from Meshubadim, even from the date of the loan to the fact that he might claim from the date on the Sh'tar. Why, Ravina asked Mereimar, did he not rather attribute it to the fact that the Sh'tar was written illegally, to which Mereimar relied - that there, granted the Sh'tar was illegal as far as the earlier date was concerned, it was however, perfectly legal from the date that the loan took place?

(b) The Mishnah rules in Gitin that one cannot claim Sh'vach Karka'os from Meshubadim, which the Beraisa establishes as Reuven who steals a field from Shimon, which he sells to Levi. When Shimon claims his field, which Levi has in the meantime improved, he claims the Keren from Meshubadim (Levi's purchasers) and the Sh'vach from B'nei Chorin (fields that Levi still has in his possession).

(c) We explained earlier (in the first Perek, that Reuven will make every effort to persuade Shimon to sell him the field, so as not to be termed a Gazlan, or that he will do so - in order to remain in the good graces of Levi (to whom he sold the field with Achrayus).

(d) That explains why the Sh'tar is legal there, enabling Levi to claim the Keren from Shimon's Meshubadim. Neither of those reasons would apply in our case (of the creditor after three years) however - because the debtor's very intention is to ensure that the creditor should lose the field.

(a) Our Mishnah permits Reuven to give Shimon money at the beginning of the season, for a Sa'ah of wheat that he will only receive at the end of the season, once the price is fixed - because even though the seller doesn't have wheat, someone else does (in which case theoretically, he could have purchased it and given it to the buyer immediately).

(b) The Tana permits someone who arrives early at the haystack to do this even before the official price has been fixed - because the seller has grain (albeit not yet ready for consumption), in which case there is no Ribis because it is as if the purchaser has already acquired it. Alternatively, the Tana speaks when the seller sells the buyer the grain at the Sha'ar ha'Lekutos (a special price that the harvesters fix among themselves - see Rosh Si'man 60).

(c) The Tana's leniency here (even though we might have expected him to consider this Avak Ribis) is based on the fact - that Ribis by way of buying and selling (as opposed to lending and borrowing) is in the first instance, only mi'de'Rabbanan.

(d) The Tana says the same about someone who arrives early at ...

1. ... the Avit of grapes - which is a large pot in which the grapes are placed before pressing, to let them become hot, allowing the wine to flow more freely from the grapes.
2. ... the Ma'atan of olives - which is the same thing, only regarding olives.

(a) The other two cases that the Tana adds to the list are a purchaser who arrives early - a. at the pottery, where the potter has already formed balls of clay (with which to make his pots), and b. at the lime-maker, who has already placed the lime-stones and the wood into the furnace to manufacture lime.

(b) The Tana Kama permits paying money in advance for manure all the year round. The Chachamim seem to agree with this. Rebbi Yossi - requires the seller to have manure in his trash-heap for this transaction to be permitted.

(c) 'u'Poskin Imo ke'Sha'ar ha'Gavohah' - which means a price fixing of more fruit for less money (i.e. fruit at a cheaper price).

(d) Rebbi Yehudah - permits this even without the purchaser actually specifying it (as the Tana Kama does).

(a) Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan forbids paying for corn in advance relying on the 'Sha'ar she'ba'Shuk'. Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Asi whether Rebbi Yochanan was referring to 'ke'Durmus ha'Zeh', by which he meant - even the price fixed by the large stores where the wheat is sold in bulk.

(b) According to Rebbi Zeira's suggestion, when our Mishnah permits such a sale once the Sha'ar has been fixed - it would be referring to the price that is fixed when all the big owners open their store-houses to sell to the public and the boats arrive from up-river with wheat for sale, because that is a Sha'ar that remains constant for a long time.

(c) Rebbi Asi answered Rebbi Zeira - that, in fact, Rebbi Yochanan was referring to a smaller Sha'ar, namely that of the town Sha'ar which still permits individuals to sell at their own price (Shitah Mekubetzes).

(a) The Beraisa forbids purchasing corn in advance as long as the new wheat are sold at four Sa'ah per Sela, and the old wheat, at three. The new crops would be sold for a lower price than the old crops - because they are not yet completely dry.

(b) The reason for the prohibition is - that seeing as the old crops are sold at three Sa'ah per Sela, it looks as if the seller is giving the purchaser more new crops, because of the money that he received in advance.

(c) The Tana permits it - from the moment that both are sold at four Sa'ah per Sela.

(d) He repeats the same Halachah with regard to purchasing wheat from Lekutos if their wheat is sold at four Sa'ah per Sela, and the regular crops, at three. What makes the wheat of the Lekutos inferior to that of other sellers is - the fact that the quality of crops sold by the Lekutos is inferior, since they tend to purchase from many different fields, and in the process they mix rye stalks together with the wheat stalks.

(a) Rav Nachman permits Lekutos to pay one another in advance. Rava's problem with this is - that if Lekutos are permitted to do this, because since their Sha'ar is already out, they can borrow crops from their Lakut friends, why should an ordinary Balabos not also be permitted, since he too, can borrow from a Lakut?

(b) Rav Nachman gives Rava two answers, one of them, that a regular seller would be embarrassed to borrow the inferior wheat that the Lakut sells, the other - because whoever gives a Balabos money for wheat, expects good-quality crops, and not the poor quality grain offered by the Lekutos.

(c) When Rav Sheishes quotes Rav Huna as saying 'Ein Lovin al Sha'ar she'ba'Shuk', he might mean that Reuven is forbidden to stipulate when borrowing money from Shimon that, should he fail to return the loan by a specific date, he will be obligated to give him fruit at the current price. Even though Sa'ah be'Sa'ah is permitted in this way, it is nevertheless forbidden here - because Chazal were more stringent by loans, where the Ribis is basically d'Oraysa (as we have already explained).

(d) The Behag explains the case - by Sa'ah be'Sa'ah.

(a) When they asked Rav Huna about Talmidei-Chachamim borrowing money in Tishri (or wheat, according to the Behag) to pay back wheat in Teives - he ruled that it was permitted.

(b) To reconcile the two conflicting rulings of Rav Huna, we cite Rav Shmuel bar Chiya Amar Rebbi Elazar - who permits it.

(c) It was when Rav Huna heard Rebbi Elazar's ruling - that he retracted from his original stance.