Bava Metzia 66: אַסְמַכְתָּא קָנְיָא

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 66

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna had stated: If someone lends someone else using his field as security (and said to him, “If you do not pay me back within three years, the field (which is worth more than the value of the loan) will belong to me (the lender),” this is permitted).

Rav Huna said: If this stipulation (to give up the field) was made at the time of the loan, he (the lender) acquires it all (if he defaults on the loan – even if the field is worth more than the amount of the loan).

[This is not regarded as an asmachta (some type of commitment that a person undertakes only to convince the other party that he is serious regarding the deal). Rav Huna is of the opinion that an asmachta is not legally binding; however, here, when the borrower is benefitting from the lender, we assume that he is serious regarding his forfeiture of the field should he default on the loan.]

We explore the Halacha of Heter Iska.

Bava Metzia 65: אֶלָּא לִי בַּדָּמִים הַלָּלוּ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 65

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we have seen on the previous dapim, when offering a discount on a sale for pre-payment, there may be a problem of ribit (forbidden interest), since the pre-payment can be viewed as a loan, and by offering a discount, the merchant may be seen as repaying more than he received.

The Mishna on our daf teaches that there is a difference between offering a discount on rent and offering a discount on a purchase.

If one sold another a field and received partial payment, and then told the buyer that whenever he wants, he should bring the rest of the money and take the field, it is forbidden. If one made a loan to someone using his field as security, and he (the lender) said to him, “If you do not pay me back within three years, the field will belong to me, this is permitted.

This is how Baysos ben Zunin would lend money upon the advice of the Sages.

We continue our review of usury and predatory lending practices…

Bava Metzia 64: דִּמְרַקֵּיד בֵּי כוּבֵי עַבְדֵי

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 64

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rav Yosef b. Minyumi in the name of R’ Nachman teaches that if Reuven lends money to Shimon, Reuven is not allowed to live in a house owned by Shimon without paying rent, as this would constitute a form of collecting interest for his having advanced a loan.

In fact, this is true even if Reuven has access to other lodging and he is not in need of a rented room, and Shimon is not looking to rent out his dwelling.

Although Reuven is not receiving any financial gain and Shimon is not providing any financial benefit, this is still prohibited.

We continue to explore the history of Jewish Banking.

Bava Metzia 63: מָה לִי הֵן וּמָה לִי דְּמֵיהֶן

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 63

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara teaches that according to Rebbi Yehudah, "Tzad Echad b'Ribis" is permitted. "Tzad Echad b'Ribis" refers to a transaction which can have two possible outcomes, one of which involves Ribis.

He maintains that a transaction that involves Ribis is prohibited only when Ribis definitely will be involved, but not when the presence of Ribis depends on the outcome of the transaction. The classic case of "Tzad Echad b'Ribis" is where a borrower gives his field to the lender and stipulates that if he does not repay the loan, the lender will acquire the field (for the money of the loan) retroactively.

In the interim, the lender eats the produce of the field. According to the Tana Kama in the Beraisa, this is forbidden as Ribis, because if the borrower pays back the loan on time and repossesses his field, the sale will be invalidated and all the fruit that the lender ate will have constituted Ribis.

We explore the world of Jewish banking fro the Czar to the British Mandate.

Bava Metzia 62: חַיֶּיךָ קוֹדְמִים לְחַיֵּי חֲבֵירֶךָ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 62

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yoḥanan, what does he do with this verse: “And your brother shall live with you”?

The Gemara answers: He requires the verse for that which is taught in a baraita: If twopeople were walking on a desolate path and there was a jug [kiton] of water in the possession of one of them, and the situation was such that if both drink from the jug, both will die, as there is not enough water, but if only one of them drinks, he will reach a settled area, there is a dispute as to the halakha.

Ben Petora taught: It is preferable that both of them drink and die, and let neither one of them see the death of the other. This was the accepted opinion until Rabbi Akiva came and taught that the verse states: “And your brother shall live with you,” indicating that your life takes precedence over the life of the other.

We explore the balance between loving one’s neighbor and self preservation in Halacha.

Bava Metzia 61: נֶשֶׁךְ בְּלֹא תַּרְבִּית

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 61

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our new perek V discusses the laws of interest

The Mishna had stated: What is tarbis? One who increases his assets through produce.

The Gemora asks: Were all the cases stated previously not cases of ribbis?

Rabbi Avahu says: Until now we mentioned cases prohibited by Torah law. Now we are mentioning cases prohibited by Rabbinic law.

Rava asks why the Torah must give three specific prohibitions against stealing -- Ribis, Gezel, and Ona'ah, when one of them would suffice to teach the others. The Gemara concludes that in truth the prohibition of Gezel could have been derived from the prohibitions of Ribis and Ona'ah (through a Tzad ha'Shaveh).

The Gemara makes it clear that the prohibition of Ribis stems from the concept of Gezel. There are, however, other ways of understanding the nature of Ribis.

We begin an exploration of the halachot of Ribis.

Bava Metzia 60: מַתִּיר בְּדָבָר הַנִּטְעָם

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 60

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz write”

Who invented loss-leaders? Free giveaways? Sales promotions are not modern inventions – they have been with us since time immemorial.

The Mishna on our daf discusses these kinds of promotions and the permissibility of their use. We find that Rabbi Yehuda forbids a storekeeper from giving out treats to small children, since that will give him an unfair advantage. Similarly, he forbids a storekeeper from lowering his prices to attract clients, since he is taking them from his competitors.

We continue to explore a Jewish theory of economics.

Bava Metzia 59: לְעוֹלָם יְהֵא אָדָם זָהִיר בְּאוֹנָאַת אִשְׁתּוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 59

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf continues with the theme that A man must be especially careful not to offend his wife with his words - or any other woman - because she may bring retribution on him with her tears. One must also be very careful about his wife's honor because a person's house is blessed only on account of his wife.

One must be very careful not to cause Ona'ah to his wife because her tears are frequent. (Shulchan Aruch CM 228:3)

Because a woman is naturally very soft and as a result of just a little bit of pain she cries and Hashem Yisbarach is Makpid on the tears because the gate of tears is never closed. (Sma)

We explore the complexity of marriage and spousal verbal abuse.

Bava Metzia 58: הַמַּלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵירוֹ בָּרַבִּים

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 58

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf teaches that ona’a – a term that we have defined as “monetary exploitation” or “unfair business transactions” – applies not only to buying and selling, but to other areas of personal interaction, as well. Thus, it is prohibited for a person to ask a shopkeeper for the price of an object that he has no interest in purchasing. This ona’at devarim (verbal mistreatment) applies in a range of other situations, as well – the Mishna includes reminding a ba’al teshuva (a penitent) of his earlier sins, or the child of a convert of the sins of his parents.

We discuss verbal abuse and shame and humiliation form the rabbinic perspective.

Bava Metzia 57: כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 57

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Sages conclude from the pasuk in Vayikra (25:14) – which is the source for the prohibition of ona’a – that ona’a applies only when something is sold or bought me-yad amitekhah – from your fellow’s hand.

Thus we conclude that ona’a does not apply in a number of cases, including the purchase of slaves, contracts, real estate, and things consecrated to the Temple.

Our daf further discussed these exceptions to ona’ah...

The mishna teaches: An unpaid bailee does not take an oath if these items were stolen or lost. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse that discusses an unpaid bailee:

“When a man delivers to his neighbor money or vessels to safeguard, and it is stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief is found, he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, then the master of the house shall approach the judge” (Exodus 22:6–7).

“When a man delivers to his neighbor” is a generalization; “money or vessels” is a detail. And when the verse states: “And it is stolen out of the man’s house,” it then generalizes again.

We explore this hermenutical principle of klal Pratt klal….כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל

Bava Metzia 56: אִם הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא בְיָדוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 56

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The first rule of the Mishna is that the rules of ona’ah (exploitation) – rules that forbid overcharging or undercharging at the time of sale – do not apply in any of the four cases.

The Gemara explains that this is learned from the passage that is the source of the prohibition of ona’ah (Vayikra 25:14), where the Torah teaches that ona’ah is forbidden when something is sold or bought me-yad amitekhah – from your fellow’s hand.

This is understood to exclude real estate which does not transfer from hand to hand.

The other cases are derived by the Gemara from the law about real estate.

We continue our exploration of canonized texts, early rabbinic authority and transmission.

Bava Metzia 55: שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּיָּינִין

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 55

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishna reminds us that an ona'a is defined as at least four silver me'a from the twenty-four silver me'a that make up a sela, or one-sixth. The smallest monetary court claim where a person can require an accused to take an oath is two silver me'a. A person is required to go to court only if their wrongdoing was worth at least one peruta.

The Gemara wonders whether demai, doubtful produce, should be in the same category as the other halachot which are Torah-given laws. They are reminded of Rabbi Meir's ruling regarding divorce. Laws regarding divorce were considered to be as important as Torah-derived laws.

We examine the notion of עָשׂוּ חֲכָמִים חִיזּוּק לְדִבְרֵיהֶם כְּשֶׁל תּוֹרָה and the development of rabbinic authority after the priesthood.

Bava Metzia 54: הַדְּמַאי – אֵין לוֹ חוֹמֶשׁ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 54

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Second tithe is the section of produce separated after a farmer has already separated and given teruma of their harvests to the priests and then first tithe to the levis. That second tithe is another tenth of the farmer's harvest.

On years one, two, four and five, it is brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. It is given to the poor on years three and six (year seven is shemita and farms are not harvested).

Because it may not be practical to bring that much produce to Jerusalem, farmers are allowed to redeem their second tithe for money which is spent on food bought and eaten only in Jerusalem. It costs an additional one-fifth to bring that money to Jerusalem. But is this payment required? Is a person punished for eating food paid for with the second tithe money if that person has not paid the additional fee?

TheMishnah (Demai) states The [second tithe of] demai is not subject to [the rules of adding a] fifth. It has no mandated time of removal. It may be eaten by an onen. It may be brought into Jerusalem and taken out again. They may allow a small amount to be lost on the road. One may give it to an am haaretz and consume its equivalent in Jerusalem. [Second tithe money of demai] may be redeemed silver [coins] for [other] silver [coins], copper [coins] for [other] copper [coins], silver for copper, and copper for produce, provided that the produce is again redeemed for money, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the produce itself must be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem.

Maimonides states "In the age of Yochanan the High Priest who served after Shimon the Just, the High Court sent emissaries who searched throughout the entire territory of Israel. They discovered that everyone was careful with regard to the great terumah and would separate it. But with regard to the first tithe, the second tithe, and the tithe for the poor, the common people among Israel would be lax and would not separate it. “

Which brings us to the Yochanan kohen Gadol ….He forced Idumaea to convert to Judaism, the first example of conversion imposed by the Jews in their history.

Bava Metzia 53: דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא וּדְרַבָּנַן לָא מִצְטָרְפִי

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 53

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf cites a Mishna that teaches a number of halakhot regarding bikkurim and teruma.

For example, someone who is not a kohen who eats them will be liable to receive the death penalty if he consumes them with malicious intent or will have to pay restitution and add a 20% penalty if he eats them accidentally.

Nevertheless, they are considered the property of the kohen (i.e. he can sell them to another kohen), and if they were to fall into a mixture, they would become nullified at a ratio of 100:1 (ordinary forbidden foods become nullified at a ratio of 60:1).

The Mishna points out that all this is in contrast to the laws of ma’aser rishon, which has no unique holiness to it; it is simply a portion of the harvest that must be separated and given to the levi to do with it as he sees fit.

We further explore the need for bringing ties to Jerusalem and the inner biblical development of the halachot of trumot and ma'aserot.

Bava Metzia 52: Dupondium

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 52

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf discusses ona’ah – unfair business transactions (see above, daf 50) – in a case where a coin had less value than its true weight. In this case, while Rabbi Shimon rules that ona’ah remains at one-sixth the value of the coin, other tanna’im suggest that it is a smaller amount. Rabbi Meir suggests that ona’ah will be at one-twenty-fourth the value of the coin and Rabbi Yehuda suggests one-twelfth.

Coins erode with use and using them as if new could constitute fraud.

Coins that still circulate, albeit with difficulty, should be accepted, and the one who doesn't is called stingy. After this, they should be used for necklaces or destroyed.

We explore the depreciation and devaluation of currency in antiquity.

Bava Metzia 51: ״אוֹ קָנֹה ... אַל תּוֹנוּ״

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 51

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The source for this discussion of ona’ah appears on our daf. In truth, it is not only a question of whether a person can make an agreement to dispense with the rules of the Torah with regard to money matters, but also a more basic question of how to define the law of ona’ah. Some argue that ona’ah has two sides to it. On the one hand there is a question of money, on the other hand there are elements of issur – of forbidden practices – involved, as well.

We explore the dimensions of the prohibition Lev 25:14 :"וְכִֽי־תִמְכְּר֤וּ מִמְכָּר֙ לַעֲמִיתֶ֔ךָ א֥וֹ קָנֹ֖ה מִיַּ֣ד עֲמִיתֶ֑ךָ אַל־תּוֹנ֖וּ אִ֥ישׁ אֶת־אָחִֽיו׃

When you sell property to your neighbor, or buy any from your neighbor, you shall not wrong one another.

As it applies to business practices.

Bava Metzia 50: יוֹתֵר עַל שְׁתוּת – בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 50

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz "Beginning with the Mishna on daf 49b, the rest of the perek focuses on issues of ona’ah. Ona’ah is a biblical prohibition (see Vayikra 25:14), which forbids someone to take unfair advantage of another by overcharging or undercharging when negotiating a business deal. There are three different levels of ona’ah established by the Sages:

1. When the ona’ah – the amount that is overcharged – must be returned

2. When the ona’ah is so small that we assume the parties do not care about it, and it does not have to be returned

3. When the ona’ah is so large that the entire transaction is nullified."

The amount that is set by the Mishna as ona’ah is one-sixth of the value of the transaction. Therefore, if the overcharge is exactly one-sixth, that money is returned; if it is more than one-sixth the transaction is nullified; if it is less than one-sixth the transaction stands and the money need not be returned.

We continue our review of the halachot of price fraud.

Bava Metzia 49: הָאוֹנָאָה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 49

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna discusses the details of ona’ah – a sale that is not at a fair price. The Sages says that unfair selling is defined at a difference of a sixth in the price (e.g., 4 coins out of 24), and one may return an item on such a sale until the time it would take to show it to a merchant or relative.

Rabbi Tarfon says the difference is a third (e.g., 8 coins out of 24). When the merchants of Lod heard this, they were happy, since it allowed them a larger margin above the fair price. However, when Rabbi Tarfon told them that he also allowed a day for the buyer to return the item, they went back to following the Sages’ opinion.

We review the halachot of unfair business practices.

Bava Metzia 48: מִי שֶׁפָּרַע מֵאַנְשֵׁי דוֹר

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 48

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rabbi Shimon says: Even though the Sages said that when one party takes possession of a garment, the other party acquires a gold dinar, but when one party takes possession of a gold dinar, the other party does not acquire a garment, in any case, that is what the halakha would be.

But the Sages said with regard to one who reneges on a transaction where one party pulled the gold dinar into his possession: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the people of the generation of the dispersion, and from the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and from the Egyptians in the Red Sea, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement.

We explore this strange expression: מִי שֶׁפָּרַע מֵאַנְשֵׁי דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל וּמֵאַנְשֵׁי דּוֹר הַפְּלַגָּה וּמֵאַנְשֵׁי סְדוֹם וַעֲמוֹרָה וּמִמִּצְרַיִם בַּיָּם

As a kind of curse for reneging on financial commitments…

Bava Metzia 47: עַל־הַגְּאֻלָּ֤ה וְעַל־הַתְּמוּרָה֙

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metiza 47

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to Levi, a Kinyan Chalipin is accomplished by the seller giving an object to the buyer.

The Gemara explains that the pleasure that the seller receives as a result of the buyer's acceptance of his object causes the seller to have full intent (Gemiras Da'as) to transfer ownership of the second object to the buyer.

The prooftext used to identify a tannaitic dispute comes from Ruth 4:7

“Redemption” refers to a sale. This is the verse states, “It should not be redeemed” (Vayikra 27:27) when referring to a sale.

“Exchange” is a chalifin exchange, as the verse states, “He should not exchange it nor switch it.” “To uphold everything. A man would take off his shoe and would give it to his friend.”

We explore the notions of kinship and acquisition in the book of Ruth.