ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 65
BAVA METZIA 61,63,64,65 - Mrs. Estanne Abraham-Fawer has dedicated two weeks
of Dafyomi study material to honor the second Yahrzeit of her father, Reb
Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Weiner, who passed away 18 Teves 5761). May the
merit of supporting and advancing the study of the Talmud be l'Iluy
(a) In a case where Reuven gives Shimon five measures of wheat in lieu of
the Zuz Ribis that he owes him, when the going price is four measures per
Zuz, Abaye rules that Shimon is obligated to return only four measures (or
one Zuz - see Shitah Mekubetzes), and the extra measure is a gift.
(b) Rava obligates him to return all five - since he received the extra
measure in the form of Ribis.
(c) In a similar case, but where Reuven gives Shimon a coat instead of the
four Zuzim Ribis that he owes him, Abaye permits Shimon to return the four
Zuzim, and not the coat. Rava insists that he returns the coat itself - so
that people should not accuse him of wearing a coat of Ribis.
(a) Rava rules that if Reuven, who owes Shimon twelve Zuzim, then rents him
an apartment which normally goes for ten Zuzim, in lieu of the Ribis -
Shimon is obligated to return - twelve Zuzim.
(b) When Rav Acha from Difti asked Ravina why Shimon cannot argue that he
only agreed to accept the apartment at twelve Zuzim, because he thought it
was to his advantage, but not if it will cost him two Zuzim, Ravina
replied - that since Shimon accepted the price of twelve Zuzim, he cannot
now go back on his original agreement.
(a) Our Mishnah permits 'Marbin al ha'S'char', but not 'Marbin al
ha'Mecher'. An example of ...
1. ... 'Marbin al ha'S'char' is - if Reuven rents Shimon his Chatzer at ten
Sela'im per annum paid in advance, or one Sela per month.
(b) Rabah and Rav Yosef explain that ...
2. ... 'Marbin al ha'Mecher' is - if Reuven offers to sell Shimon a field,
for a thousand Zuz to be paid now, or twelve Manah (one thousand two hundred
Zuz) to be paid at the time of the harvest.
1. ... 'Marbin al ha'S'char' is permitted - because of the principle 'Ein
Sechirus Mishtalemes Ela be'Sof'. Consequently, the Sela per month is the
regular price, whilst the Sela per month is a merely a reduction.
(c) Rava learns from the Pasuk 'ki'S'chir Shanah be'Shanah' - that the
rental of this year is only due next year ('Ein S'chirus Mishtalemes Ela
2. ... 'Marbin al ha'Mecher' is prohibited - because seeing as one usually
pays for one purchases in advance, it is the thousand Zuz which is the real
price, in which case, the twelve Manah includes a fee for having to wait for
the money ('S'char Hamtanas Ma'os' - Ribis).
(a) Rav Nachman permits Tarsha - meaning the selling of goods on credit, at
above their market price.
(b) Rav Nachman reconciles his opinion with the Seifa of our Mishnah, which
forbids this very case - because the Tana speaks when the seller
specifically offered it to him at a lower price should he pay immediately,
thereby clearly indicating that the more expensive price was 'S'char
(c) Rav Papa maintained that *his* Tarsha (selling his date-beer in Tishri,
when the beer was cheap, on credit, to be collected at market-time in Nisan,
when the price had risen). What made him think that it was certainly
permitted was - the fact that a. because his beer did not go off (which
means that he could just as well have kept the beer that he already had in
Tishri until Nisan), and b. he did not need the money in advance.
(d) Rav Shisha B'rei de'Rav Idi disagreed with him however - on the grounds
that this is fine if one looks at it from his perspective, but from the
purchasers' point of view, if they had had money, they would have purchased
the beer at the cheaper price, and they only bought it on credit because
they did not have money with which to pay.
(a) Rav Chamah maintained that his Tarsha was definitely permitted.
Following the standard procedure of Tarsha (where the purchaser paid the
more expensive rate (in this case, of the town where they heading) than the
current one, his Tarsha constituted - the purchasers selling his merchandise
on credit and using the proceeds of the sale to do business, before
returning with their own goods and the money that they owed him.
(b) He nevertheless permitted it - because Rav Acha accepted full Achrayus
until the goods were sold, so that the money only became a loan after they
(c) We counter the argument that it ought nevertheless to be considered
Ribis because, as Tosfos explains, they had the trouble of selling the goods
that remained his without receiving anything in return - with the fact that
the fact that Rav Chama's name was attached to the goods, spared them from
having to pay taxes, as well as granting them the first right to sell his
(d) We rule like Rav Chama ...
1. ... Rebbi Elazar - who holds Ribis Ketzutzah Yotz'ah be'Dayanin ...
2. ... and Rebbi Yanai - who holds 'Mah Li Hein, Mah Li Demeihen'.
(a) If Reuven pays Shimon half the cost of his field, on the understanding
that the moment he brings the balance he will acquire the entire field
(otherwise the sale is cancelled), it is forbidden for either of them to eat
the fruit. If the prohibition is to extend to Shimon, we need to add to our
Mishnah - that when Reuven brings the balance, he will just acquire the
field, but he will acquire it retroactively.
(b) The reason for the prohibition is - because 'Mah Nafshach', should
Shimon eat the fruit, then, in the event that Reuven *does* bring the
balance, the field will have been Reuven's all the time and what Shimon ate
will have been Ribis (compensation for his outstanding money)' whereas
should Reuven eat it, then, in the event that he does not bring the money,
and the field remains Shimon's, *he* will have eaten Ribis (as compensation
for the 'loan' that he made Shimon).
(a) Rav Huna permits Shimon to eat the fruit. Rav Anan says that it should
be handed for safekeeping to a third party.
(b) Assuming that they do not argue, we will establish ...
1. ... Rav Huna - when Shimon stipulated that Reuven will acquire the field
as soon as he brings the balance (but not retroactively).
(c) Rav Safra quotes a Beraisa of 'Ribis de'Bei Rebbi Chiya which cites all
possible computation, which Rava explains. We have already explained the
cases where Shimon is permitted to eat the fruit (Rav Huna), and where
neither is permitted to do so (Rav Anan). The case ...
2. ... Rav Anan - when Shimon stipulated that he will acquire the field
retroactively as soon as he brings the balance.
1. ... in which both are permitted to eat it is - when Shimon stipulates
that Reuven immediately acquires what he has paid for, and the rest, when he
brings the balance.
(d) When Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua says that the Tana who forbids both
men to eat the fruit cannot be Rebbi Yehudah, he means that according to
Rebbi Yehudah - both parties would be permitted to eat the fruit, because
he holds 'Tzad Echad be'Ribis (a Safek Ribis) is permitted.
2. ... in which Reuven may do so is - when he stipulates that he acquires
the field immediately and that the balance is an independent loan.
(a) The Beraisa forbids a creditor to stipulate with the debtor that should
the latter wish to sell the house or the field that he gave him as a
security, he should sell it to him for a small sum that he will add to the
money owing - because it constitutes Ribis.
(b) This would be permitted however - if he stipulated that he should sell
it to him at the market price.
(c) The author of this Beraisa (or the next one) cannot be - Rebbi Yehudah,
who holds 'Tzad Echad be'Ribis Mutar'.
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa - forbids someone to sell a house or a field and
stipulate that the purchaser should return it, should he (the seller) find
the money (to redeem it).
(b) The Tana does however, permit *the purchaser* to make the stipulation -
provided, says Rava, he adds the clause that the return of the house of the
field for the money on his part were only voluntary.
(c) The basic difference between the Reisha and the Seifa is - that whereas
the case in the Seifa remains a sale, that of the Reisha becomes a
retroactive loan should the seller find the money.
(a) When Reuven, who had sold Shimon a field without Achrayus, perceived
Shimon looking dejected (for fear of losing his money), he assured him that
he would recompense him from the best of his fields, should the need arise.
'Without Achrayus' in this case means - that these words were actually
written in the Sh'tar (because otherwise, we would apply Shmuel's principle
'Acharayus Ta'us Sofer').
(b) Ameimar ruled - that Reuven was merely making an effort to placate
Shimon, and that his words carried no Halachic ramifications, because such a
stipulation should have been made by Shimon and not by Reuven.
(c) When Rav Ashi asked Ameimar from Rava, who just explained 'Seifa de'Amar
Lei mi'Da'atei', he meant - that there too, it is the seller who ought to
have made the stipulation, yet, despite the fact that the purchaser made it,
Rava holds that if he does not add that his retraction will be voluntary, we
accept his stipulation in its entirety.
(d) To which Ameimar replied - that Rava did not mean that he is actually
required to state that his retraction will be voluntary, but that, because
it was not up to him to issue such an ultimatum, we automatically consider
as if he had done so.