(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Metzia 69



(a) When someone produced a Sh'tar Iska against the sons of Rav Ilish, on which it was stated that the owner accepted half the gains and half the losses - Rav commented that Rav Ilish was a great man who would not have fed the owner Ribis (because for the owner to accept half the gains and half the losses constituted Ribis, seeing as the Mekabel received nothing for his trouble).

(b) Two options would have been open to Rav Ilish. Either the owner would have had to accept two thirds of the losses alongside one half of the gains, or - the Mekabel would accept half the losses but receive two thirds of the gains.

(a) When Rav Kahana related this episode to Rav Z'vid from Neherda'a, the latter suggested that Rav Ilish probably - dipped into fish-juice together with the owner (like Rebbi Yehudah in the previous Sugya).

(b) The Chachamim rejected Rav Z'vid's interpretation, which was based on Rav Nachman's statement ('Halachah ke'Rebbi Yehudah, ve'Halachah ke'Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah ... ') however, by reinterpreting Rav Nachman's statement to mean (not that the Halachah is like these three Tana'im, but) - that they were all of the same opinion (which generally means that it is not Halachah).

(c) And they proved that this must have been what he meant - because otherwise, why did he find it necessary to rule like all three? Why would it not have sufficed to rule like Rebbi Yehudah, who is the most lenient of them all?

(a) When Rav permits an Iska where the owner stipulates 'Moser Shelish', he means - that the owner agrees to grant the Mekabel any gains that exceed thirty-three ... per-cent above the original price of the goods, seeing as the Mekabel accepted that (knowing that the gains may not reach that figure).

(b) According to Shmuel, we must contend with the fact that the gains may not reach that amount (in which case it will constitute Ribis). Consequently, he needs to fix a Dinar [in the event that they do not], to ensure that the Mekabel receives payment for his trouble.

(c) When he said 'Resh Egla le'Pituma', we thought - that Rav meant that in addition to 'Mosar Shelish' (in the way that we just explained according to Shmuel).

(d) But we conclude that what Rav meant was that 'Resh Egla le'Pituma' is an alternative to Moser Shelish. Alternatively - we establish 'Moser Shelish' to pertain exclusively to where the Mekabel *has animals of his own*, and where there is no extra trouble in looking after an additional animal. But in principle, Rav agrees with Shmuel.

(e) This answer is based on the adage - 'G'vil le'Tura, G'vil le'Turi' ('If you are already mixing fodder for one ox, you may as well mix it for many oxen').

(a) When Rebbi Elazar from Hagrunya purchased an animal, and arranged an Iska with someone for half the profit and half the losses, to avoid Ribis - he paid him the whole head.

(b) The Mekabel's wife advised her husband to buy half the animal from Rebbi Elazar - because, she figured, he would then give him the whole fat-tail as well (considered a delicacy in those days).

(c) The disappointment that awaited him after he listened to her was - that not only did he only receive half the fat-tail, but that Rebbi Elazar also offered him only half the head.

(d) Rebbi Elazar attributed the fact that ...

1. ... the Mekabel was receiving less than before - to the fact that, whereas before, when he was a Mekabel (half a borrower and half a Shomer), he was forced to give him extra to eliminate the aspect of Ribis, whereas now that he had become a partner, to whom Ribis did not apply, this was no longer necessary.
2. ... the latter was exerting himself to look after Rebbi Elazar's half of the animal without getting paid for it (though they would have shared the feeding expenses, had their been any) - because it is normal for the Aris to exert himself to look after the field (even though it belongs basically to the owner). Similarly here, it is normal for the partner who is looking after the animal to exert himself to feed it on behalf of his partner too.
(a) Sumchus in a Beraisa obligates the Mekabel in an Iska to look after ...
1. ... an ass - for eighteen months.
2. ... a small animal (e.g. a sheep) - for two years.
(b) The ramifications of this ruling are - that if the Mekabel wishes to sell within this time, the owner can stop him from doing so.

(c) When the Tana adds 'Aval Eino Domeh Tipulah shel Shanah Rishonah ... ', he means that the reason for the previous Halachah is *because* the Tipul of the second year is more expensive.

(d) We suggest that it might be the Mekabel who has the right to prevent the owner from selling at the end of the first year, because the second year is easier than the first. We refute this suggestion however - on the grounds that the Tana should not then have said 'Chayav Le'tapel Bah', since the Tipul of the second year is easier than that of the first. It should have said (with reference to the owner 'Asur le'Mochrah'.

(a) Another Beraisa gives as the Shiur Tipul for looking after the newborn babies of ...
1. ... small animals - thirty days.
2. ... of large animals (such as cows) - fifty days.
(b) We learn this distinction from - a Bechor, which the Yisrael must look after for that amount of time before handing it to a Kohen (as we learn from Pesukim in Bechoros).

(c) Rebbi Yossi obligates the Mekabel to look after the babies of small animals for three months, because they have small teeth - and who therefore still need their mothers as well as assistance from people with experienced in looking after them.

(d) From then on, the Mekabel receives half the gains, because half of the babies are his.

1. Out of the other half - he receives half, but ...
2. ... nothing, as payment for the trouble of looking after the other half and the food, because he is a partner, and not a borrower, as we learned earlier, who is expected to exert himself on behalf of the joint property.
(a) When Rav Menasheh bar Gada (who was the Mekabel) took for himself half the babies that were born from an Iska (from his half), plus half of those that were born from his partner's half, Abaye raised the objection 'Ma'an Palag Lach', by which he meant - that he had no right to take his portion without having made a proper assessment in front of Beis-Din.

(b) The other objection he raised was - that since the local Minhag was to rear the newborn animals and not to divide them as soon as they were born, he should have kept to the Minhag ha'Makom (as will be explained in the following Mishnah).

(c) When ...

1. ... one year, one of two Kuta'i partners who had entered into an Iska, divided the money without his partner's consent, and his partner complained - Rav Papa quoted Rav Nachman, who said that money is considered divided, in which case, the first partner was justified in taking his portion.
2. ... the following year, the other partner got up and divided the wine that they had purchased with the proceeds, without his partner's consent, he asked him 'Ma'an Palag Lach'?
(d) When the first partner smugly commented that Rav Papa favored him every time - he decided that he had to explain to him his reasoning (see Tosfos DH 'Ki Hai Gavna').

(e) So he explained to him - the difference between money (where all coins are basically the same), and wine, where some barrels are tastier than others.




(a) We just cited Rav Nachman, who stated 'Zuzi ke'Ma'an de'Palig Dami'. We qualify Rav Nachman's statement - by confining it to where all the coins are either good (well-minted and whole) coins or bad coins.

(b) Rav Chama - used to rent out his coins for a Zuz (Medinah, an eighth of a Zuz Tzuri).

(c) He lost all his money - because what he did constituted Ribis (as we shall now see), and as we will learn later, this is what is in store for someone who lends out his money on interest.

(d) The two differences between renting a spade and renting money (that render the latter Ribis, but not the former) are - a. that whereas the renter returns the same spade that he received, that is not the case with money (which is normally meant to be spent), and b. that whereas the spade depreciates each time it is used, and the deterioration is noticeable when the owner gets it back, money does not.

(a) Rava issue a ruling permitting Reuven to give Shimon four Zuz ...
1. ... to induce Shimon to lend Levi a sum of money - because the Torah only forbids Ribis which *the debtor* gives to the creditor, but not which a third party gives him.
2. ... to induce him to ask Levi to lend him (Reuven) a sum of money - because here too, it is not money that the *debtor* is giving the creditor. It is really a fee for Shimon's services, for trying to obtain the loan on Reuven's behalf.
(b) The wax-merchants used to give Aba Mar bar Papa small wax Challos - to get him to ask his father to lend them money.

(c) When the Rabbanan complained that Rav Papa's son was accepting Ribis, he retorted - that he was welcome to accept such 'Ribis', as we just explained.

(a) Our Mishnah - permits entering into an Iska regarding a cow or a donkey, or anything which works and eats, to split the profits, and the Mekabel takes all the animal's work (without the owner having to pay for the work and the food [as we learned earlier]).

(b) We have already learned that one follows the local custom whether to divide the newborn babies immediately or to wait until they are fully grown. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel then permits entering into an Iska regarding a calf or a filly together with its mother - without the owner needing to pay for the trouble or the feeding of the young animal (as we learned above).

(c) The Tana concludes 'Mafriz al Sadeihu, ve'Eino Choshesh Mishum Ribis' (which will be explained shortly). '*Mafriz* al Sadeihu' means 'to widen one's field' (from the Lashon 'Arei ha'P'razos', meaning open cities, without borders). This might also be read as - 'Mafrin al Sadeihu' (which means 'to increase one's field' [from the Lashon '*P'ru* u'Revu']).

(a) The case of ...
1. ... 'Mafriz al ha'Sadeh' is - where Reuven rented a field from Shimon for ten Kur of wheat per annum. Then he borrowed two hundred Zuz for a year, stipulating that he would invest the money in the field and subsequently pay twelve Kur per annum.
2. ... 'Mafriz al ha'Chanus' and 'Mafriz al ha'Sefinah', which the Beraisa forbids is - where Reuven made a similar deal with Shimon, stipulating that he would pay a higher rental for the shop or the boat following the loan.
(b) The Tana permits 'Mafriz al ha'Sadeh' - because Reuven invests the borrowed money in the field, and the increased rental is merely the result of a more productive field. He forbids 'Mafriz al ha'Chanus ve'al ha'Sefinah' - because there, the Mekabel uses the loan for his own personal use, and not for the shop or the boat. Consequently, the increased rental is purely the result of the loan an constitutes Ribis.

(c) According to Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah, even the Tana will agree that sometimes, 'Mafriz al ha'Chanus ve'al ha'Sefinah' are permitted too - should the Mekabel use the loan to paint pictures on the shop-front (thereby attracting more customers), or to purchase a mast or other accessories, increasing the value of the boat.

(a) Rav said 'Agra u'Pagra', by which he meant - that the owner is permitted to rent out his boat and to stipulate that the renter is responsible for damages.

(b) When Rav Kahana and Rav Asi objected 'I Agra Lo Pagra I Pagra Lo Agra!' - they meant that the renter pays either rental or damages (wear and tear), but not both. Because, once he accepts responsibility for damages, he becomes a borrower, in which case paying rental is Ribis.

(c) Rav's reaction to Rav Kahana and Rav Asi's Kashya was - silence, because he did not know what to answer.

(d) Rav Sheishes commented - that Rav's silence indicated that he had not heard the Beraisa, from which we learn that accepting responsibility for damages is not the criterion that turns a rental into a loan.

(a) Although the Beraisa permits Kabalas Tzon Barzel from a Nochri, it forbids it from a Yisrael. 'Tzon Barzel' refers to - an Iska where the Mekabel takes full responsibility for death and damage, but only half the profits. And they are called by that name because most Mekablim of small animals (sheep and goats [which are also called 'Tzon']), tended to accept those conditions.

(b) Kabalas Tzon Barzel from a Yisrael is prohibited - because it is Ribis (as we have discussed at length in the previous Sugyos).

(c) The Beraisa then permits Reuven to rent a cow to Shimon which he assesses at thirty Dinar, for a Sela per month. Seeing as Reuven assessed the animal's value, when the Tana adds 'L'fi she'Lo As'ah Damim', he means - that the owner did not assess the value of the animal for the Mekabel to pay should its value decrease (only to replace it should it die).

(d) Rav Sheishes proves from this Beraisa - that the criterion that distinguishes between a loan and renting is whether the receiver accepts 'Zula' (to pay for any price decrease). If he does, then it becomes a loan, if he doesn't, it remains a rental.

(a) Rav Papa rules that regarding a boat, 'Agra u'Pagra' is permitted, adding - that it was the Minhag of the B'nei Kufra (boat-owners who tended to overlay their boats with pitch - Kofer) to pay the rental immediately (at the time of Meshichah - in spite of the principle 'Ein Sechirus Mishtalemes Ela be'Sof'), and the damage when it happened.

(b) When we ask 'Atu be'Minhaga Talya Milsa', we mean - that if there is a problem of Ribis, how can a Minhag override the Isur.

(c) And we answer - that the Minhag follows the Beraisa, which defines it as a rental and not a loan, thereby eliminating any question of Ribis.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,