Commentary page

Bava Metzia 63b

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Bava Metzia 63b

Bava Metzia 63b. The full printed text of this folio side — 13 numbered segments, about 337 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

מָה לִי הֵן וּמָה לִי דְּמֵיהֶן – אָמְרִינַן, מָה לִי דְּמֵיהֶן וּמָה לִי הֵן – נָמֵי אָמְרִינַן. וּפוֹסְקִין עַל שַׁעַר שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ.

that we say: What difference is it to me if he referred to the produce, and what difference is it to me if he referred to the produce’s value, meaning that we do not require the payment to be in the form of the produce stipulated, we therefore also say: What difference is it to me if he referred to the produce’s value, and what difference is it to me if he referred to the produce, and therefore one may set a price by the market rate. And this is permitted even though he does not have produce at the present moment. Since he could purchase it if he wished it is considered as though he had the produce in his possession, and therefore one may make an agreement with another to provide him with produce at a later date in accordance with the current price.

Segment 2

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרָבָא: כּוּלָּם, אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ – מוּתָּר, אִם אֵין לוֹ – אָסוּר! אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָתָם הַלְוָאָה, הָכָא זְבִינֵי.

Rav Pappa, and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raised an objection to the opinion of Rava from the aforementioned baraita , which explicitly teaches: With regard to all of them, if he has the produce in his possession, the transaction is permitted, and if he does not have it, the transaction is prohibited. Rava said to them: The tanna there is referring to a transaction for the repayment of the debt conducted after a loan has been given but before it has been repaid, whereas here Rabbi Yannai is dealing with an actual sale, without any loan at all, and therefore there is no interest involved.

Segment 3

רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מַאי טַעְמָא אֲמַרוּ רַבָּנַן פּוֹסְקִין עַל שַׁעַר שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ? דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁקִילָא טֵיבוּתָיךְ וְשַׁדְיָיא אַחִיזְרֵי. מַאי אַהְנֵית לִי? אִי הֲווֹ לִי זוּזֵי בִּידֵי – הֲוָה מְזַבֵּנְינָא בְּהִינֵי וּבְשִׁילֵי בְּזוּלָא.

Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: What is the reason that the Sages said one may set a price by the market rate and that one may do so even though he does not have the produce in his possession? Because the buyer says to the seller: Your favor is taken and thrown on the thorns. In other words, I am deriving no benefit from my transaction with you, as how have you helped me? If I had money in my hands I would buy the produce myself in the towns of Hini and Shili, nearby market towns, at an inexpensive price. Consequently, the acquisition of produce at the current market rate is of no benefit to him.

Segment 4

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה מוּתָּר לִלְוֹת סְאָה בִּסְאָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּמָצֵי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁקִילָא טֵיבוּתָיךְ וְשַׁדְיָיא אַחִיזְרֵי, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: חִטֵּי דְּקָדְחִי בַּאֲכַלְבַּאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם הַלְוָאָה, הָכָא – זְבִינֵי.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But if that is so, according to this same logic it should be permitted to lend a se’a of produce for a se’a of the same produce, as the lender can say to the borrower: Your favor is taken and thrown on the thorns, since he says to him: I stand to gain nothing from the se’a you will later give me, as the price of my wheat would increase if it were to remain in my granary, and therefore the loan does not benefit me at all, for will the wheat burn in my warehouse [ be’akalbai ]? Rav Yosef said to him: The two cases are different, as there it is referring to a loan, and consequently there is a concern about interest, whereas here it is a sale.

Segment 5

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַדָּא בַּר אַבָּא לְרָבָא: וְהָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתַּב זוּזֵי לְסַפְסֵירָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דְּקָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ נָמֵי. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: זוּזֵי דְּאִינָשֵׁי אִינְהוּ עָבְדִי לֵיהּ סַפְסֵירוּתֵיהּ.

Adda bar Abba said to Rava: But with regard to establishing the repayment of the loan upon produce valued at the market rate, the buyer does stand to gain from the agreement, as, if he would have to go to acquire produce elsewhere, he would have to give a dinar to a broker, and therefore he gains a dinar from the early payment. Rava said to him: The case is one where the buyer also gives the seller the broker’s fee. Rav Ashi said: There is generally no need to add this fee, as a person’s dinars serve as a broker for him. One who has ready cash has no need for the services of a broker.

Segment 6

רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: הַאי מַאן דְּיָהֵיב זוּזֵי אַתַּרְעָא חֲרִיפָא, צָרִיךְ לְאִיתְחֲזוֹיֵי לְבֵי דָרֵי.

§ The Gemara addresses a related issue. Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: One who gives money in advance to purchase produce at the advance price that is in effect shortly after the harvest but before the market price is set must present himself at the granary when the seller is threshing his produce.

Segment 7

לְמַאי? אִי לְמִקְנֵא – הָא לָא קָנֵי, אִי לְקַבּוֹלֵי עֲלֵיהּ ״מִי שֶׁפָּרַע״, כִּי לָא מִיתְחֲזֵי נָמֵי מְקַבֵּל עֲלֵיהּ ״מִי שֶׁפָּרַע״!

The Gemara asks: For what reason is he required to be there? If it is in order to acquire the produce, he does not acquire it by merely being present there, as the acquisition is not completed until he pulls the actual produce. And if it is in order for the seller to accept upon himself, in the event that he reneges on the transaction, the curse of: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the people of the generation of the dispersion, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement (see 44a), even if the buyer does not present himself there the seller also accepts upon himself the curse of: He Who exacted payment. This curse is in effect for anyone who reneges on a transaction after the money has been paid.

Segment 8

לְעוֹלָם לְקַבּוֹלֵי עֲלֵיהּ ״מִי שֶׁפָּרַע״, וּמַאן דְּיָהֵיב זוּזֵי אַתַּרְעָא [חֲרִיפָא], לְבֵי תְרֵי תְּלָתָא יָהֵיב, אִי מִיתְחֲזֵי לֵיהּ – סָמְכָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ, וְאִי לָא – אָמַר לֵיהּ: אָמֵינָא דְּאַשְׁכַּחְתְּ פֵּירֵי דְּשַׁפִּירֵי מִדִּידִי וּשְׁקַלְתְּ.

The Gemara explains: Actually, the reason he must go to the granary is for the seller to accept upon himself the curse of: He Who exacted payment, for the following reason: One who gives money in advance to purchase produce at the advance price gives it to two or three different sellers, in order to ensure that he will collect a profit. Consequently, if he presents himself to the seller when he is threshing his produce, the seller relies upon him, as he knows the transaction will proceed. But if the buyer does not present himself to the seller when he is threshing his produce, the seller could say to him: I said to myself that you must have found better produce than mine, and you took that produce. Since the seller is unsure if the transaction will be completed, he may change his mind and sell to a different buyer.

Segment 9

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ מִשּׁוּם מִסְמָךְ דַּעְתָּא, אֲפִילּוּ אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ בְּשׁוּקָא וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ – סָמְכָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ.

Rav Ashi said: Now that you have said that the reason is due to the seller’s relying upon him, it can be concluded that the buyer does not have to go to the seller’s granary in order to convince him that he intends to uphold the transaction. Rather, even if the buyer finds the seller in the marketplace and says to him that he will not retract his offer to buy the produce, the seller will likewise rely upon him.

Segment 10

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כְּלָלָא דְרִיבִּיתָא, כֹּל אֲגַר נְטַר לֵיהּ – אָסוּר. וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הַאי מַאן דְּיָהֵיב זוּזֵי לְקִירָאָה וְקָא אָזְלִי אַרְבַּע אַרְבַּע, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: יָהֵיבְנָא לָךְ חֲמֵשׁ חֲמֵשׁ, אִיתַנְהוּ גַּבֵּיהּ – שְׁרֵי, לֵיתַנְהוּ גַּבֵּיהּ – אָסוּר.

§ Rav Naḥman said: The principle with regard to the halakhot of interest is: Any payment for his waiting, meaning any additional sum added in consideration of the fact that the lender delays claiming his money, is forbidden. And Rav Naḥman also said: In the case of this one who gives money to a wax seller to purchase loaves of wax from him, and loaves of wax go at the current rate of one dinar for four loaves, and the seller said to him: I will give you wax in the future at the rate of five loaves for each dinar if you pay me now in advance, if the seller has wax with him at the time of the transaction, it is permitted to sell at a discounted rate because he is in need of cash. But if the seller does not have wax with him, it is forbidden, as the extra loaf given is interest.

Segment 11

פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ אַשְׁרַאי בְּמָתָא. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּאִית לֵיהּ אַשְׁרַאי בְּמָתָא – כְּ״עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא בְּנִי״ אוֹ ״עַד שֶׁאֶמְצָא מַפְתֵּחַ״ דָּמֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כֵּיוָן דִּמְחַסְּרִי גּוּבְיָינָא – כְּמַאן דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ דָּמֵי.

The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? It is clearly interest. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for a case where the seller has credit in the town, and therefore he could receive wax from others. It is necessary lest you say: Since he has credit in the town and could receive wax now, this should be similar to a case where he said: Give me produce until my son comes, or: Until I find the key, and therefore it is permitted to give him money, as this is not considered a loan (see 75a). Rav Naḥman therefore teaches us that since the loaves of wax still lack collection, i.e., the seller does not actually own them, they are considered as though they were not in existence, which means the reduction in price is classified as interest.

Segment 12

וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הַאי מַאן דְּאוֹזֵיף פְּשִׁיטֵי מֵחַבְרֵיהּ וְאַשְׁכַּח בֵּיהּ טוּפְיָינָא, אִי בִּכְדֵי שֶׁהַדַּעַת טוֹעָה – מִיחַיַּיב לְאַהֲדוֹרֵיהּ לֵיהּ, וְאִי לָאו – מַתָּנָה בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דְּיָהֵיב לֵיהּ.

And Rav Naḥman said: In the case of this one who borrowed coins from another, and when he later counted them he found an additional amount of money, above the sum they had agreed upon, if the addition was within the range that a person can make a mistake, the assumption is that the lender erred in his calculation, and therefore the borrower is obligated to return the extra coins to him. But if not, if the difference was so large that it could not have been the result of a simple mistake, it must only be that the lender has given him a gift.

Segment 13

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי ״בִּכְדֵי שֶׁהַדַּעַת טוֹעָה״? אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף:

The Gemara inquires: What are the circumstances where the additional amount would be within the range that one can make a mistake? Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, said:

Bava Metzia 63b

Bava Metzia 63b

Rashi

Tosafot

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Maharam

Shita Mekubetzet

Penei Yehoshua

Gilyon HaShas

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Sages named on this page

Original text