Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 12, scan section 5

for thirty dinars, and you shall have to get wine from me accord- ing to the present market price," but he has not wine ready for delivery ; this is an unlawful increase. GEMARA : In leaving out usury, which is biblical, and explaining increase, which is rabbinical only (which is the matter of an exchange), it may be deduced that, biblically, " usury " and " increase " are one and the same thing ; and yet both expres- sions are mentioned in the same sentence [Deut. xxiii. 20] : " Usury of money, and increase of victuals ? " Said Rabha : There is indeed not a case of " usury " without an " increase," and vice versa. The Scripture, however, mentioned purposely Neshekh (biting) and Tarbeth (increase), to teach us that there are two negative commandments for usury. The rabbis taught : It is written [Levi., xxv. 37] : " Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase." There is men- tioned only usury of money, and an increase of victuals ; whence we know that even the negative commandment of usury is to be applied on victuals also? There it is said [Deut., xxiii. 20].: X4S 146 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. " Usury of victuals." Whence the negative commandment of increase on money? It is therefore said [ibid.^ ibid.l, "usury of money." This expression is superfluous, as it is said at the beginning of the same sentence : " Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother," etc., which includes any kind of usury ; therefore this superfluous expression is to be applied for the negative commandment of increase (tarbeth) on money. As this verse speaks of the borrower only, whence do we know that the same is the case with the lender? From the analogy of expres- sion, " usury," which is used in both cases, we deduce that, as in the former case, there is no difference between money, victuals, usury, or increase. Whence, however, is to be deduced, that any increase is prohibited ? From {ibid., ibid.'] " usury of anything that is lent upon usury." Rabbina, however, said : The analogy of expressions would be needed if the Scripture would read : " Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, and thy victuals," etc. ; but as it is written : " Thou shalt not give him thy money, and upon increase," etc., it is not necessary, because we read : " Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury and increase," and we also read : " With usury and increase thou shalt not give thy vict- uals." But says the Gemara : Did not the Tana of the Boraitha deduce analogy of expressions ! How then can Rabbina, as an (Amoroi) oppose the statement of a Tana ? There is no opposi- tion, as he means to say, that if it would not be plainly written in the Scripture, it could be deduced from the above analogy of expression. The above analogy, however, is needed to include every kind of usury which is not mentioned in the Scripture, con- cerning a lender. Rabha said : Why does the Scripture mention separately a negative commandment regarding usury, robbery, and cheating? (Are they not all of one and the same character ?) It is necessary, for if it were written concerning usury, only, one might say it is something peculiar, as the borrower (who needs the money) is also forbidden to give usury ; hence, robbery and cheating could not be deduced (as there is a rule that nothing is to be deduced from a peculiarity). If concerning robbery only, one might say because there is an act of violence, of which cheating cannot be deduced. And if it were stated concerning cheating only, one might say that because he was not aware of the cheat, and could not relinquish even if he would like to do so, therefore the above could not be deduced. Let us see. If even one from another cannot be deduced, why, then, should not TRACT BABA METZIA (MIDDLE GATE). 147 one of them be deduced from the two others ? Which of them ! Suppose it should not be written concerning usury, and therefore be deduced from the others. One may say that in both the above cases it was done against his will, which is not the case with usury, as the borrower agrees. And should it be deduced concerning cheating from above two, one might say that buying and selling matters cannot be deduced from a case of violence, etc. But let the Scripture leave robbery, which could be deduced from the above, as what would be the objection ? " Usury is a peculiarity ! " cheating would prove ; and if there would be an objection that in the case of cheating no relinquishment could be made, as it was not known, usury would prove. The same dis- cussion will revolve indefinitely, and though the points of each are different, they are equal, however, in one point : that their acts are considered a robbery ; hence, robbery could be deduced ? It may be said : That so it is, and the commandment of robbery applies to him who withholds the wages of an employee. But is this not plainly written [Deut., xxiv. 14] : " Thou shalt not with- hold," etc. ? It is written to show that two negative command- ments shall be applied to any act of unjust keeping of wages. If so, why then is theft mentioned ? (Could it not be deduced from above ?) It is needed, as it is stated in the following Boraitha : " Thou shalt not steal," even with the intention to vex a short time, and returning; '* Thou shalt not steal," even with the inten- tion to please your neighbor with the due double amount (instead of charity, which he would probably not accept). R. Yimar questioned R. Ashi : (After all that is said above,) is not the commandment superfluous concerning right weight ? And he answered : The commandment applies to him who hides his scales in salt that they should become heavier. But is this not a direct robbery ? I mean to say that the transgression comes just with the act (although he had not used it as yet). The rabbis taught : It is written [Lev., xix. 35] : " Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in mete-yard, in weight, or in measure." Mete-yard means measuring real estate ; one should not measure with the same rope for two heirs, for one in the summer season and for the other in the winter (because the rope, if dry, is shorter). " In weight " means, one should not hide the weight in salt (explained above). A small liquid measure one shall not fill up in a manner to make foam ; and from this the following a fortiori conclusion is to be drawn: Of a small measure which contains only a thirty-sixth part of a lug, the 148 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. Thora is particular that the liquid should not be measured with foam ; of a hin or a lug, or a half, third, or quarter of a lug, so much the more the measure must be full without foam. Rabha said : Why is the redemption from Egypt mentioned in the Scripture in conjunction with usury, zizith, and weight ?