Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 12, scan section 9

for this purpose, it does not matter. Abayi said : If a debtor who sold grain, four measures for one zuz, had to pay a zuz usury, and furnished to his creditor five measures for the same, then the court that levies the usury levies only four measures, as the fifth may be considered a present. Rabha, however, says : All the five must be levied, as all the five together came to hand by usury. Abayi said again : If a debtor who owes four zuz usury has 156 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. furnished a garment to his creditor, when the court levies the usury it levies only four zuz, but not the garment. Rabha, how- ever, maintains that the garment is to be levied, for the reason that people may say that the garment he wears is of usury. Rabha said : If one claimed thirteen zuz usury, and at the same time he hired a court of his debtor for the same price which is worth only ten, when the usury is levied all the thirteen zuz are to be collected. Said R. Aha of Difti to Rabbina : Why should not the creditor claim : " Because the money was of a profit I did not care to give him three zuz more than the value, but now, when they levy the money, why should I be charged more than others?" And he answered: The owner of the court may say : " There is no difference, as so was my agreement and you accepted it." MISHNA ///..• Hiring may be increased, but not sale. How so? The owner may say to the hirer : " You can have this court for ten selas a year, if you give me the money in advance, but if in monthly instalments you have to pay one sela a month." It is, however, not allowed for the owner of a field to say : " If you advance me a thousand zuz you can have this field, but if by instalments, you have to pay twelve hundred." GEMARA : Why are the two cases so different ? Rabba and R. Joseph both said : Hiring is usually paid afterwards, and so if he pays him monthly he pays only what was due the last day of the month, as during the month he did not owe him anything, consequently there is no reward for waiting for the payment ; and the lower price which he offered him, for paying in advance the money for all the year, must also not be considered usury, as the owner has a right to reduce the price for occupying his property. With sale, however, it is difTerent, because the money must be paid with the act of the sale, and he acquires title immediately. Consequently, the increase of 200 for the instalments is usury. Said Rabha : The rabbis have investigated this matter to find its basis in the Scripture, and finally based it upon the verse [Lev. XXV. 53]: "Hired from year to year," which signifies that the hiring of this year is paid at the beginning of the next. But if by instalments, etc. R. Nahaman said: It is allowed to increase the price of an article when the money is to be paid a certain time after delivering (provided he does not say : " If for cash, you will have it cheaper"). And Rami, according to others Uqba b. Hama, objected to him from the last part of our Mishna ; and he answered : There he said plainly : " If you advance me TRACT BABA METZIA (MIDDLE GATE). 157 the money you will have it cheaper " (which certainly appears usurious). Said R. Papa (who was a brewer) : I do so with my customers. I sell them on Tishri at the price of Nissan, thinking that to me it is undoubtedly allowed, as my beer would not get spoiled until Nissan and I am never in need of money (so that I should sell cheaper for cash), and I do only a favor to my cus- tomers by crediting them. Said R. Shesheth b. R. Aidi to him : Why should the master take the example of yourself and not of your customers? You should consider these circumstances, that if they would have money they would pay you at the price exist- ing in Tishri ? Said R. Hama : I do so in my business, and to me it is allowed beyond any question (Rashi explains that he was a wholesale dealer in many articles, and he sold them to the trav- ellers at the market price of the large cities, with the condition that they should pay him when they returned, and he was also ■responsible for his goods on the way until sold; they, however, were allowed to buy articles for the money obtained and to sell them in other places), as they are pleased that I take all the responsibility of the goods until sold, and also that they are free of duty because the goods bear my name (the Persians used to free the rabbis of duties), and furthermore that my goods have the preference for sale, as it is announced in the market that no one can sell the same goods until mine are sold, because they bear my name.* The Halakha prevails in accordance with R. Hama, with R. Elazar (who says that usury is levied), and also with R. Yanai, who said above (p. 152) that there is no difference between the articles and the money. MISHNA /F. ; If one sold his field, taking a deposit and saying : " You may take possession of the field belonging to you from to-day, when you will bring the balance," such an act is not allowed. If, however, one has borrowed money on his estate with condition that if he will not repay within three years it shall belong to the lender, it belongs to the lender if not paid ; and so did Baitus b. Zunin under the supervision of the sages. GEMARA : But who uses the fruit in case he sold his field by a deposit? According to R. Huna, the seller; and according to R. Anan, the fruit must be deposited until the remainder is paid. And they do not differ. R. Huna speaks in case the seller told him he shall acquire title when he will bring the balance, and * This was usually done by the Jewish courts when a scholar came to their city with his trade, and with references from other courts. "15a THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. R. Anan speaks in case he said, When the balance will be paid in time title shall be acquired by you from to-day. R. Saffra learned in the Boraithas, treating upon usury, taught in the school of R. Hyia, concerning the statement of our Mishna: There are cases in which the use of the fruit is permitted to both, prohibited to both, permitted to the seller only. And Rabha illustrated it thus : The first case applies when the agreement was that he shall acquire title for the amount of the deposit only ; the second applies when he was told that if he will pay the balance in time, title to the property shall be given to him from to-day ; the third applies, if he was told, A title will be given to you at the time when you will bring the balance ; and the fourth applies if he was told, Title is given to you from now and the balance you owe me should be considered a loan. According to whom is the statement of our Mishna that both are prohibited? Said R. Huna b. R. Joshua: At any rate, it is