Bava Metzia - Daf 71
- The consequences of lending with ribbis
In a Baraisa, Rebbe Yose said: בא וראה סמיות עיניהם של מלוי ברבית – Come and see the blindness of those who lend with ribbis! Ordinarily, if someone is called a רשע, he fights with the offender as if he was threatening his life. Yet, those who lend with ribbis, when writing the שטר, bring witnesses and a scribe, and a pen and ink, and effectively write and sign: פלוני זה כפר באלקי ישראל – Ploni denied the G-d of Yisroel by ignoring His prohibition against ribbis. Rebbe Shimon ben Elazar taught in a Baraisa that the Torah says about anyone who has money and lends it without ribbis: כספו לא נתן בנשך – he did not give his money on interest, ושחד על נקי לא לקח – and has not taken a bribe against the innocent; עשה אלה לא ימוט לעולם – he who does these shall never falter. This implies: שכל המלוה ברבית נכסיו מתמוטטין - that anyone who does lend with ribbis, his possessions will falter. Although even the possessions of those who lend without ribbis falter, they rise again, as opposed to those who lend with ribbis.
- Borrowing with ribbis from a non-Jew with a Jewish intermediary, or vice-versa
A Baraisa states that if a Jew borrowed from a non-Jew with interest, and another Jew asked to borrow the money and pay the additional interest to the non-Jew, it is forbidden as a loan from the Jew. ואם העמידו אצל נכרי – but if [the first borrower] presented him to the non-Jew, who agreed to transfer the loan to him, it is permitted as a loan from the non-Jew. In the reverse case, where the lender is a Jew and the first borrower is a non-Jew, then borrowing from the first borrower is permitted, but if the transfer is made at the lender’s direction, it is prohibited as a loan from the Jew. The final ruling is understandable, for although a non-Jew cannot be or appoint a shaliach (so the lender is actually the non-Jewish “intermediary”), the Baraisa rules strictly to consider the non-Jew a shaliach of the Jewish lender. However, in the first pair of cases (of the non-Jewish lender), the loan should be prohibited even at the lender’s direction, since the Jewish borrower cannot be his shaliach!? Rav Pappa answers: כגון שנטל ונתן ביד – it is a case where [the [non-Jew] took the money from the first borrower and gave it with his hand to the second borrower, so the loan is from the non-Jew. The Gemara explains the novelty.
- Ravina: a non-Jew has the power of זכייה, even though he cannot have שליחות
Rav Ashi attempts to answer that a non-Jew is only disqualified from shelichus for terumah, but not other halachos. In another version, he said that although a non-Jew cannot be a shaliach, a Jew can be his shaliach. Both of these answers are disproven, based on the source for shelichus from terumah.
Ravina answers: נהי דשליחות לנכרי לית ליה – Granted that a non-Jew does not have the power of shelichus, זכיה מדרבנן אית ליה – but Rabbinically, he has the power of acquisition through a third party, without the beneficiary’s knowledge of appointing a shaliach. Therefore, the second borrower acquires the payment on the non-Jew’s behalf, and then borrows it from him. Ravina derives this from a קטן, who is disqualified from shelichus (since he cannot separate terumah, the source of shelichus), yet Rabbinically still has the power of זכייה. The Gemara rejects Ravina’s proof: ישראל אתי לכלל שליחות – a Jew, even a קטן, will later come into the principle of shelichus when he matures, so the Rabbis granted him זכייה while he is still a קטן, whereas a non-Jew will never be eligible for shelichus, and so does not have זכייה.
