Monday, May 6, 2024

A definitive definition of the two categories of interest (ribit-רִבִּית TB Baba Metzia 67 (also daf 61b)

So far the entire fifth chapter starting back on daf TB Baba Metzia 60 discusses the prohibition of collecting interest on a loan based on the following verses “If your kin, being in straits, come under your authority, and are held by you as though resident aliens, let them live by your side: do not exact advance or accrued interest, but fear your God. Let your kin live by your side as such. Do not lend your money at advance interest, nor give your food at accrued interest. I YHVH am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, to be your God.” (Leviticus 25:35-38)

There are two categories of interest (ribit-רִבִּית). The Gemara calls the interest forbidden by Torah law ribit ketzetza (רִבִּית קְצוּצָה). The Gemara calls the interest forbidden by rabbinic law avak ribit (אֲבַק רִבִּית), “literally the dust of interest.” Even though not forbidden by Torah law, the rabbis forbid any appearance or hint of interest. Daf TB Baba Metzia 67 finally provides a clear definition of ribit ketzetza.

"Abaye said to Rava: With regard to a mortgage, if the borrower pledged a field to the lender, who worked the field and consumed its produce during the term of the loan without any agreement allowing him to do so, what is the halakha? There, in the previous case, what is the reason it is merely a hint of interest? Is it because the seller did not fix a particular sum for the buyer as interest? Here too, the lender did not fix a particular sum for the borrower, and accordingly, this would also be merely a hint of interest. Or perhaps the key issue is that there, it is a sale, whereas here, it is a loan, with regard to which there is a greater concern about interest.

“Rava said to him: There, what is the reason it is merely a hint of interest? It is considered a hint of interest because the seller did not fix a particular sum for the buyer as interest. Here too, the lender did not fix a particular sum for the borrower, and therefore this is not fixed interest.”

For interest to fall into the Torah forbidden category, a fixed amount must be clearly stipulated at the outset of the loan. If no fixed amount is stipulated, the interest is only forbidden rabbinically. Even though both categories of are forbidden, there is a significant halakhic outcome when the person charges interest. If it is a fixed interest, prohibited by Torah law, it can it be removed from the lender by means of legal proceedings adjudicated by judges. If it is considered like a hint of interest, prohibited by rabbinic law, and therefore it cannot be removed from the lender by means of legal proceedings adjudicated by judges.

Daf TB Baba Metzia 61b why the Torah concludes the prohibition of charging interest with the phrase “. I YHVH am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt,”

Rava says: Why do I need the mention of the exodus from Egypt that the Merciful One wrote in the context of the halakhot of the prohibition against interest (see Leviticus 25:37–38), and the mention of the exodus from Egypt with regard to the mitzva to wear ritual fringes (see Numbers 15:39–41), and the mention of the exodus from Egypt in the context of the prohibition concerning weights (see Leviticus 19:35–36)?

“Rava explains: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I am He Who distinguished in Egypt between the drop of seed that became a firstborn and the drop of seed that did not become a firstborn, and I killed only the firstborn. I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who attributes ownership of his money to a gentile and thereby lends it to a Jew with interest. Even if he is successful in deceiving the court, God knows the truth. And I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who buries his weights in salt, as this changes their weight in a manner not visible to the eye. And I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who hangs ritual fringes dyed with indigo [kala ilan] dye on his garment and says it is dyed with the sky-blue dye required in ritual fringes. The allusion to God’s ability to distinguish between two apparently like entities is why the exodus is mentioned in all of these contexts.” (Sefaria.org translation)

In other words you can’t pull the wool over God’s eyes and trick Him

 

No comments:

Post a Comment