Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Bava Metzia, 71

1) HALACHAH: LENDING WITH INTEREST TO A NOCHRI

OPINIONS: Rav Nachman said in the name of Rav Huna (70b) that one who lends with interest to a Nochri will be punished by losing all of his assets. The Gemara challenges Rav Nachman's statement from our Mishnah (70b) that states that "we may borrow from them (Nochrim) and we may lend to them with Ribis." Rav Chiya brei d'Rav Huna answers that when the Mishnah permits lending to Nochrim with interest, it is referring only to when it as necessary to do so in order to support oneself, "Kedei Chayav" (but not to enrich oneself). The Chachamim permitted lending to Nochrim with interest where that is one's means of support, but they prohibited profiting more than one's basic needs through usury to Nochrim.

Ravina answers that the Mishnah is referring only to Talmidei Chachamim. A Talmid Chacham is permitted to lend to Nochrim with interest because, since he is a Talmid Chacham, he will not be drawn after the ways of the Nochrim as a result of doing business with them.

According to Rav Chiya brei d'Rav Huna's answer, does the allowance to lend to Nochrim with interest for the sake of one's livelihood apply only to an Am ha'Aretz, or even to a Talmid Chacham? Furthermore, according to Ravina, who answers that a Talmid Chacham is permitted to lend to Nochrim with interest, does this mean that an Am ha'Aretz is prohibited from lending to a Nochri with interest even for the sake of supporting himself?

(a) RASHI explains that according to Rav Chiya brei d'Rav Huna, the reason why the Chachamim prohibited lending with interest to Nochrim for the purpose of profiting more than one's basic needs is because one might become habituated to lending with interest and lend even to Jews. Because of this reason, the OR ZARU'A (5:207) writes that according to Rav Chiya brei d'Rav Huna, it is prohibited for *all* people, including Talmidei Chachamim, to lend with interest to Nochrim for more than one's basic needs.

According to Ravina, who maintains that the fear is that one might be drawn after the ways of the Nochrim, the Isur of lending with interest to Nochrim applies only to an Am ha'Aretz, and even to lending with interest in order to support oneself. A Talmid Chacham, though, is permitted to lend to Nochrim with interest to Nochri as much as he wants, since there is no fear that he will be drawn after their ways.

(b) RABEINU CHANANEL (Kisvei Yad, as printed in the Or Zaru'a and other places) writes, "When the Mishnah states that we may lend to them with Ribis, Rav Chiya explains that this refers only to profiting enough to support oneself, *and this applies only to Talmidei Chachamim who will not learn from the ways of the Nochrim, but for everyone else it is prohibited*." The Or Zaru'a there (5:208) writes that Rabeinu Chananel holds that Ravina is not arguing with Rav Chiya brei d'Rav Huna, but that he is explaining Rav Chiya's explanation of the Mishnah as applying only to Talmidei Chachamim. Everyone agrees, though, that an Am ha'Aretz is prohibited from lending to Nochrim with interest, even for the sake of supporting himself.

The RAMBAN, however, understands Rabeinu Chananel's words differently. Rabeinu Chananel does not learn that Ravina is just explaining Rav Chiya's answer, explains the Ramban, but rather Rabeinu Chananel holds that Ravina argues with Rav Chiya, but that he is in doubt like whom to rule, and thus he rules stringently in accordance with both answers. (See the Ramban there, where he challenges the view of Rabeinu Chananel.)

The Ramban himself writes that even though Ravina and Rav Chiya are arguing, we rule in accordance with both opinions *to be lenient*. Consequently, it is permitted for all people (even Amei ha'Aretz) to lend to Nochrim with interest in order to support themselves, while lending with interest in order to profit more is prohibited for Amei ha'Aretz but permitted for Talmidei Chachamim. This is also the view of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Malveh v'Loveh 5:2) and the TUR and SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 159:1).

QUESTION: TOSFOS (70b, DH Sashich) asks why the common practice today is to lend to Nochrim with interest with no limitations? Even if we rule leniently in accordance with both views (that of Rav Chiya and Ravina), nevertheless only a Talmid Chachamim should be permitted to profit more than his basic needs, while for all others it should be prohibited!

ANSWERS:

(a) In his first answer, TOSFOS writes that since the Gemara records an alternate rendition of Rav Huna's statement, in which Rav Huna does not prohibit lending with interest to Nochrim at all, the answers of Rav Chiya and Ravina do not apply. Since the matter involves only an Isur d'Rabanan, we rule leniently and follow the second version of Rav Huna's statement, and thus lending to Nochrim with interest is permitted without limitations.

(b) In his second answer, Tosfos writes that even if we rule in accordance with the first version of Rav Huna's statement (that lending with interest to Nochrim is prohibited), there is still grounds to justify the common practice of lending without restrictions. Tosfos explains that lending with interest to Nochrim is permitted today because of the burden of the king's taxes and the officers' taxes upon us, and thus all profit is considered "Kedei Chayav," one's basic needs.

(c) Tosfos writes further that, to our distress, we live today among the nations and it is not possible to support ourselves without dealing with the Nochrim. Therefore, the reason to prohibit lending to Nochrim with interest because one might be drawn after their ways does not apply nowadays (any more than it applies to any other business dealings with Nochrim).

The TUR and SHULCHAN ARUCH (loc. cit.) rule in accordance with this view that nowadays lending with interest to Nochrim is permitted without restrictions.

However, contemporary authorities have questioned whether the allowance to lend with interest to Nochrim without restrictions is applicable today in Eretz Yisrael. According to the answer of Tosfos that it is permitted only because we live among the nations, this does not apply today in Eretz Yisrael, where one can support himself entirely through business dealings with other Jews. In addition, perhaps Tosfos permits it only in his times, when lending with interest was a primary occupation, whereas today it is not a primary occupation, and thus perhaps there is reason not to be lenient (see SEFER KLALA D'RIVISA). (I. Alsheich)

71b

QUESTION: The Beraisa (in the Seifa) teaches that when a Nochri borrows money with interest from a Jew, the Nochri may not lend that money to a Jew with interest when the original lender consents. The Gemara explains that the reason is because we view the Nochri to be a Shali'ach of the Jew, and thus it is as if the Jew is lending money to another Jew with interest. Even though, normally, a Nochri cannot be a Shali'ach for a Jew, the Chachamim enacted that he *can* be a Shali'ach for a Jew when being a Shali'ach will result in a stringency (such as in this case, where considering the Nochri to be the Shali'ach of the Jewish lender results in a Chumra that the Nochri may not lend the money to another Jew). (Even though the act that the Shali'ach is doing is an act of an Aveirah, and there is a principle that "Ein Shali'ach l'Devar Aveirah," the Gemara earlier (10b) cites an opinion that holds that when the Shali'ach doing the act is not prohibited to do that Aveirah, then "Ein Shali'ach l'Devar Aveirah" does not apply.)

RASHI (Shabbos 153b) and RABEINU CHANANEL maintain that our Gemara's statement is the Halachah, and a Nochri *can* be a Shali'ach for a Jew where it will result in a Chumra.

The TESHUVOS PNEI YEHOSHUA (YD 2) quotes HA'GA'ON RABEINU REBBI HESHEL who asks that if the Halachah is that a Nochri can be a Shali'ach for a Jew when it is l'Chumra, then why do we need a special prohibition of "Amirah l'Nochri" with regard to Shabbos (see later, 90a)? It should be prohibited for a Jew to tell a Nochri to do a Melachah on Shabbos because of the Halachah that the Nochri can be a Shali'ach for the Jew when it is a Chumra, and if the Nochri does the Melachah at the behest of the Jew, it would be as if the Jew himself did the Melachah!

ANSWER: The BEIS MEIR (#5) and CHASAM SOFER (OC 84) answer that with regard to doing a Melachah on Shabbos, it is not possible to make the Jew liable for a Melachah done through Shelichus at all. Only when the very action itself constitutes a repulsive act before Hashem is the Nochri's act on behalf of the Jew attributed to the Jew. The act of a Melachah on Shabbos, though, is not an intrinsically repulsive act. Melachah is forbidden on Shabbos in order for a Jew to rest on Shabbos from constructive labor ("l'Ma'an Yanu'ach"). For this reason, it is permitted mid'Oraisa to place a pot of raw food on the flame before Shabbos in order that it cook on Shabbos. Hence, when a Nochri does a Melachah at the behest of a Jew, it cannot be prohibited because he is acting as the Shali'ach of the Jew, because the Jew himself is resting from Melachah and is fulfilling the requirement of "l'Ma'an Yanu'ach," and thus the Jew has done no Aveirah. Therefore, it is necessary to have a special prohibition of "Amirah l'Nochri" on Shabbos.

(However, the KEHILOS YAKOV (Shabbos #55, Bava Kama #20) proves that the NIMUKEI YOSEF in Bava Kama (10a of the pages of the Rif) does not agree with this. The Nimukei Yosef asks that it should be prohibited to kindle the Shabbos candles before nightfall on Erev Shabbos, since they will continue to burn during Shabbos, and the principle of "Isho Mishum Chitzo" teaches that whenever a flame burns, it is as if the person lit the fire at that moment. According to the Beis Meir and Chasam Sofer, the question of the Nimukei Yosef is not a question, because the person himself did not action but rather rested from Melachah on Shabbos, and the action happened on its own accord.) (I. Alsheich)