The Talmud Bavli discusses the prohibition of lending certain items. A person should not say to a friend, "Lend me a measure of wheat, and I will give you back a measure at the time of the threshing." This is a classic case of lending item for item over a period of time, which is forbidden because of concern that the price of the item might increase, thus constituting interest. If the borrower returns wheat that is worth more than the wheat originally borrowed, it is considered an interest-bearing loan.
However, a person is permitted to borrow wheat if they already possess wheat to pay back, but it is currently inaccessible—for instance, if it is locked away and the key is missing. In such a scenario, since the borrower has the wheat in their stock, the transaction is considered permissible. The principle is that "since he has it," it is as if the wheat is already with the lender, and any price increase would be attributed to the lender's possession, not an interest gain. This rule permits the transaction without concern for interest.
Hillel, however, took a stricter stance, even in cases where the borrower possessed the item. He deemed such item-for-item loans forbidden. Hillel also ruled that a woman should not lend a loaf of bread to her friend unless they explicitly set a fixed price for it. Without a fixed price, there is a concern that the price of wheat might rise, leading to an interest payment when the bread is returned. This prohibition applies even to small transactions between neighbors, where the intention is not to charge interest, but the potential for it still exists due to price fluctuations.
The Sages argue with Hillel on two points. Firstly, they disagree with Hillel's ruling regarding lending an item when the borrower already possesses it. Secondly, they argue that small items like a loaf of bread, commonly exchanged between neighbors, are not typically subject to the concern of interest. Neighbors are generally not particular about minor fluctuations in value. However, Hillel maintained his strict view even for such small items.
Rav Una explains the "since he has it" rule: if a person has one measure of wheat in their possession, they can borrow one measure against it. If they have two measures, they can borrow two. The rule is based on the quantity one possesses. The Ba'al Ha'Ittur, however, offers a broader interpretation, stating that even possessing a single measure allows one to borrow many measures. The logic is that each borrowed measure is considered to be in place of the measure the borrower already possesses. The borrower's existing measure belongs to them; they can consume it or sell it. The lender is not repaid from that specific measure but from any available wheat, including that from the market. This allows the borrower's single measure to repeatedly serve as collateral for new loans, as it is never actually "used up" for repayment to the lender.
Rabbi Nachman, in the name of Shmuel, states that the halakha follows Hillel, meaning that even when a borrower possesses wheat, they cannot borrow wheat from a friend. However, the Gemara concludes that the halakha does not follow Rabbi Nachman. Therefore, it is permissible to borrow a measure of wheat as long as one possesses a measure of wheat. Regarding the lending of a loaf of bread, while Hillel deemed it forbidden without a fixed price due to interest concerns, the Sages permit it for small items. They reason that people are not particular about minor price fluctuations in such neighborly exchanges, and therefore there is no prohibition of interest.
The discussion then shifts to groups of people traveling together who are particular about their food portions. If such individuals divide food on Shabbat or a Festival, they risk transgressing several prohibitions. Measuring, weighing, and counting on Shabbat and Festivals are forbidden because they resemble business transactions. For example, one may fill a vessel with food but not request a specific measured quantity. These particular individuals, by meticulously measuring and weighing, would violate these prohibitions.
Another prohibition arises from lending and repaying on Shabbat or a Festival, as this might lead to writing a document to record the loan. Normally, when one lends an item, the standard loan period is thirty days, and people often record such transactions. If these particular individuals use terms like "lend me" or "borrow," they risk violating the prohibition against writing. While it is permissible to take an item with the understanding of repayment without using the explicit words "lend" or "borrow," these particular individuals, due to their strictness, are likely to use such forbidden language. Furthermore, according to Hillel, such item-for-item lending on Shabbat or a Festival would also constitute an interest problem, adding another layer of prohibition.
The Sages clarify that these prohibitions apply specifically when people are particular about exact repayment. Regular neighbors, who are generally lenient and might forgive small discrepancies or even give a gift, would not fall under these restrictions. However, for those who are meticulous about precise repayment, the concerns of interest and other prohibitions remain.
The Gemara then discusses instances where interest is permitted. The Sages permit lending money with interest to someone if it is certain that the lender would have given the extra amount as a gift anyway. For example, Shmuel told Abu Bar'ihi, "Lend me a hundred peppers, and I will pay you back a hundred and twenty." This was permissible because Shmuel would have given the extra twenty peppers as a gift regardless. The Sages assume that when people are aware of the seriousness of interest, any extra payment is intended as a gift, not interest, provided the gift would have been given even without the loan.
It is permissible for a person to lend money to their children and household members with interest for the purpose of their education. The intention is to let them experience the bitterness of paying interest, thereby deterring them from charging interest to others. However, some argue against this, fearing that it might have the opposite effect, teaching children that charging interest is a viable way to profit, thus encouraging them to engage in such practices themselves.
Regarding labor exchanges, a person can tell a friend, "You prune my field today, and I will prune your field tomorrow," or "You shovel my field today, and I will shovel your field tomorrow." This is permissible because the work is identical. However, one cannot say, "I will weed for you, and you dig for me," because the tasks might differ in difficulty or value, potentially leading to an interest-like situation where one person provides more strenuous labor for less valuable work in return. The concern applies only to non-compatible jobs.
The Gemara further clarifies that all days of the summer season are considered equivalent, and all days of the rainy season are considered equivalent, despite minor variations in daylight hours. Therefore, one can exchange a day of work in the summer for another day of work in the summer, or a day in the winter for a day in the winter. However, one cannot exchange a day of work in the winter for a day in the summer, as summer days are significantly longer and the work might be different in nature or difficulty (e.g., plowing in winter is harder due to rain-soaked ground). The Sages are not particular about minor daily fluctuations within the same season.
Rabban Gamliel distinguishes between "pre-interest" and "post-interest." Pre-interest occurs when someone gives a gift to a potential lender with the explicit intention of securing a loan in the future. Post-interest occurs when someone gives a gift to a lender after repaying a loan, explicitly stating that it is for the favor of the loan. Both are forbidden because they are directly linked to the loan transaction.
The Beis Shammai even recognize "verbal interest." For example, if a borrower provides information to a lender that the lender needs, solely because the lender provided a loan, this can be considered verbal interest. This is because the borrower is providing an extra favor due to the loan.
Several individuals transgress the prohibition of interest: the lender, the borrower, the guarantor, the witnesses who facilitate the document, and the scribe who writes it. They transgress various prohibitions, including "do not give interest," "do not take interest," and "do not press your friend for a loan" (which is often associated with those who charge interest). Additionally, they transgress "do not place a stumbling block before the blind," as they are enabling another person to sin by participating in an interest-bearing transaction. The guarantor, witnesses, and scribe are only held liable if the loan could not have been facilitated without their involvement; if the borrower could have obtained the loan elsewhere, their liability is diminished.
Rabbi Shimon states that those who charge interest lose more than they gain, as their assets diminish. He also says that they "make Moshe a scholar and the Torah truthful" in a euphemistic sense, implying the opposite. This means they mock the Torah by suggesting that if Moshe Rabbeinu had understood the potential profits from interest, he would not have forbidden it. The Maharsha explains this deeper: they suggest that if Moshe Rabbeinu were astute in business, he would realize that interest is not inherently bad, as it facilitates business for the borrower and the lender merely shares in the profits, making it an act of kindness.
If someone owes money and the creditor knows the borrower cannot pay, the creditor is forbidden even to walk in front of the borrower. This is because merely seeing the creditor can cause the borrower pain and pressure. The Sages interpret the verse "do not press him" to mean not even to cause the impression of pressing. Pressing a friend for a loan is likened to judging them in two judgments, causing pain akin to passing through fire and water.
Anyone who lends money without witnesses places a stumbling block before their friend, making it easy for the borrower to deny the loan and potentially steal. Therefore, witnesses are always required for loans. Resh Lakish adds that by lending without witnesses, one brings a curse upon oneself. If the borrower denies the loan, people will believe the borrower because of the lack of witnesses, and they will curse the lender for slandering a trustworthy person. The verse "let the lips of the false people be sealed" would then be applied to the lender, who is perceived as falsely accusing the borrower.
The rabbis recounted that Ravina strictly followed all rabbinical stringencies. Once, Rav Ashi sent a request to Ravina on Erev Shabbat, asking for a loan of ten zuz to buy land. Ravina replied that he would only lend the money with witnesses and a written document. Rav Ashi protested, asking if such strictness was necessary even for him. Ravina explained that because Rav Ashi was deeply engrossed in his learning, he might forget the loan, leading to Ravina being cursed for accusing a scholar. This demonstrates Ravina's meticulous adherence to rabbinical decrees, even with a respected colleague.
A Baraita lists three types of people who cry out for help to the rabbinical court, but the court does not assist them: one who lends money without witnesses (because they brought the problem upon themselves), one who "buys a master for himself," and one whose wife rules over him. The last case refers to a man who spoils his wife with excessive money, leading her to become demanding and controlling. The court deems this his own fault for having created the situation.
The case of "buying a master for himself" has two interpretations. One is a person who tells others that his money belongs to a non-Jew, to avoid appearing wealthy. If a non-Jew hears this, they might claim the money, and the court will not help because the person invited the problem. Another interpretation is one who gifts all their assets to their children while still alive, thereby losing control and becoming dependent on their children, effectively making them their masters.
Finally, a person who struggles in business in one town but refuses to move to another, despite having poor fortune, will not receive assistance from the court when creditors pursue them. The Gemara states, "Changing one's place changes one's fortune," implying that one should be willing to relocate for better opportunities. If one stubbornly refuses, they are considered to have brought their financial troubles upon themselves.