קָא פָרֵיק לַהּ בְּאַרְבְּעָה זוּזֵי, הָכָא נָמֵי לָא שְׁנָא.

that he redeems it at four dinars a year, despite the fact that the produce is worth more? Here too, it is no different. Since he established the deduction of a fixed sum that he cannot be sure he will receive, the practice is permitted, even if he in fact profits from the arrangement.

וּמַאן דְּאָסַר – אָמַר לָךְ: שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה הֶקְדֵּשׁ הִיא, וְרַחֲמָנָא אוֹקְמֵיהּ אַפִּדְיוֹן. הָכָא – הַלְוָאָה הִיא וּמִיחֲזֵי כְּרִבִּית.

And the one who prohibits this arrangement could have said to you that the halakha with regard to an ancestral field is discussing consecrated property and the Merciful One established redemption for it, on the basis of which the Sages determined the full redemption. Here, by contrast, it is a loan, and therefore it has the appearance of interest.

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲמַרוּ לִי סָבֵי דְּמָתָא מַחְסֵיָא: סְתַם מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא – שַׁתָּא. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? דְּאִי אָכֵיל לַהּ שַׁתָּא – מָצֵי מְסַלֵּק לֵיהּ, וְאִי לָא – לָא מָצֵי מְסַלֵּק לֵיהּ.

Rav Ashi said: The elders of the town of Mata Meḥasya told me: An unspecified mortgage [mashkanta] is for a year. The Gemara poses a question: What is the practical difference resulting from this ruling? The Gemara explains: It means that if the lender consumed its produce for a year, the borrower can then remove him; but if not, the borrower cannot yet remove him, as an unspecified mortgage does not last less than this period of time.

וְאָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲמַרוּ לִי סָבֵי דְּמָתָא מַחְסֵיָא, מַאי ״מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא״ – דִּשְׁכוּנָה גַּבֵּיהּ. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְדִינָא דְּבַר מִצְרָא.

And Rav Ashi said: The elders of Mata Meḥasya told me: What is the meaning of the word mashkanta? It is referring to the fact that it resides [shekhuna] with him. The Gemara again asks: What is the practical difference resulting from his statement? The Gemara answers: It is relevant for the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor. Since the mortgaged field resides with him, it is considered his property to a certain extent, and therefore he is granted the right to purchase a neighboring field before an outside party does so.

אָמַר רָבָא: לֵית הִלְכְתָא לָא כְּטַרְשֵׁי פַּפּוּנָאֵי, וְלָא כִּשְׁטָרֵי מָחוֹזְנָאֵי, וְלָא כַּחֲכִירֵי נַרְשָׁאֵי.

Rava said: The halakha is not in accordance with those who approve of the tacit interest agreement of Rav Pappa, nor in accordance with those who approve of the documents of Meḥoza, nor in accordance with those who approve of the tenancies of Neresh.

כְּטַרְשֵׁי פַּפּוּנָאֵי – כְּטַרְשֵׁי דְּרַב פָּפָּא.

The Gemara clarifies these statements: The halakha is not in accordance with those who approve of the tacit interest agreement of Rav Pappa; this is referring to the tacit interest agreement of Rav Pappa (65a). Rav Pappa would sell liquor and accept delayed payment at a higher price, and believed this to be permitted since he did not gain anything from the arrangement.

שְׁטָרֵי מָחוֹזְנָאֵי – דְּזָקְפִי לֵיהּ לְרַוְוחָא אַקַּרְנָא, וְכָתְבִי לֵיהּ בִּשְׁטָרָא. מִי יֵימַר דְּהָוֵה רַוְוחָא?

What are the documents of Meḥoza? In Meḥoza they would lend money to someone for him to use in a joint business venture, and add the profits to the principal, as though the transaction were already completed, and they would write the full sum owed, including the lender’s share of the profits, in the document. The reason it is prohibited to do this is that who says there will be any profit? It is possible that the borrower will suffer a loss or earn less than expected, and he will eventually be paying interest if he pays the full amount recorded in the document.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר בַּר אַמֵּימָר לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אַבָּא עָבֵיד הָכִי, וְכִי אָתוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ מְהֵימַן לְהוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תִּינַח הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ, אִי שָׁכֵיב וְנָפֵל שְׁטָרָא קַמֵּי יַתְמֵי, מַאי? הָוֵי ״כִּשְׁגָגָה שֶׁיֹּצָא מִלִּפְנֵי הַשַּׁלִּיט״ וְנָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּאַמֵּימָר.

Mar, son of Ameimar, said to Rav Ashi: Father would do so, i.e., he would add the profits to the sum of the loan contract, and when they came before him and told him they had not earned enough profit he would believe them and reduce the debt to the amount they had actually earned. Rav Ashi said to him: This works out well while the lender is still here, but if he dies and the document comes before the orphans, what would happen in that case? Unaware that profits have been added to the document, the orphans would demand the entire sum, which would constitute interest. The Gemara comments: This innocent observation of Rav Ashi’s was “like an error that proceeds from a ruler” (Ecclesiastes 10:5), and Ameimar died shortly afterward.

חֲכִירֵי נַרְשָׁאֵי, דְּכָתְבִי הָכִי: מִשְׁכֵּן לֵיהּ פְּלָנְיָא אַרְעֵיהּ לִפְלָנְיָא, וַהֲדַר חַכְרַהּ מִינֵּיהּ. אֵימַת קְנָאָהּ דְּאַקְנְיַיהּ נִהֲלֵיהּ?

The Gemara addresses the final ruling. What are the tenancies of Neresh? In the town of Neresh they would write a document in this manner: So-and-so has mortgaged his land to so-and-so, and the borrower then went and leased it back from him for a fee that was added to the payment of the loan. This transaction is problematic. When did the lender acquire it, such that he can subsequently transfer it back to the borrower? As he is not the actual owner of the field, the money for the lease is actually payment for the delay in repaying the loan, and therefore this arrangement is considered interest.

וְהָאִידָּנָא דְּקָא כָתְבִי הָכִי: ״קְנֵינָא מִינֵּיהּ וּשְׁהֵינָא כַּמָּה עִידָּנֵי, וַהֲדַר חַכְרַהּ״, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּנְעוֹל דֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי לוֹוִין – שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. וְלָאו מִלְּתָא הִיא.

The Gemara comments: And nowadays, when we write a document in this manner: We acquired the property from him and we waited a while and then the borrower went and leased it back for such and such a price, a formula that states that the lender has acquired the field and may now lease it to others, which is utilized so as not to lock the door in the face of potential borrowers, it is permitted, as it does not have the appearance of a loan with interest. The Gemara concludes: But this is not correct, as even if the field is in his possession, since he has not acquired it properly, it is considered interest.

מַתְנִי׳ אֵין מוֹשִׁיבִין חֶנְוָנִי לְמַחֲצִית שָׂכָר, וְלֹא יִתֵּן מָעוֹת לִיקַּח בָּהֶן פֵּירוֹת לְמַחֲצִית שָׂכָר, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ כְּפוֹעֵל.

MISHNA: One may not establish a deal with a storekeeper for half the profits. It is prohibited for one to provide a storekeeper with produce for him to sell in his store, with half the profits going to the lender. In such an arrangement, the storekeeper himself is responsible for half of any loss from the venture, effectively rendering half of the produce as a loan to the storekeeper. The lender remains responsible for the other half of any loss, and the storekeeper provides a service by selling his produce for him. This service, if provided free of charge, is viewed as interest paid for the loan, and is prohibited. And similarly, one may not give a storekeeper money with which to acquire produce for the storekeeper to sell for half the profits. These activities are both prohibited unless the owner gives the storekeeper his wages as a salaried laborer hired to sell the produce, after which they can divide the remaining profits.

אֵין מוֹשִׁיבִין תַּרְנְגוֹלִין לְמֶחֱצָה, וְאֵין שָׁמִין עֲגָלִין וּסְיָיחִין לְמֶחֱצָה, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכַר עֲמָלוֹ וּמְזוֹנוֹ.

One may not give eggs to another to place chickens on them in exchange for half the profits, and one may not appraise calves or foals for another to raise them for half the profits. These activities are both prohibited unless the owner gives the other wages for his toil and the cost of the food he gives to the animals in his temporary care. All this applies when the lender establishes a fixed minimum profit he insists on receiving regardless of what happens to the animals.

אֲבָל מְקַבְּלִין עֲגָלִין וּסְיָיחִין לְמֶחֱצָה, וּמְגַדְּלִין אוֹתָן עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ מְשׁוּלָּשִׁין. וַחֲמוֹר עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא טוֹעֶנֶת.

But one may accept calves or foals to raise as a joint venture for half of the earnings, with one side providing the animals and taking full responsibility for losses, and the other providing the work and the sustenance, and the one raising them may raise them until they reach one-third of their maturation, at which point they are sold and the profits shared. And with regard to a donkey, it can be raised in this manner until it is large enough to bear a load.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: כְּפוֹעֵל בָּטֵל. מַאי כְּפוֹעֵל בָּטֵל?

GEMARA: The Sages taught: When the mishna states that the owner must pay the manager of the venture as a salaried laborer, it means he must pay him as an idle laborer. The Gemara poses a question: What does it mean to pay someone as an idle laborer?