## Bava Metzia Daf 61a

###### Bava Metzia 61a:1
[Bava Metzia 61a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/61a:1)

אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְנֶשֶׁךְ כֶּסֶף, שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא תַשִּׁיךְ לְאָחִיךָ״, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְרִבִּית כֶּסֶף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** the verse is **not** referring to the **matter of *neshekh*** with **money, as it is already stated** in that same verse: **“You shall not lend with interest [*tashikh*] to your brother,”** indicating that taking money as interest is prohibited, **apply** the expression “*neshekh* of money” **to** the **matter of *ribit*,** i.e., *tarbit* with **money.**


###### Bava Metzia 61a:2
[Bava Metzia 61a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/61a:2)

אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּלֹוֶה, בְּמַלְוֶה מִנַּיִן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **I have** derived a source for this prohibition **only with regard to a borrower,** for whom it is prohibited to pay interest on a loan. **From where** is it derived that there is also a prohibition stated **with regard to a lender?**


###### Bava Metzia 61a:3
[Bava Metzia 61a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/61a:3)

נֶאֱמַר נֶשֶׁךְ בַּלֹּוֶה וְנֶאֱמַר נֶשֶׁךְ בַּמַּלְוֶה. מָה נֶשֶׁךְ הָאָמוּר בַּלֹּוֶה – לֹא חִלַּקְתָּ בּוֹ בֵּין בְּכֶסֶף בֵּין בְּאוֹכֶל בֵּין בְּנֶשֶׁךְ בֵּין בְּרִבִּית, אַף נֶשֶׁךְ הָאָמוּר בַּמַּלְוֶה – לֹא תַּחְלוֹק בּוֹ בֵּין בְּכֶסֶף בֵּין בְּאוֹכֶל בֵּין בְּנֶשֶׁךְ בֵּין בְּרִבִּית. מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל דָּבָר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״נֶשֶׁךְ כׇּל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* answers: ***Neshekh* is stated with regard to a borrower, and *neshekh* is stated with regard to a lender. Just as** concerning ***neshekh* that is stated with regard to a borrower, you did not distinguish with regard to it between** a loan **of money** and a loan **of food,** or **between** whether the interest is forbidden **as *neshekh*** or **as *ribit*, so too,** concerning ***neshekh* stated with regard to a lender, do not distinguish with regard to it between** a loan **of money** and a loan **of food,** or **between** whether the interest is forbidden **as *neshekh*** or **as *ribit*.** The *baraita* concludes: **From where** is it derived **to include** in the prohibition interest of **any sort? The verse states: “*Neshekh* of anything that is lent with interest.”**


###### Bava Metzia 61a:4
[Bava Metzia 61a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/61a:4)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: לָא נֶשֶׁךְ בְּאוֹכֶל וְלָא רִבִּית בְּכֶסֶף צְרִיכִי קְרָא, דְּאִי כְּתִיב ״אֶת כַּסְפְּךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לוֹ בְּנֶשֶׁךְ וְאׇכְלְךָ בְּמַרְבִּית״ – כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ. הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב ״אֶת כַּסְפְּךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לוֹ בְּנֶשֶׁךְ וּבְמַרְבִּית לֹא תִתֵּן אׇכְלֶךָ״, קְרִי בֵּיהּ הָכִי: ״אֶת כַּסְפְּךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לוֹ בְּנֶשֶׁךְ וּבְמַרְבִּית״, ״וּבְנֶשֶׁךְ וּבְמַרְבִּית לֹא תִתֵּן אׇכְלֶךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said:** An explicit **verse is** not **required, neither** to derive ***neshekh* of food nor** to derive ***ribit* of money. As, if it** were **written: You shall not give him your money with *neshekh* and your food with *marbit*,** juxtaposing *neshekh* with money alone and *marbit* with food alone, it would be **as you say,** that there is a need for the derivation of the *baraita*. But **now that it is written: “You shall not give him your money with *neshekh* and with *marbit* you shall not give him your food,”** interposing both *neshekh* and *marbit* between money and food, **read into** the verse **this** interpretation: **Your money you shall not give him for *neshekh* and for *marbit*; and for *neshekh* and for *marbit* you shall not give your food.**


###### Bava Metzia 61a:5
[Bava Metzia 61a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/61a:5)

וְהָא תַּנָּא ״נֶאֱמַר״ ״נֶאֱמַר״ קָאָמַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t** the ***tanna*** of the *baraita* **saying** that *neshekh* of food and *tarbit* of money are derived by means of a verbal analogy: *Neshekh* **is stated** with regard to a borrower, and *neshekh* **is** also **stated** with regard to a lender? How can Ravina, an *amora*, state that the verbal analogy is not needed?


###### Bava Metzia 61a:6
[Bava Metzia 61a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/61a:6)

הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר קְרָא, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה. עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר קְרָא, גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה לָא צְרִיךְ. אֶלָּא גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה לְמָה לִי? לְ״נֶשֶׁךְ כׇּל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁךְ״, דְּלָא כְּתִב בְּמַלְוֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This** is what Ravina **is saying: Had** the **verse not stated** the terms *neshekh* and *tarbit* interposed between money and food, **I would have said** that the *halakha* that both terms apply to both money and food would be derived by means of **a verbal analogy. Now, as** the **verse is stated** in that manner, **a verbal analogy is not necessary.** The Gemara asks: **Rather, why do I** need this **verbal analogy?** The Gemara explains: I need the verbal analogy **to** teach that **“*neshekh* of anything that is lent for interest”** (Deuteronomy 23:20), **which is** written with regard to a borrower but **not written with regard to a lender,** applies to a lender as well.


###### Bava Metzia 61a:7
[Bava Metzia 61a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/61a:7)

אָמַר רָבָא: לְמָה לִי דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לָאו בְּרִבִּית, לָאו בְּגָזֵל, לָאו בְּאוֹנָאָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava said: Why do I** need it to be **that the Merciful One writes a prohibition with regard to interest, a prohibition with regard to robbery** (see Leviticus 19:13), and **a prohibition with regard to exploitation** (see Leviticus 25:14), a transaction where one of the parties overcharged or underpaid? There appears to be one principle underlying all three prohibitions: One must not take possession of another’s money in illegitimate ways.


###### Bava Metzia 61a:8
[Bava Metzia 61a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/61a:8)

צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא לָאו בְּרִבִּית – מִשּׁוּם דְּחִידּוּשׁ הוּא, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּלֹוֶה אָסְרָה רַחֲמָנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: They **are necessary. As, had the Merciful One written** the **prohibition** only **with regard to interest,** one could not have derived the other prohibitions from it **because it is** a prohibition with **a novel element** that does not appear in other *halakhot*. This novel element is **that the Merciful One prohibited** a loan with interest **even for the borrower.** With regard to the two other prohibitions, there is a prohibition against taking another’s money, but there is no prohibition for the victim, who has his money taken.


###### Bava Metzia 61a:9
[Bava Metzia 61a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/61a:9)

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא לָאו בְּגָזֵל – מִשּׁוּם דִּבְעַל כֻּרְחֵיהּ, אֲבָל אוֹנָאָה – אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had the Merciful One written** the **prohibition** only **with regard to robbery,** one could not have derived the other prohibitions from it, as perhaps robbery is prohibited only **due to** the fact **that** it is an action taken **against the will** of the victim. **But** in the cases of **exploitation** and interest, where there is an element of consent, one would **say** they are **not** prohibited.


###### Bava Metzia 61a:10
[Bava Metzia 61a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/61a:10)

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא לָאו בְּאוֹנָאָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא יָדַע דְּמָחֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had the Merciful One written** the **prohibition** only **with regard to exploitation,** one could not have derived the other prohibitions from it, as perhaps exploitation is prohibited only **due to** the fact **that** the victim **does not know that** he was the victim of exploitation and therefore cannot **waive** repayment. In the cases of interest and robbery, the borrower and the victim, respectively, are aware that their money was taken and waiving repayment is possible, so perhaps those actions are not prohibited.


###### Bava Metzia 61a:11
[Bava Metzia 61a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/61a:11)

חֲדָא מֵחֲדָא לָא אָתְיָא. תֵּיתֵי חֲדָא מִתַּרְתֵּי. הֵי תֵּיתֵי? לָא לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא לָאו בְּרִבִּית, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ. מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת, תֹּאמַר בְּרִבִּית דְּמִדַּעְתֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: Although **no one** of these prohibitions can **be derived from one** of the other prohibitions, perhaps **one** of them can be **derived from** the other **two.** The Gemara clarifies: **Which** prohibition will you **derive** from the other two? **Let the Merciful One not write** the **prohibition with regard to interest, and** instead **derive** that prohibition **from these** two, robbery and exploitation. The Gemara rejects that suggestion: **What** is notable **about these** prohibitions? They are notable **in that** they are transgressed **without** the **consent** of the victim. **Will you say** the same **with regard to interest, which** the borrower gives **with his consent,** as he agrees to accept the loan under those conditions?


###### Bava Metzia 61a:12
[Bava Metzia 61a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/61a:12)

לָא לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא לָאו בְּאוֹנָאָה, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ. מָה לְהָנָךְ, שֶׁכֵּן אֵין דֶּרֶךְ מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר בְּכָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let the Merciful One not write** the **prohibition with regard to exploitation, and** instead **derive** that prohibition **from these** two, robbery and interest. The Gemara rejects that suggestion: **What** is notable **about these** prohibitions? They are notable **in that** they are **not** transgressed **in the** typical **manner of buying and selling.** Will you say the same with regard to exploitation, which is transgressed in the context of typical buying and selling?


###### Bava Metzia 61a:13
[Bava Metzia 61a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/61a:13)

אֶלָּא לָא לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא לָאו בְּגָזֵל, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ. דְּמַאי פָּרְכַתְּ: מָה לְרִבִּית שֶׁכֵּן חִידּוּשׁ? אוֹנָאָה תּוֹכִיחַ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, let the Merciful One not write** the prohibition **with regard to robbery,** and instead **derive** that prohibition **from these** two, interest and exploitation. **As what refutation** will **you** offer? If you say: **What** is notable **about interest?** It is notable **in that** the prohibition of interest contains **a novel element;** the case of **exploitation will prove** that a novel element is not a factor, as the prohibition against exploitation contains no novel element.


###### Bava Metzia 61a:14
[Bava Metzia 61a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/61a:14)

מָה לְאוֹנָאָה שֶׁכֵּן לָא יָדַע וּמָחֵיל? רִבִּית תּוֹכִיחַ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If you say, **what** is notable **about exploitation?** It is notable **in that** in this case, the victim **does not know** that he was the victim of exploitation and therefore he cannot **waive** repayment; the case of **interest will prove** that the inability to waive repayment is not a factor, as the borrower is aware of the interest and able to waive repayment.


###### Bava Metzia 61a:15
[Bava Metzia 61a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/61a:15)

וְחָזַר הַדִּין: לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן גּוֹזְלוֹ. אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא גָּזֵל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And the inference has reverted** to its starting point. **The aspect of this** case, interest, **is not like the aspect of that** case, exploitation, **and the aspect of that** case, exploitation, **is not like the aspect of this** case, interest. **Their common denominator is that one robs another** of money, i.e., takes money from another that is not due to him. **I will also bring** the prohibition against **robbery,** which shares that common denominator, and derive it from the other two prohibitions.


###### Bava Metzia 61a:16
[Bava Metzia 61a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/61a:16)

אָמְרִי: הָכִי נָמֵי. אֶלָּא, לָאו בְּגָזֵל לְמָה לִי? לְכוֹבֵשׁ שְׂכַר שָׂכִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said: Indeed,** the prohibition against robbery is superfluous. **But** if the prohibition against robbery can be derived from the prohibitions against interest and exploitation, **why do I** need the **prohibition** written in the Torah **with regard to robbery?** The Gemara answers: That verse is not written to prohibit a standard case of robbery; rather, it serves **to** prohibit the action of one who **withholds the wages of a hired laborer.** In that case, unlike robbery, the employer does not take money from the laborer; he merely fails to pay him his wages.


###### Bava Metzia 61a:17
[Bava Metzia 61a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/61a:17)

כּוֹבֵשׁ שְׂכַר שָׂכִיר, בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ ״לֹא תַעֲשֹׁק שָׂכִיר עָנִי וְאֶבְיוֹן״! לַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **With regard to** one who **withholds the wages of a hired laborer, it is explicitly written: “You shall not oppress a hired laborer who is poor and destitute”** (Deuteronomy 24:14). There is no need to derive this prohibition from the verse concerning robbery. The Gemara answers: It is written **so that** withholding the wages of a hired laborer always involves **violating two prohibitions.**


###### Bava Metzia 61a:18
[Bava Metzia 61a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/61a:18)

וְלוֹקְמַהּ בְּרִבִּית וְאוֹנָאָה, וְלַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין? דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד מֵעִנְיָינוֹ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But let us interpret** the verse concerning robbery as prohibiting **interest or exploitation, and** say that it is written **so that** these prohibitions always involve **violating two prohibitions.** The Gemara answers: The prohibition against robbery is applied to the case of withholding the wages of a hired laborer because it is **a matter derived from its context,**