## Bava Metzia Daf 62a

###### Bava Metzia 62a:1
[Bava Metzia 62a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/62a:1)

״וְחֵי אָחִיךָ עִמָּךְ״. אַהְדַּר לֵיהּ כִּי הֵיכִי דְּנֵיחֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**“And your brother shall live with you”** (Leviticus 25:36), from which it is derived: **Return** the interest **to him so that he may live.**


###### Bava Metzia 62a:2
[Bava Metzia 62a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/62a:2)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הַאי ״וְחֵי אָחִיךָ עִמָּךְ״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ וּבְיַד אֶחָד מֵהֶן קִיתוֹן שֶׁל מַיִם, אִם שׁוֹתִין שְׁנֵיהֶם – מֵתִים. וְאִם שׁוֹתֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן – מַגִּיעַ לַיִּשּׁוּב. דָּרַשׁ בֶּן פְּטוֹרָא: מוּטָב שֶׁיִּשְׁתּוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם וְיָמוּתוּ, וְאַל יִרְאֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶם בְּמִיתָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ. עַד שֶׁבָּא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְלִימֵּד: ״וְחֵי אָחִיךָ עִמָּךְ״, חַיֶּיךָ קוֹדְמִים לְחַיֵּי חֲבֵירֶךָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Rabbi Yoḥanan, what does he do with this** verse: **“And your brother shall live with you”?** The Gemara answers: **He requires** the verse **for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: If **two** people **were walking on** a desolate **path and** there was **a jug [*kiton*] of water in the possession of one of them,** and the situation was such that **if both drink** from the jug, both will **die,** as there is not enough water, **but if** only **one of them drinks, he will reach a settled area,** there is a dispute as to the *halakha*. **Ben Petora taught:** It is **preferable that both of them drink and die, and let neither one of them see the death of the other.** This was the accepted opinion **until Rabbi Akiva came and taught** that the verse states: **“And your brother shall live with you,”** indicating that **your life takes precedence over the life of the other.**


###### Bava Metzia 62a:3
[Bava Metzia 62a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/62a:3)

מֵיתִיבִי: הִנִּיחַ לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם מָעוֹת שֶׁל רִבִּית, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיּוֹדְעִים שֶׁהֵן שֶׁל רִבִּית – אֵינָן חַיָּיבִין לְהַחְזִירָן. הָא אֲבִיהֶן חַיָּיב לְהַחְזִיר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita* to the opinion that one is not obligated to return interest that he took: If **their father bequeathed them money** that he had collected **as interest, even though** his sons **know that** the money was collected **as interest, they are not obligated to return** the money. The Gemara infers: **But** this indicates that **their father** himself is **obligated to return** the money.


###### Bava Metzia 62a:4
[Bava Metzia 62a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/62a:4)

בְּדִין הוּא דַּאֲבוּהוֹן נָמֵי לָא מִיחַיַּיב לְהַחְזִיר, וְאַיְּידֵי דְּקָא בָעֵי לְמִתְנֵי סֵיפָא: הִנִּיחַ לָהֶן אֲבִיהֶם פָּרָה וְטַלִּית וְכׇל דָּבָר הַמְסוּיָּם חַיָּיבִין לְהַחְזִיר מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד אֲבִיהֶם, תָּנֵי נָמֵי רֵישָׁא בְּדִידְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects the inference: **By right, it** should have said **that their father is also not obligated to return** the money. **But since** the *tanna* **wants to teach the latter clause,** which states: If **their father bequeathed them a cow, or a garment, or any defined item** that was stolen property, **they are obligated to return** it to its owner **due to** their obligation to uphold **their father’s honor,** the *tanna* **also taught the first clause with regard to their** obligation, not that of their father.


###### Bava Metzia 62a:5
[Bava Metzia 62a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/62a:5)

וְהָנֵי, מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד אֲבִיהֶם מִי מִיחַיְּיבִי? קְרִי כָּאן: ״וְנָשִׂיא בְעַמְּךָ לֹא תָאֹר״, בְּעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֵׂה עַמְּךָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And these** children, **are they obligated** to take action **due to** the obligation to uphold **their father’s honor? Read** and apply **here** the verse: **“Nor curse a ruler of your people”** (Exodus 22:27), from which it is inferred that this prohibition applies only **to one who performs an action** becoming of **your people.** The actions of the father, who lent money with interest, were unbecoming of the Jewish people. Why then, must his sons uphold his honor?


###### Bava Metzia 62a:6
[Bava Metzia 62a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/62a:6)

כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי פִּנְחָס מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: בְּשֶׁעָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה, הָכָא נָמֵי בְּשֶׁעָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה. אִי עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה, מַאי בָּעֵי גַּבֵּיהּ? שֶׁלֹּא הִסְפִּיק לְהַחְזִיר עַד שֶׁמֵּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: It is **as Rabbi Pineḥas said in the name of Rava** in a different context, that it is referring to a case **where** the father **repented. Here too,** it is a case **where** the father **repented,** and therefore he was righteous and worthy of respect. The Gemara asks: **If he repented, what is** the stolen item **doing in his** possession? The Gemara answers: It is a case **where** the father **did not manage to return** the item **before he died.** Consequently, the children must return the item in order to uphold their father’s honor.


###### Bava Metzia 62a:7
[Bava Metzia 62a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/62a:7)

מֵיתִיבִי: הַגַּזְלָנִין וּמַלְוֵי רִבִּית, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁגָּבוּ – מַחְזִירִין. גַּזְלָנִים מַאי ״אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁגָּבוּ״ אִיכָּא? אִי גְּזוּל – גְּזוּל, אִי לָא גְּזוּל – גַּזְלָנִין קָרֵית לְהוּ?! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: גַּזְלָנִין, מַאי נִיהוּ? מַלְוֵי רִבִּית. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁגָּבוּ – מַחְזִירִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: Concerning **robbers and those who lend** money **with interest, even though they collected** the money, **they must return** it. The Gemara analyzes the language of the *baraita*: In the case of **robbers, what** case **is there** that can be described as: **Even though they collected** the money? **If they robbed, they robbed,** and it is imprecise to use the language of collecting money; **if they did not rob, do you call them robbers? Rather, say** in explanation of the *baraita*: **Robbers;** in this context, **who are they?** They are **those who lend with interest,** and **even though they collected** the money, **they** must **return** it. Evidently, money collected as interest must be returned.


###### Bava Metzia 62a:8
[Bava Metzia 62a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/62a:8)

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב פּוֹטְרִין אֶת הַמַּלְוֶה וְאֶת הֶעָרֵב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן קוּם עֲשֵׂה. מַאי קוּם עֲשֵׂה? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְרִינַן לְהוּ קוּמוּ אַהֲדוּרוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: In fact, this issue **is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov exempt the lender and the guarantor** from lashes for violating the prohibition of interest, **because** although they violated a prohibition, once they have done so **they are** commanded to **arise and take action,** and there is a principle that one is not flogged for a transgression that can be rectified by the performance of a mitzva. The Gemara clarifies: **What** mitzva to **arise and take action** is there? Is it **not due to** the fact **that we say to them: Arise** and **return** it?


###### Bava Metzia 62a:9
[Bava Metzia 62a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/62a:9)

מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר לָאו בְּנֵי אַהְדּוֹרֵי נִינְהוּ! לָא, מַאי ״קוּם עֲשֵׂה״ – לִקְרוֹעַ שְׁטָרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
From the opinion of these Sages, it can be derived **by inference that the first *tanna* holds** that **these** people **are not subject to** the obligation of **repayment.** Apparently, he holds that there is no mitzva to arise and take action. The Gemara rejects that inference: **No, what is** the mitzva to **arise and take action?** It is the mitzva **to tear** up **the** promissory **note** documenting the commitment to pay interest.


###### Bava Metzia 62a:10
[Bava Metzia 62a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/62a:10)

מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר שְׁטָר הָעוֹמֵד לִגְבּוֹת כְּגָבוּי דָּמֵי, וְהָא עֲבַדוּ אִיסּוּרַיְיהוּ. וְאִי לָאו כְּגָבוּי דָּמֵי, הָא לָא עֲבוּד וְלֹא כְּלוּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: What is accomplished by tearing up the document? **What does** this *tanna* **hold? If he holds** that the legal status of the debt in **a document that is fit to be collected is as though** it were already **collected, and** accordingly, **they already performed their transgression** by writing the document, then they accomplish nothing by tearing it, as the very act of writing the document is tantamount to collecting the debt. **And if** the legal status of the debt in a document that is fit to be collected **is not as though** it were already **collected, they have done nothing** so long as the interest has not been collected. Either way, tearing up the document changes nothing.


###### Bava Metzia 62a:11
[Bava Metzia 62a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/62a:11)

לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר שְׁטָר הָעוֹמֵד לִגְבּוֹת לָאו כְּגָבוּי דָּמֵי, וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּשׂוּמָא מִילְּתָא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** this *tanna* **holds** that the legal status of the debt in **a document that is fit to be collected is not as though** it were already **collected, and** he **teaches us** the following principle: **That appraisal** of an item’s value **is** a significant **matter.** If a document was written for a loan with interest and the debtor’s property was appraised, this is itself a significant matter and punishable with lashes.


###### Bava Metzia 62a:12
[Bava Metzia 62a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/62a:12)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דִּתְנַן: וְאֵלּוּ עוֹבְרִים בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה: הַמַּלְוֶה וְהַלּוֹוֶה, הֶעָרֵב וְהָעֵדִים. בִּשְׁלָמָא כּוּלְּהוּ עֲבוּד מַעֲשֶׂה, אֶלָּא עֵדִים מַאי עֲבוּד? אֶלָּא לָאו, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דְּשׂוּמָא מִילְּתָא הִיא. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **So too, it is reasonable** to explain the matter in this way, **as we learned** in a mishna (75b): **And these** individuals **violate the prohibition** of interest: **The lender, and the borrower, the guarantor, and the witnesses.** The Gemara asks: **Granted,** with regard to **all of them,** i.e., the lender, the borrower, and the guarantor, it is understood that they violate the prohibition, as **they performed an action. But** with regard to the **witnesses, what did they do** to render themselves liable? **Rather, isn’t it** correct to **conclude from** the mishna **that** the **appraisal** of an item’s value **is** a significant **matter?** Since the mishna states that the witnesses, whose testimony enables appraisal, participate in the transgression, this proves that appraisal is significant. The Gemara affirms: **Conclude from** the mishna that this is so.


###### Bava Metzia 62a:13
[Bava Metzia 62a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/62a:13)

אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: כֹּל שֶׁאִילּוּ בְּדִינֵיהֶם מוֹצִיאִים מִלֹּוֶה לְמַלְוֶה, בְּדִינֵינוּ מַחְזִירִין מִמַּלְוֶה לְלֹוֶה. כֹּל שֶׁאִילּוּ בְּדִינֵיהֶם אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִלֹּוֶה לְמַלְוֶה, בְּדִינֵינוּ אֵין מַחְזִירִין מִמַּלְוֶה לְלֹוֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Safra says:** According to the opinion that the lender is compelled to return the money paid as interest, these are the rules to be employed: In **any** case **where** the obligation recorded in the document is so clear that **by** the **laws of** the gentiles, who are not prohibited from collecting interest, **one removes** the interest **from the** possession of the **borrower** to give **to the lender, by our** Jewish **laws one returns** the interest **from the lender to the borrower. And** in **any** case **where** the agreement is not unequivocal and **by their laws one does not remove** the interest **from the** possession of the **borrower** to give **to the lender, by our laws one does not return** the interest **from the lender to the borrower.**


###### Bava Metzia 62a:14
[Bava Metzia 62a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/62a:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: וּכְלָלָא הוּא? וַהֲרֵי סְאָה בִּסְאָה – דִּבְדִינֵיהֶם מוֹצִיאִין מִלֹּוֶה לְמַלְוֶה, וּבְדִינֵינוּ אֵין מַחְזִירִין מִמַּלְוֶה לְלֹוֶה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִינְהוּ בְּתוֹרַת פִּקָּדוֹן אֲתָא לִידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And is it** an established **principle** that applies in all cases? **But** there is the case where one lent **a *se’a*** of produce **for** the return of **a *se’a*** of the same type of produce, and the price of the produce went up in the interim, **where by their laws one removes** the interest **from the** possession of the **borrower to** give to **the lender, and** yet **by our laws one does not return** the interest **from the lender to the borrower,** as taking this type of interest is not prohibited by Torah law. Rav Yosef **said to him:** The gentiles do not consider that transaction a loan. Rather, according to their laws, **it entered the possession** of the borrower **with the status of a deposit,** and consequently, returning the produce is not considered repayment of a loan with interest, even though its value is greater than it was at the outset.


###### Bava Metzia 62a:15
[Bava Metzia 62a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/62a:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וַהֲרֵי מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא בְּלָא נַכְיְיתָא – דִּבְדִינֵיהֶם מוֹצִיאִין מִלֹּוֶה לְמַלְוֶה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But** there is the case of **a mortgage without deduction,** where the debtor’s field is held by the creditor until the debt is repaid, and while holding the field the creditor is allowed to consume the produce of the field without deducting from the debt the value of the produce he consumed. The consumption of the produce constitutes a type of interest, and in that case, **by** the **laws** of the gentiles **one removes** the interest **from the** possession of the **borrower** to give **to the lender.**