האי קרוב לשכר ורחוק להפסד הוא אמר ליה כיון דמקבל עליה זולא קרוב לזה ולזה הוא: This transaction is close to a gain and far from a loss for the seller, as he accepts upon himself the risk that the wine may go sour. An arrangement of this sort constitutes interest by rabbinic law. Abaye said to him: Since the buyer accepts upon himself the potential loss if the price depreciates, it is considered a transaction that is close to both this and that, as there is the possibility of both gain and loss. The transaction is therefore permitted.
מתני׳ המלוה את חבירו לא ידור בחצרו חנם ולא ישכור ממנו בפחות מפני שהוא רבית: MISHNA: One who lends another money may not reside in the borrower’s courtyard free of charge, nor may he rent living quarters from him at less than the going rate, because this is interest. The benefit he receives from living on the borrower’s property constitutes the equivalent of an additional payment as interest on the loan.
גמ׳ אמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן אע"פ שאמרו הדר בחצר חבירו שלא מדעתו אינו צריך להעלות לו שכר הלוהו ודר בחצרו צריך להעלות לו שכר מאי קמ"ל תנינא המלוה את חבירו לא ידור בחצירו חנם ולא ישכור ממנו בפחות מפני שהוא רבית GEMARA: Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says: Even though the Sages said that one who resides in another’s courtyard without his knowledge does not have to pay him rent if the owner of the courtyard does not suffer any loss from the arrangement, nevertheless, if he lent money to the owner of a courtyard and then resides in his courtyard, the lender must pay him rent. The Gemara poses a question: What is Rav Naḥman teaching us by this statement? We learn this explicitly in the mishna: One who lends money to another may not reside in the borrower’s courtyard free of charge, nor may he rent living quarters from him at less than the going rate, because this is interest.
אי ממתני' הוה אמינא הני מילי בחצר דקיימא לאגרא וגברא דעביד למיגר אבל חצר דלא קיימא לאגרא וגברא דלא עביד למיגר אימא לא קמ"ל The Gemara refutes this claim: If this halakha is learned from the mishna alone, I would say that this matter applies only to a situation with a courtyard that stands to be rented out and a man who usually rents a place of residence that would otherwise need to find a place to reside. But with regard to a courtyard that does not stand to be rented out and a man who does not usually rent a place of residence, as he has another place where he could reside, the owner of the courtyard appears to have lost nothing and the resident appears to have gained nothing, so you might say that he should not have to pay at all. Rav Naḥman therefore teaches us that even in that case he must pay rent in order to prevent the appearance of interest.
איכא דאמרי אמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן אע"פ שאמרו הדר בחצר חבירו שלא מדעתו אינו צריך להעלות לו שכר הלויני ודור בחצרי צריך להעלות לו שכר There are those who say a different version of this discussion: Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says: Even though the Sages said that one who resides in another’s courtyard without his knowledge does not have to pay him rent, if the courtyard owner says to another: Lend me money and you may reside in my courtyard, the lender must pay him rent.
מ"ד הלוהו כל שכן הלויני ומ"ד הלויני אבל הלוהו לא מ"ט כיון דמעיקרא לאו אדעתא דהכי אוזפיה לית לן בה The Gemara analyzes the difference between the two versions. According to the one who said that the lender must pay rent to the courtyard owner if he lent him money without the courtyard owner’s stipulating any conditions, all the more so would he hold that the lender must pay rent to the courtyard owner if the courtyard owner explicitly stated: Lend me money and you may reside in my courtyard, as this indicates a condition obligating the borrower to pay interest. According to the one who said that the arrangement is forbidden if he says: Lend me money and you may reside in my courtyard, it is forbidden only in such a case. But if he merely lent him money without any stipulation about the courtyard, it is not forbidden. What is the reason for the more lenient ruling? Since initially he did not lend him the money with this intention, we have no problem with it, as it is possible that there is no connection between the loan and his residing in the courtyard.
רב יוסף בר חמא תקיף עבדי דאינשי דמסיק בהו זוזי ועביד בהו עבידתא א"ל רבא בריה מ"ט עביד מר הכי א"ל אנא כרב נחמן סבירא לי דאמר רב נחמן עבדא נהום כריסיה לא שוי The Gemara relates: Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, Rava’s father, would seize the slaves of people who owed him money, and he would work them against the will of their owners. Rava, son of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, said to him: What is the reason that the Master does this, i.e., seizes and uses these slaves? Rav Yosef bar Ḥama said to him: I maintain that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman said: A slave is not worth even the bread in his stomach. When the slaves work for me and eat in my home, I am not causing the owners any monetary loss.
א"ל אימור דאמר רב נחמן כגון דארי עבדיה דמרקיד בי כובי עבדי אחריני מי אמר א"ל אנא כי הא דרב דניאל בר רב קטינא אמר רב סבירא לי דאמר התוקף עבדו של חבירו ועשה בו מלאכה פטור Rava said to him: I will say that Rav Naḥman said this with regard to specific slaves, such as his slave Dari, who only dances among the wine barrels [khuvei] and does not perform any labor. Did he say this concerning other slaves? All other slaves perform labor, and their labor is worth more than their board. His father said to him: I maintain that the halakha is in accordance with this statement said by Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina that Rav says, as he says: One who seizes another’s slave and has him perform labor is exempt from paying the master for the labor of the slave,