כה"ג ודאי צריך לאודועיה זוזי מי שקיל טבי ושביק חסרי
In a case like this it is certainly necessary to inform the litigant of the reasons for the decision. Although a judge is not always obligated to explain the reasons for his decision to the litigants, in a case like this, where there is room for suspicion, he must. Rav Pappa explained: Last year, when the other individual divided money, did he take the good coins and leave the deficient ones?
(אמר ליה לא אמר ליה) חמרא כולי עלמא ידעי דאיכא דבסים ואיכא דלא בסים
The Samaritan said to him: No, he simply divided the money without any particular consideration, and that was acceptable, as there is no difference between one coin and another. Rav Pappa said to him: With regard to wine, everyone knows that there is wine that is sweet and there is wine that is not sweet, so it is not equitable to simply divide the barrels evenly. Therefore, I ruled that you were not entitled to divide the wine without your partner’s knowledge.
גופא אמר רב נחמן זוזי כמאן דפליגי דמו הני מילי טבי וטבי תקולי ותקולי אבל טבי ותקולי לא
The Gemara now returns to discuss the matter itself: Rav Naḥman said: Money is considered as if it were already divided and there is no need to actually divide it in the presence of both of them. The Gemara comments: This matter applies when he divided between good dinars and good dinars, or heavy dinars and heavy dinars, as then there is no need for evaluation. But if some of the coins were good and some were heavy, it is not permitted for him to divide them without informing the other party, as either one may have a preference for a particular type of coin.
רב חמא הוה מוגר זוזי בפשיטא ביומא כלו זוזי דרב חמא הוא סבר מאי שנא ממרא ולא היא מרא הדרא בעינא וידיע פחתיה זוזי לא הדרי בעינייהו ולא ידיע פחתיה
§ The Gemara relates: Rav Ḥama would rent out dinars at a rate of one peshita, i.e., one-eighth of a dinar, per day for a dinar. He viewed this as rental of an item for use rather than as a loan. Ultimately, all of Rav Ḥama’s money was lost as divine punishment for violating the prohibition of interest (see 71a). The Gemara explains: He did this because he thought: In what way is it different from the rental of a hoe? He viewed the money as an item that can be rented for a fee. But that is not so, as the hoe returns to its owner as is, and its depreciation is known, but the dinars do not return as is, as a borrower does not return the same coins he borrowed, and their depreciation is not known. Therefore, this cannot be called a rental; it is a loan with interest.
אמר רבא שרי ליה לאיניש למימר ליה לחבריה הילך ד' זוזי ואוזפיה לפלניא זוזי לא אסרה תורה אלא רבית הבאה מלוה למלוה ואמר רבא שרי ליה לאיניש למימר ליה לחבריה שקיל לך ארבעה זוזי וא"ל לפלוני לאוזפן זוזי מ"ט שכר אמירה קא שקיל
Rava said: It is permitted for a person to say to another: Here are four dinars; go and lend money to so-and-so. Even though the lender earns a profit from the loan, it is not prohibited because the Torah prohibited only interest that comes directly from the borrower to the lender, but not that which comes via a third party. And Rava said: It is permitted for a person to say to another: Take four dinars for yourself and tell so-and-so to lend me money. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? It is permitted because he takes payment for talking to the lender, as these four dinars are a fee for the brokerage in arranging the loan.
כי הא דאבא מר בריה דרב פפא הוה שקיל אוגנא דקירא מקיראי וא"ל לאבוה אוזפינהו זוזי אמרו ליה רבנן לרב פפא אכיל בריה דמר רביתא אמר להו כל כי האי רביתא ניכול לא אסרה תורה אלא רבית הבאה מלוה למלוה הכא שכר אמירה קא שקיל ושרי:
This is similar to this situation where Abba Mar, son of Rav Pappa, would take pans of wax from wax manufacturers and tell his father: Lend them money. The Sages said to Rav Pappa: The Master’s son consumes interest, since the wax he receives is payment of interest for the loan. Rav Pappa said to them: We may consume any interest of this kind. It is totally permitted, as the Torah prohibited only interest that comes directly from the borrower to the lender. Here, he takes payment for talking, and this is permitted.
מתני׳ שמין פרה וחמור וכל דבר שהוא עושה ואוכל למחצה מקום שנהגו לחלוק את הולדות מיד חולקין מקום שנהגו לגדל יגדילו
MISHNA: One may appraise a cow or a donkey or any item that generates revenue while it eats and give it to another to feed it and take care of it in exchange for one-half the profits, with the one who cares for the animal benefiting from the profits it generates during the period in which he raises it. Afterward, they divide the profit that accrues due to appreciation in the value of the animal and due to the offspring it produces. In a place where it is customary to divide the offspring immediately upon their birth, they divide them, and in a place where it is customary for the one who cared for the mother to raise the offspring for an additional period of time before dividing them, he shall raise them.
רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר שמין עגל עם אמו וסיח עם אמו ומפריז על שדהו ואינו חושש משום רבית:
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may appraise a calf together with its mother or a foal with its mother even though these young animals do not generate revenue while they eat. The costs of raising the young animal need not be considered. And one may inflate [umafriz] the rental fee paid for his field, and he need not be concerned with regard to the prohibition of interest, as the Gemara will explain.
גמ׳ תנו רבנן מפריז על שדהו ואינו חושש משום רבית כיצד השוכר את השדה מחבירו בעשרה כורים חטין לשנה ואומר לו תן לי מאתים זוז ואפרנסנה ואני אעלה לך שנים עשר כורין לשנה מותר
GEMARA: The Sages taught: One may inflate the rental fee paid for his field, and he need not be concerned with regard to the prohibition of interest. How so? In the case of one who rents a field from another for the price of ten kor of wheat per year, and the renter says to the owner: Give me two hundred dinars as a loan and I will use it to cultivate the field and equip it by fertilizing it and hiring people to work in it, and then I will pay you twelve kor per year in addition to returning your two hundred dinars, this is permitted, as the two hundred dinars are viewed as a joint investment in improving the field, with the owner providing the capital and the renter providing the labor. The higher rental fee is therefore paid for a higher-quality field, and not as interest on the loan.
אבל אין מפריז לא על חנות ולא על ספינה
But one may not inflate the rental fee paid for a store or a ship. The renter cannot borrow money from the owner to purchase merchandise to sell in the store or transport in the ship and in return increase the rental fee. That is considered a loan with interest.
אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה פעמים שמפריז על חנות לצור בה צורה ספינה לעשות לה איסקריא חנות לצור בה צורתא דצבו בה אינשי והוי אגרא טפי ספינה לעשות לה איסקריא כיון דשפירא איסקריא טפי אגרא טפי
Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh said: There are times when one may inflate the rental fee paid for a store, such as in a case where one needs money in order to paint a design on its walls, or in the case of a ship, where one needs money to fashion a new sail [iskarya]. The Gemara explains: It is permitted when the money is borrowed to invest in a store in order to paint a design on its walls, because people will want to come to the more attractive store to purchase, and the profits are thereby increased. Similarly, it is permitted when the money is to be used for a ship to fashion a sail, because the profits from the use of the ship are greater since the sail is improved. Therefore, in these cases the arrangement is an investment, similar to the case of the field, and not interest.
ספינתא אמר רב אגרא ופגרא אמרו ליה רב כהנא ורב אסי לרב אי אגרא לא פגרא אי פגרא לא אגרא שתיק רב
Since the subject of a ship was raised, the Gemara mentions a related statement of Rav. Rav said: For a ship, it is permitted to conduct a transaction where someone pays rent for the use of the ship and is also liable to pay for any damage caused to the ship. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: If he receives rent, then he should not receive payment for damage, and if he receives payment for damage, then he should not receive rent, as, if the ship is the responsibility of the renter, it is a loan, and if he pays rent for such a loan, it is interest. Rav was silent, and it appeared that he could not answer this question.
אמר רב ששת מ"ט שתיק רב לא שמיעא ליה הא דתניא אע"פ. שאמרו אין מקבלין צאן ברזל מישראל אבל מקבלין צאן ברזל מן הנכרים אבל אמרו השם פרה לחבירו ואמר לו הרי פרתך עשויה עלי בשלשים דינר ואני אעלה לך סלע בחדש מותר לפי שלא עשאה דמים
Rav Sheshet said: What is the reason that Rav was silent? Did he not hear that which is taught in a baraita: Even though the Sages said that one may not accept a guaranteed investment [tzon barzel] from a Jew, meaning one may not accept from a Jew animals to raise and receive one-half of the profits while also accepting full responsibility to pay the initial value of the animals in the event there is a loss, as this arrangement is deemed a loan with interest, but one may accept a guaranteed investment from gentiles, because there is no prohibition against paying them interest. But nevertheless, the Sages said: If one appraised a cow for another to raise and to divide the profits, and the one accepting the cow said to the cow’s owner: Your cow is evaluated for me at thirty dinars if I do not return it to you, and I will pay you a sela per month for the use of it, this is permitted, because he did not make it a matter of lending money.
ולא עשאה אמר רב ששת לא עשאה דמים מחיים אלא לאחר מיתה
The Gemara asks rhetorically: And did he not make it a matter of lending money? He most certainly did, as he obligated himself to pay for the cow if he does not return it, making the transaction into a loan, and therefore the payment of a sela per month should constitute interest. Rav Sheshet said: It means that he did not make it a matter of lending money while the cow was alive, meaning that he did not obligate himself to return this specific sum to him if the value of the cow decreased, but rather agreed to pay the set payment of thirty dinars only after its death. Therefore, the transaction was not a loan and the monthly payment is not interest. According to this baraita, the halakha should be the same in the case of a ship.
אמר רב פפא הלכתא ספינה אגרא ופגרא
Rav Pappa said: In fact, the halakha is that in the case of a ship it is permitted to collect rent and payment for damage.