Bava Metzia - Daf 69
- Unilaterally dividing a partnership of money vs. a partnership of merchandise
The Gemara relates an incident of an עיסקא, where one partner divided the money of the profits without the other partner’s knowledge and reinvested it (enabling him to take all the future profit of his half, and half the profits of the other partner’s half). Rav Pappa told his partner that the division was valid, because Rav Nachman said: זוזי כמאן דפליגי דמו – money is considered already divided, since it does not require assessment, and one partner can divide it on his own. The next year, they made an עיסקא with wine, and the second partner divided the profits without his friend’s knowledge. Rav Pappa asked him what right he had to divide it on his own, and the partner protested that Rav Pappa always ruled against him. Rav Pappa explained that in contrast to money, where all coins are equal (so long as they are all the same quality coins), wine cannot be divided unilaterally, because כולי עלמא ידעי דאיכא דבסים ואיכא דלא בסמים – everyone knows that there is flavorful wine and wine which is not so flavorful, so an assessment is required to divide it. The Gemara concludes that if some coins were טבי – good (i.e., readily accepted), and some were תקלי – heavy (i.e., containing more silver), where each type has an advantage, the division requires his partner’s knowledge.
- The distinction between הלואה of money and rental of articles
Rav Chama used to rent out zuz coins for a daily fee and lost all his money as a punishment for violating ribbis. He had initially reasoned: מאי שנא ממרא – how is it different from renting out an item such as a spade? Just as one may charge to rent out a spade, the same should be permitted with money. The Gemara says that this is not so: מרא הדרא בעינא – a spade is itself returned at the end of the rental period (and its loss through אונס or use is the owner’s responsibility), וידיע פחתיה – and its depreciation through its use is recognizable, for which the owner can charge. In contrast, זוזי לא הדרי בעינייהו – coins are not themselves returned at the end of the rental period, but replaced, which defines it as a הלואה, ולא ידיע פחתיה – and its depreciation through use is not recognizable, so the owner had no justification to charge for its use.
- לא אסרה תורה אלא רבית הבאה מלוה למלוה
Rava said that one can say to his fellow: הילך ארבעה זוזי ואוזפיה לפלניא זוזי – Here are four zuzim for you; lend money to Ploni. Although the lender profits from this loan, it is permitted, because: לא אסרה תורה אלא רבית הבאה מלוה למלוה – the Torah only forbade ribbis which is [paid] from the borrower to the lender, as opposed to this case, where a third party paid the lender on his own. Rava also said it is permitted to say to someone: שקיל לך ארבעה זוזי – take these four zuz for yourself, ואמור ליה לפלוני לאוזפן זוזי – and tell Ploni that he should lend me money. He explained: שכר אמירה קא שקיל – [the third party] is merely taking payment for speaking to the lender on the borrower’s behalf.
