Talmud su Levitico 25:29

HALAKHAH: “One may increase rental fees,” etc. It was stated³⁸Tosephta 4:4.: “If somebody sells a field to another and stipulates, on condition that I shall work it as a sharecropper, on condition that I shall be part owner, on condition that the tithes shall be mine³⁹Demay 6:3 (Notes 77,84); Babli Bava batra 63a. In this case, the seller must be a Cohen or Levite; he reserves for himself the place at which the grain used as tithe grows. The condition is impossible for an Israel since for him it would be a trade in futures which is null and void., on condition that if you sell it, you will sell it only to me, that anytime I want I may pay you back and take it; this is permitted.” ⁴⁰Babli 63a; Megillah 27b, Arakhin 31a.“If he owed him money and wrote his field over to him as a sale, any time the seller⁴¹The debtor. eats the yield it is permitted; any time the buyer⁴²The creditor who in the end will return the field to its owner and in the meantime receives the field’s yield as “premium for waiting.” eats the yield, it is forbidden. Rebbi Jehudah says, in any case it is permitted. Rebbi Jehudah said, that is what Boethos ben Zenon did following the Sages³⁷In the Babli, 63a, ‘Arakhin 31a; Tosephta 4:2: On the instruction of R. Eleazar ben Azariah.. They said to him, is that a proof? The seller was eating the yield.” Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Eleazar, and Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Jehudah learned from the houses of walled cities⁴³Lev. 25:29–30. The sale of a house in a walled city implies an automatic right for the seller to buy back his house at the exact sale price during one full year. During that year, the buyer has the house as owner for his unrestricted use.. As it was stated: The year mentioned in the Torah regarding walled cities is like interest but it is not interest⁴⁴Since no interest rate was spelled out, no biblical prohibition was violated.. Another Tanna stated: This is interest but the Torah permitted it⁴⁵He holds that rabbinic interest prohibitions are basically biblical as long as they involve a clear “premium for waiting.” The only rabbinic interest prohibitions which are purely a “fence around the law” are those which only involve a possible, but not a certain, premium (such as “increase” defined in Mishnah 1.). He who said, it is like interest but it is not interest, Rebbi Meïr⁴⁶It seems that one has to switch the positions of R. Meïr (i. e., “the rabbis”) and R. Jehudah; cf. Babli ‘Arakhin 31a. E here has a lacuna.. He who said, this is interest but the Torah permitted it, Rebbi Jehudah⁴⁶It seems that one has to switch the positions of R. Meïr (i. e., “the rabbis”) and R. Jehudah; cf. Babli ‘Arakhin 31a. E here has a lacuna..⁴⁷E here has an addition: “What is R. Jehudah’s reason? Any interest which involves one permitted aspect is permitted.” The permitted aspect in this case is that the debtor decides not to repay his debt. Since the loan was structured as a conditional sale, the buyer retroactively is justified in harvesting the yield from the date of sale. This is Abbaye’s reading of R. Jehudah’s position in the Babli (63a); the addition seems to be a gloss by a student of the Babli. Rebbi Idi said, when I came from the Diaspora, I found that a case⁴⁸E has an addition: הַדָּר בַּחֲצַר חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ “about one who dwelt on another’s property without the latter’s knowledge.” If this addition be relevant, it must have been the creditor who lived on property which belonged to the debtor but was held by the latter neither for rental nor for his own use, cf. ברכיהו ליפשיץ מחזי כממון מחקרי תלמוד ג (2005) p. 438–460. was before Rebbi Immi of “it is like interest but it is not interest.⁴⁹It is more likely that the problem was a sale which in the end was rescinded but in the meantime the buyer lived in the house.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they only said that “this is interest but the Torah permitted it.” There⁵⁰A house in a walled city, and the case before R. Immi was not in this category., the Torah permitted it, therefore not in any other case. Nevertheless, Rebbi Immi did not consider it⁵¹He ruled according to R. Jehudah., for he said: a house dwells with its inhabitants⁵²When the sale was rescinded, the full price was to be returned without any deductions for rental during the period in which the buyer used it. R. Immi did not necessarily follow R. Jehudah’s argument as presented in the Halakhah; he holds that an uninhabited house deteriorates much more than an inhabited one and, therefore, the buyer is due some consideration for the upkeep of the house. Then this consideration might as well be the entire rent.
E’s text contradicts the interpretation of J. N. Epstein in Tarbiz8 (1937) 395–397 who considers the case before R. Immi as antichretic lease (cf. 6:7, Notes 77–78 and Giṭṭin 4:6, Note 168.) But antichretic loans are endorsed in Mishnah 6:7 in certain cases..