1)

(a)Rebbi Elazar learns from "ve'Chei Achicha Imach" that Ribis Ketzutzah Yotz'ah be'Dayanim'. Rebbi Yochanan learns from there that one's own life takes precedence over that of one's fellow-Jew ("Imach", 'with you' but you come first). See Shitah Mekubetzes quoting Talmid Rabeinu Peretz.

(b)In a case where one of two travelers in a desert has a flask containing sufficient water for one, ben Petura Darshens that it is better for him to share the water with his friend (even though they will both die), than for him to drink it and see his friend die.

(c)Based on the previous Derashah, Rebbi Akiva rules that the owner of the water should drink it.

2)

(a)From the Beraisa which exempts the sons from returning the Ribis that their father left them, we can extrapolate that their father would have been obligated to do so ...

(b)... posing a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan. To reconcile his opinion with the Beraisa, Rebbi Yochanan therefore cites the Seifa of the Beraisa, which states that where the father left Ribis in the form of a cow, a Talis or anything specific the sons are obligated to return it out of respect for their father.

(c)Consequently, we can say that the Reisha exempts the sons from returning the Ribis that their father left them (not to preclude their father from having to do so, but) in order to balance the Seifa, where the Tana obligates them to pay.

3)

(a)The intrinsic problem with the Seifa of the Beraisa however, is that the sons ought to be Patur from paying because they are only Chayav to honor their father as long as he behaves like a Yisrael.

(b)We learn this from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Nasi be'Amcha Lo Sa'or" from which Chazal extrapolate 'be'Oseh Ma'aseh Amcha' (as long as he behaves like one of your people, but not if he transgresses Torah La'avin [such as that of Ribis]).

(c)To answer this Kashya, we cite Rav Pinchas, who establishes a similar case when the sinner did Teshuvah (in which case, their father re-enters the realm of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Amcha').

(d)Despite the fact that the father did Teshuvah, as Rav Pinchas maintains, he still had the Ribis in his possession when he died because he died before he had a chance to return it.

4)

(a)We query Rebbi Yochanan from the Beraisa 'ha'Gazlanim u'Malvei be'Ribis, Af-al-Pi she'Gavu, Machzirin'. The problem with the Beraisa as it stands lies in the phrase 'Af-al-Pi she'Gavu'. The Gazlan must have taken the article, otherwise what makes him a Gazlan?

(b)So we amend the Beraisa to read 'ha'Gazlanim u'Mai Nihu, Malvei be'Ribis'.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan (who holds that the creditor is not obligated to return the Ribis that he claimed) nevertheless admits that it is a Machlokes Tana'im, and that this Tana holds that he is.

(d)Rebbi Nechemyah and Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, in another Beraisa, exempt the creditor and the guarantor from Malkus. Initially, we ascribe this to the Pasuk "ve'Chei Achicha Imach" because we think that it is the Aseh that obligates them to rectify the Lav that they have transgressed (i.e. to return the Ribis to the debtor).

(e)This in turn, is based on the principle that a Lav ha'Nitak la'Aseh (a Lav that is connected to an Aseh) is Patur from Malkus.

5)

(a)We conclude however, that the Aseh is to tear up the Shtar, and the Lav referred to by the Tana is "Lo Sesimun Alav Neshech" (which we Darshen to mean 'Shuma' [assessment], which all the participants transgress, as we shall see later), but which they only transgress retroactively once the debtor pays the Ribis [according to this opinion]).

(b)This Tana holds 'Shtar ha'Omed Ligavos Lav ke'Gavuy Dami' (a Kosher Shtar is not considered as if it has already been claimed). Otherwise, tearing the Shtar would make no difference (any more than it now does after the Ribis has been paid).

(c)The Chidush of the Beraisa is that 'Shuma Milsa Hi' (the assessment itself is a Lav (and is punishable by Malkus). And we prove it by citing the Mishnah later which includes the witnesses, who have no hand in the actual claiming of the debt (like the creditor, the debtor and the guarantor do), among those who transgress the Lav of Ribis.

(d)Rebbi Yochanan will now reconciles his opinion with this Beraisa by establishing that both Tana'im agree that if the debtor had paid the Ribis, the creditor would not be obligated to return it (though the Tana of the previous Beraisa disagrees [see also Tosfos DH 'Lo']).

6)

(a)The criterion Rav Safra gives for the creditor to be obligated to return the Ribis is whatever the Nochri courts would have forced the debtor to pay in the first place.

(b)Abaye queried Rav Safra from 'Se'ah b'Se'ah' (where Reuven lent Shimon a Se'ah of wheat now to receive a Se'ah of wheat later) which the Nochri courts obligate the debtor to pay, yet we do not obligate the creditor to return the money once it has been paid.

(c)To which Rav Safra replied that his statement is confined strictly to the obligation to pay in the form of Ribis, whereas the Nochri courts' obligation for the debtor to pay the creditor the Se'ah, is based on their considering it a Pikadon which must be returned.

7)

(a)Ravina asked Rav Ashi the same Kashya (as Abaye asked Rav Safra) from Mashkanta be'Lo Nachyasa (where Reuven lends Shimon money against a vineyard, say, from which he eats the fruit, but without reducing the loan in accordance with what he eats). There too, the Nochri courts will force the debtor to pay, yet we do not obligate the creditor to return (because it is Avak Ribis).

(b)To which Rav Ashi replied (much in the same way as Rav Safra replied earlier) that the Nochri courts obligation is based on the fact that they consider the vineyard as being sold to the creditor (and not in the form of Ribis).

(c)When Rav Safra says ...

1. ... 'Kol she'Ilu be'Dineihem Motzi'in, be'Dineinu Machzirin' he is referring to Ribis Ketzutzah (that is fixed together with the loan).

2. ... 'Kol she'Ilu be'Dineihem Ein Motzi'in, be'Dineinu Ein Machzirin' he is referring to interest that the debtor pays impromptu before or after the loan.

(d)Rav Safra holds like Rebbi Elazar.

8)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that if Reuven owes Shimon wheat that he sold him for a Dinar Zahav, and the price rises to thirty Dinarim, he is forbidden to transfer the debt from wheat on to wine (even if the price of wine is already fixed). The problem with this is that, seeing as the price of wine is already fixed, why is it any more forbidden than in the Reisha (due to the Sevara 'Im Ein la'Zeh, Yesh La'Zeh'?

(b)When Rabah answers by establishing the Mishnah 'be'Ba La'chov bi'Demeihen', he means that the Tana is speaking where Shimon first transfers the debt (which has now increased due to the price of wheat having gone up) on to money before transferring it again on to wine ('de'Lav ke'Isro ha'Ba le'Yado Dami' [i.e. he borrowed twenty-five Dinarim and pays back thirty]) ...

(c)... which the Beraisa forbids because 'de'Lav ke'Isro ha'Ba le'Yado Dami' (this is not comparable to a case where the seller received money, with which he is able to purchase the wheat or the wine; whereas in this case, Shimon received nothing at the time of the transfer).

(d)The problem that Abaye has with Rabah's answer is if that if so, it ought to be forbidden it even if the seller does have wine (yet it is not)?

9)

(a)So Abaye establishes our Mishnah like Rav Safra learned by Ribis d'Vei Rav, in a case where Reuven lends Shimon wheat worth a Manah instead of the Manah that he asked him for, which he then buys back from him for twenty-four Sela'im (because Shimon needs the money immediately). Rav Safra rules there that although it is basically permitted the Rabanan nevertheless forbade it, because it looks like Ribis (since it began with a request for a loan of money).

(b)This is not proper Ribis because it was not Shimon who gave Reuven more than the value of the wheat as payment for the loan, but Reuven who lowered the price for his own benefit.

(c)The equivalent case in our Mishnah will be if Reuven lends Shimon wheat worth thirty Dinarim instead of the thirty Dinarim he asked for. Shimon then asks Reuven to purchase the wheat from him for twenty-five Dinarim, and Reuven pays him the money. Then when the latter claims his thirty Dinarim (for the loan of wheat) in order to buy wine, Shimon transfers the wine that he would have given him had he possessed it, on to money.

(d)And it is forbidden because in fact, Reuven gave Shimon twenty-five Dinarim cash and received thirty, which looks like Ribis.

10)

(a)Rava queries Abaye's explanation from various angles. In answer to Rava's Kashya as to why the Mishnah says ...

1. ... 'Ten Li Chitai' (rather than 'Demei Chitai) Abaye amends the Lashon of the Mishnah to 'Ten li Demei Chitai'.

2. ... ' ... she'Ani Rotzeh le'Mochran' (rather than 'she'Mechartim lach') he amends it to 'she'Mechartim lach'.

(b)And he explains 'Harei Chitech Asuyos alai bi'Sheloshim Dinar' (seeing as that is what they were worth to begin with) as if the Tana had written 'bi'Demei Chitecha she'Asisa alai bi'Sheloshim Dinar'.

(c)Rava finally refutes Abaye's explanation from the words 'be'Dinar Zahav ha'Kur, ve'Chein ha'Sha'ar'. This disproves Abaye according to whom the market-price was thirty Dinarim when he purchased the wheat for twenty-five (at less than the market price).

(d)The problem in establishing Abaye's case where the market price was a Dinar Zahav (to conform with our Mishnah) would be that, when Reuven initially assessed the wheat that he lent Shimon at thirty Dinarim, that would be pure Ribis.