1)

(a)The Beraisa discusses the case of a Nochri who lends a Yisrael money on interest, issues a new document converting the Keren (the principle) and the Ribis into one joint loan, and converts to Judaism. The Tana Kama permits him to claim the entire amount provided he converted the loan before he converted to Judaism, but not if he converted first.

(b)Whereas in the equivalent case, where a Yisrael who lent a Nochri money on interest, issues a new document converting the Keren and the Ribis into one joint loan, and the Nochri converts to Judaism, the Tana Kama permits the Yisrael to claim the Ribis provided he converted the loan before the Nochri converted, but not if he converted first.

(c)Rebbi Yosi argues with him in the latter case permitting the Jewish creditor to claiming either way, to prevent people from saying that the Nochri only converted in order to get out of paying the Ribis that he owed him.

(d)Rav Chisda Amar Rav Huna rules like Rebbi Yosi.

2)

(a)According to Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, a creditor may not even claim the Keren with a Shtar which includes Ribis. The Rabanan however permit him to claim the Keren.

(b)The basis of their Machlokes is whether Chazal decreed on the part of the Shtar that is permitted, on account of the part that is forbidden (Rebbi Meir) or not (the Rabanan).

3)

(a)Shtarei Chov ...

1. ... ha'Mukdamin are pre-dated documents.

2. ... ha'Me'ucharin are post-dated documents.

(b)The Mishnah in Shevi'is invalidates the former because that will enable the creditor to claim from fields which the purchaser's bought before the loan took place, which is unlawful; but not the former, since no harm will come from the creditor claiming from the debtor's fields which the purchasers purchased after the loan took place.

(c)Reish Lakish establishes the author of this Mishnah as Rebbi Meir because according to the Rabanan, Shtarei Chov ha'Mukdamin ought at least to be valid as far as claiming the debt from after the date that the loan took place is concerned.

(d)Rebbi Yochanan however establishes the Mishnah even according to the Rabanan, who will concede here that the Shtar is totally invalid (not because we decree what is permitted on account of what is not, but) because, due to the fact that the second date is not written in the Shtar, we are afraid that the creditor will claim from the date written in the Shtar (and the purchaser will not object, since he is unaware that the loan took place after the date on the Shtar).

4)

(a)Three years after the debtor gave him a field as a security a certain creditor threatened the debtor that, unless he sold him the field, he would hide the Shtar declaring the field to be a security, and claim that he had purchased it from him and that he had lost it.

(b)This threat was based on the principle that, after three years, a person who makes such a claim is believed (as we will learn in Bava Basra).

(c)To counteract the creditor's threat the debtor first donated the field to his young son before selling it to him.

(d)The sale was obviously invalid. The query then arose whether (bearing in mind that he had sold the field with Achrayus), the money that the debtor now owed the creditor (and which was contained in the document of sale) was considered a documented loan in which case the creditor was now permitted to claim from the Meshubadim that the debtor had sold in the interim, or an oral one (in which case he was not permitted to do so).

5)

(a)Abaye tried to resolve the She'eilah by quoting Rebbi Asi, who stated that, if a debtor admits to the validity of the Shtar that the creditor produces against him the latter may subsequently claim even from the debtor's Meshubadim, without having to search for witnesses to substantiate it.

(b)In our case too the debtor admitted that he had written the Shtar of sale, in which case, by the same token, the creditor ought to be able to claim from the debtor's Meshubadim.

(c)Rava refuted Abaye's comparison to Rebbi Asi's case however on the grounds that, whereas the Shtar in the latter was legitimate, the field here had already been donated to the seller's son, and its sale was therefore illegal.

6)

(a)We just cited Rava, who draws a distinction between a regular Shtar, which is legal, and the field in our case, which had already been donated to the seller's son, in which case its sale was illegal. A little earlier, with regard to a post-dated Shtar, we cited Rebbi Yochanan, who attributed the prohibition on the creditor to claim even from Meshubadim, even from the date of the loan to the fact that he might claim from the date on the Shtar. Why, Ravina asked Mereimar, did he not rather attribute it to the fact that the Shtar was written illegally. Mereimar relied that there, granted the Shtar was illegal as far as the earlier date was concerned, it was however, perfectly legal from the date that the loan took place?

(b)The Mishnah rules in Gitin that one cannot claim Shevach Karka'os from Meshubadim, which the Beraisa establishes as Reuven who stole a field from Shimon, which he then sold to Levi. When Shimon claims his field, which Levi has in the meantime improved, he claims the Keren from Meshubadim (Levi's purchasers) and the Shevach from Bnei Chorin (fields that Levi still has in his possession).

(c)We explained earlier (in the first Perek, that Reuven will make every effort to persuade Shimon to sell him the field, so as not to be termed a Gazlan, or that he will do so in order to remain in the good graces of Levi (to whom he sold the field with Achrayus).

(d)This explains why the Shtar is legal there, enabling Levi to claim the Keren from Shimon's Meshubadim. Neither of those reasons will apply in our case (of the creditor after three years) however since the debtor's very aim is to ensure that the creditor will lose the field.

7)

(a)Our Mishnah permits Reuven to give Shimon money at the beginning of the season, for a Se'ah of wheat that he will only receive at the end of the season, once the price is fixed because even though the seller doesn't have wheat, someone else does (in which case theoretically, he could have purchased it there and then and given it to the buyer).

(b)The Tana permits someone who arrives early at the haystack to do this even before the official price has been fixed because the seller has grain (albeit not yet ready for consumption), in which case there is no Ribis because it is as if the purchaser has already acquired it. Alternatively, the Tana speaks in a case where the seller sells the buyer the grain at the Sha'ar ha'Lekutos (a special price that the harvesters fix among themselves see Rosh Siman 60).

(c)The Tana's leniency here (even though we might have expected him to consider this Avak Ribis) is based on the fact that Ribis by way of Mekach u'Memkar (buying and selling, as opposed to lending and borrowing [Derech Halva'ah]) is in the first instance, only mid'Rabanan.

(d)The Tana says the same about someone who arrives early at ...

1. ... the Avit of grapes which is a large pot in which the grapes are placed before pressing, to let them become hot, allowing the wine to flow more freely from the grapes.

2. ... the Ma'atan of olives which is the same thing, only with regard to olives.

8)

(a)One of the other two cases that the Tana adds to the list is a purchaser who arrives early at the pottery, where the potter has already formed balls of clay (with which to make his pots). The other is where the purchaser arrives early at the lime-maker, who has already placed the lime-stones and the wood into the furnace to manufacture lime.

(b)The Tana Kama permits paying money in advance for manure all the year round. The Chachamim seem to agree with this. Rebbi Yosi requires the seller to have manure in his trash-heap for this transaction to be permitted.

(c)'u'Poskin Imo ke'Sha'ar ha'Gavohah' which means a price fixing of more fruit for less money (i.e. fruit at a cheaper price).

(d)Rebbi Yehudah permits this even without the purchaser actually specifying it (as the Tana Kama does).

9)

(a)Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan forbids paying for corn in advance relying on the 'Sha'ar she'ba'Shuk'. Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Asi whether Rebbi Yochanan was referring to 'ke'Durmus ha'Zeh', by which he meant even the price fixed by the large stores where the wheat is sold in bulk.

(b)According to Rebbi Zeira's suggested Chumra, when our Mishnah permits such a sale once the Sha'ar has been fixed it would be referring to the price that is fixed when all the big owners open their store-houses to sell to the public and the boats arrive from up-river with wheat for sale, because that is a Sha'ar that remains constant for a long time.

(c)Rebbi Asi answered Rebbi Zeira that, in fact, Rebbi Yochanan was referring to a smaller Sha'ar; namely that of the town Sha'ar which still permits individuals to sell at their own price (Shitah Mekubetzes).

10)

(a)The Beraisa forbids purchasing corn in advance as long as the new wheat is sold at four Se'ah per Sela, and the old wheat, at three. The new crops are sold for a lower price than the old crops because they are not yet completely dry.

(b)The reason for the prohibition is that seeing as the old crops are sold at three Se'ah per Sela, it looks as if the seller is giving the purchaser more new crops, because of the money that he has received in advance.

(c)The Tana permits it from the moment that both are sold at four Se'ah per Sela.

(d)He repeats the same Halachah with regard to purchasing wheat from Lekutos if their wheat is sold at four Se'ah per Sela, and the regular crops, at three. The wheat of the Lekutos is inferior to that of other sellers because the quality of their crops, which a. they tend to purchase from many different fields, and b. in the process, they mix rye stalks together with the wheat.

11)

(a)Rav Nachman permits Lekutos to pay one another in advance. Rava's problem with this was that if Lekutos are permitted to do this, because since their Sha'ar is already out, they can borrow crops from their Lakut friends, why should an ordinary Balabos not also be permitted, since he too, can borrow from a Lakut?

(b)Rav Nachman gave Rava two answers, one of them, that a regular seller would be embarrassed to borrow the inferior wheat that the Lakut sells; the other because whoever gives a Balabos money for wheat, expects good-quality crops, and not the poor quality grain offered by the Lekutos.

(c)When Rav Sheshes quotes Rav Huna as saying 'Ein Lovin al Sha'ar she'ba'Shuk', he might mean that Reuven is forbidden to stipulate when borrowing money from Shimon that, should he fail to return the loan by a specific date, he will be obligated to give him fruit at the current price. Even such a condition is permitted with regard to Se'ah be'Se'ah, it is forbidden here because Chazal were more stringent by loans, where the Ribis is basically d'Oraisa (as we have already explained).

(d)The Behag explains the case by Se'ah be'Se'ah.

12)

(a)When they asked Rav Huna about Talmidei-Chachamim borrowing money in Tishri (or wheat, according to the Behag) to pay back wheat in Teves he ruled that it is permitted.

(b)To reconcile the two conflicting rulings of Rav Huna, we cite Rav Shmuel bar Chiya Amar Rebbi Elazar who permits it.

(c)And when Rav Huna heard Rebbi Elazar's ruling he retracted from his original stance.