Explanation: They normally used to [count] fives, like we count one by one;

For us, in every case it is an amount that one could err about.

Explanation: This Beraisa is not difficult for Rav, who forbids Pardisa (73a, to give money when grapes are immature to receive wine later at a low price), for here it is not normal to lower the price due to a delay of one or two days;

Therefore it is permitted. He accepts on himself loss and wages, and so he can lose just like he can gain. Therefore, even if he finds (receives) more than the money he gave, this is not Ribis.

However, Rav forbids Pardisa, for [the seller] gives a much lower price, for it is common to buy when the grapes are Boser (unripe). Because he gave the coins early [and he will not receive the Peros] until the time of the harvest, he gives a lower price, and this is Ribis.

Implied question: Also there, sometimes there is ruin [to the crop], like Shmuel says, e.g. hail, frost or rain, and he loses everything!

Answer: Rav is not concerned for this, for it is not common.

Question: According to Rav, who forbids Pardisa, how is this difference than Mashkanta of Sura? It connotes below (67b) that all permit;

They write [at the end of these years, the land will go out (return to the borrower) without money;

It is permitted even for several years to give a lower price, and all the more so for one year!

Answer #1: Mashkanta of Sura is different, for he buys the land from now, with coins and a document, for its Peros, if the borrower will not redeem it;

However, Pardisa does not acquire anything. The coins are a loan with him until the harvest.

Answer #2: In Mashkanta of Sura, he acquires the land for everything, even to spread out Peros on it and leave his animals on it, and any use he wants;

However, in Pardisa, he sells only wine.

Answer #3: Rav forbids Pardisa only when he said to him "this number of Hinin (a Hin is a measure equal to 12 Lugim). However, if he sold to him "be it much, be it little, what will grow", Rav agrees that it is permitted;

Even so, Shmuel permits (even when he specified the quantity) due to [possibility of] ruin. The wine will be bad, and not worth the money he paid.

Here, regarding "the milk of my cattle and goats", Shmuel agrees, for ruin does not apply.

Also according to the other version, that Rava permits since it increases automatically, it is even like Rav.

Implied question: Also there according to the other version, that Rava permits since it increases automatically, it is even like Rav.

Question: What is the case?

If he did Meshichah, even if he said "if Takfah (it sours, and turns to vinegar) or the price decreases, it is in your Reshus (you suffer the loss), and if the price rises, it is in my Reshus", it is permitted;

This is because he stipulates with him that if the price rises, the sale is valid from now, and the coins are not a loan with him;

And if it sours or the price decreases, the sale is Batel, and the coins are a loan, and he returns them. There is no Ribis!

If he did not do Meshichah, why must he stipulate "if it sours, it is in your Reshus"? Even if he does not stipulate, he can retract!

There is no Mi she'Para, since [if he does not retract] he loses everything, like it connotes above (49b) regarding [one who paid for] wine, and someone from the house of Parzak Rufila (a powerful official of the king) was getting married. (Rav Chisda let the buyer retract, for the official would confiscate people's wine.)

Answer #1: Really, the case is, he did Meshichah. Even so, it is forbidden if he said "if the price decreases, it is in your Reshus", for [the buyer] is close to profiting, and far from loss;

This is like it says below (70a) regarding an Iska (investment). It is forbidden, even though he can stipulate that if there will be a loss in the Iska, all the coins are a loan, and if there will be a profit, they are all a deposit!

Rather, surely since the receiver (borrower) has liability for a loss, even a stipulation to consider them a deposit does not help.

Answer #2: The case is, he did not do Meshichah. He must stipulate, for if he does not stipulate, there is a Mi she'Para;

He does not have such a great loss, for some prefer vinegar to wine, like we say in Bava Basra (84b).

Question: Still, even if he did not stipulate, he can retract if it soured, for it is a Mekach Ta'os, even if the buyer brought it to his house and delayed greatly and afterwards it soured!

R. Chanina taught in Bava Basra (98a) regarding one who sells wine to his friend and it soured 'this is only if it was in the buyer's bottles. If it is in the seller's bottles, he can tell him "it is your wine and your bottles!"' (It soured because the wine was bad.)

Strengthening of question: Even the one who argues there, and says that the Mazel of [the buyer] caused it to sour, in a case when he stipulated, what was the question here "he is close to profit, and far from loss"?

It is a Mekach Ta'os, for we cannot say that the buyer's Mazel caused it to sour, since he stipulated with him that if it sours, it is in his Reshus!

Further strengthening of question: Also below (73b), regarding Rabanan who give coins for wine in Tishrei, and they select wine in Teves, we say "they give [money] for wine, and not for vinegar"!

Suggestion: We can distinguish between one who sells in Tishrei, and [the buyer] takes it in Teves, and the rest of the year.

Rejection: In Bava Basra we do not distinguish between before Teves and after Teves!

Answer: Here, "Takfah" does not mean that it became vinegar. Rather, it merely deteriorated, like wine sold in stores (Bava Basra 95a);

What soured after Tishrei, from Tishrei, it was destined to sour, like it says below (73b). It is a Mekach Ta'os.

Here, "Takfah" is not a deterioration that was destined to come from Tishrei. It is not a Mekach Ta'os. He [properly] paid coins for it;

"Takfah" here is like in Bava Basra (98a). Rava said that one who sold a barrel of wine [to a grocer], and Takif..."

This does not mean that it soured, for it asks afterwards "[if it turned to] vinegar, what is the law?"

Implied question: In Brachos (5b), it says that 400 barrels of Rav Huna's wine Takfah. There it means that it soured, for it says "the price of vinegar [became greater than the price of wine]"!

Answer: In any case, here it does not mean that it turned to vinegar, like I explained.

Question: Below (73b), why do we need the reason "[what later became] vinegar, was vinegar from the beginning"? Even if it soured [afterwards], and we cannot say so, one may stipulate! (We should say that he stipulated.)

This is like we say here, that since he accepted on himself rise in price or decline in price, he is close to [profit and loss]!

Answer: Souring of becoming vinegar is common. Therefore, even though he accepted on himself rise in price or decline in price, he is far from loss, and it would be like Ribis, if not for the reason "[what later became] vinegar, was vinegar from the beginning."

Question: He should challenge also our Mishnah (below, 72b), that once there is a market price, we may contract! Also there, the buyer does not lose at all through souring.

Answer: There is different. Since the Peros are not clarified for the buyer, it is not evident that he is close to profit and far from loss.

Implied question: He should challenge also "one may contract about a stack" (72b) and R. Oshaya's Beraisa above (63a) "if he has, it is permitted"!

Answer #1: If the entire stack, or all the wheat that he has, is ruined, he does not give to him other, only from those. (Therefore, he can lose.)

Support: It connotes like this below (73b) "[what later became] vinegar, was vinegar from the beginning." They did not pay for vinegar;

Inference: A different spoilage other than turning to vinegar, they would accept.

Disclaimer: It seems somewhat that contracting on the stack is like contracting on the market price. The buyer does not lose in any case.

Answer #2: Even so, it is not difficult, for the seller can give other wheat, and these that he has, presumably, he can eat them. Having [wheat] helps only to permit contracting;

"Rabanan who give money for wine" connotes that a different spoilage other than turning to vinegar, they would accept, i.e. because they rely on the wine on Ba'alei Batim specifically, and they could not buy other [wine] from the market and give it to them.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We learn from here that one may not lend based on a house [for collateral] and live in it, even through deducting, for a Mishnah teaches that [a lender] may not rent from him (the borrower) for less [than the normal rental].

Implied question: Why is this unlike Mashkanta of a vineyard (below, 72a)?

Answer: There, sometimes he does not receive anything (nothing grows), and even so he deducts [from the loan]. He buys Peros through deducting, on a Safek;

However, in a house he benefits constantly, and there is no Safek. It turns out that he rents for less.

Objection (R. Tam): Also a house, sometimes he does not receive anything, e.g. it falls, it burns, or he does not need it!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Rather, both a house and a field, when he does not lend his money against them, it is forbidden to eat the Peros or live in the house for less [than one normally pays for these]. Our Mishnah discusses this;

It teaches that one who lends to his friend may not dwell in his Chatzer. It did not teach one who lends to his friend on his Chatzer (it was collateral).

Inference: However, if he lent to his friend on his house or field it is permitted through deducting.

Explanation #1: This is because the owner of the field or Chatzer does not lose, for in any case he cannot rent it to others, for [the lender] took it for collateral.

Objection: Because he took it for collateral, should the Peros rot?! Why can't the borrower sell the Peros and pay his debt, or the lender can take the Peros themselves for his debt?

Explanation #2: We can give another reason for [R. Tam]'s words. When he lends on his house or field, it is permitted more through deducting, for it is as if the field is in his hand like a purchase for all those years;

This is like we said above (62b) regarding Mashkanta without deducting. It came to his hand as a sale.

Question: In Erchin (31a) it says [regarding Batei Ir Chomah] "it is absolute Ribis, and the Torah permitted it";

This connotes like Rashi, that ruin and Safek do not apply to a house, for it is considered absolute Ribis;

Regarding a field without deducting, above it is considered only Avak Ribis.

Answer: According to R. Tam, we must explain "it is absolute Ribis" mid'Rabanan. Because the Torah permitted it explicitly, Chachamim did not want to enforce their words;

Our Mishnah, which taught "it is like Ribis, and it is not Ribis", we can explain that it is not Ribis even mid'Rabanan.

He is forced to explain according to Rava that even though that Tana holds that Tzad Echad b'Ribis is permitted even mid'Rabanan...

Even so, Rava holds that we should not say that R. Yehudah permits Tzad Echad b'Ribis even mid'Rabanan, unless he explicitly says so.

Inference: R. Tam inferred that since it did not teach "one who lends to his friend on his Chatzer", this implies that we discuss when he did not lend on his Chatzer (it was not collateral).

Rebuttal: This is not a valid inference, for in Gitin (37a) regarding what [a Mishnah] taught "one who lends to his friend on a security, Shemitah does not cancel [the loan]"...

The Gemara asks "if so, if he lent to him and dwelled in his Chatzer, will you say that also this is not canceled?!"

There it wants to explain that he lent to him on his Chatzer, that even if he lent to him on his Chatzer, it is canceled.

Source #1: This is like we say below (67b) "Mashkanta, in a place where [the borrower] can [pay the rest of the debt and] remove the lender, Shevi'is cancels it."

Source #2: If he does not challenge "he lent to him on his Chatzer", why did he mention Chatzer? He should have discussed Metaltelim, i.e. if he lent to him and uses his security, will you say that Shemitah does not cancel [the loan]?!

Rather, surely he questions the [difference between] collateral of a Chatzer and a security of Metaltelim.

Citation (Bava Kama 21a): A man built a house on a dumpsite of orphans. (Rav Nachman forced him to pay rent for the time that he lived in the house.)

Citation (cont.) Inference: Rav Nachman holds that one who lives in Reuven's yard without Reuven's knowledge must pay Reuven.

Implied question: We could have asked that if this [inference] is true, Rav Nachman contradicts what he taught here!

Answer #1: That inference is rejected there.

Answer #2: Here we discuss a Chatzer that is not normally rented, and a man who does not normally pay rent. This is a case in which this [one who lives there] does not benefit, and this (the owner) does not lose, like we conclude.

Pesak: We hold like this first version, that even if he lent to him, it is forbidden, like Rava proves from [Version #1:] below (65a).

Question: If a person lent to his friend, is it forbidden to do anything in the world for him?!

This is not only matters that it is not normal to lend for free, such as a house or horse and similar matters, that [the borrower] may not lend to the lender, even if he loves him so much that even without this [loan], he would lend;

Rather, it is even matters that he normally lends for free to others, that it is not normal to take rental for them;

It should be forbidden, similar to a Chatzer not destined to be rented, and a man who does not normally pay rent. We conclude that it is forbidden!

Answer #1: Only regarding matters that are very public and out in the open, he forbids here so much, e.g. [even] to live in his Chatzer or seize his slave;

However, to lend to him his Kelim or horse is permitted, since even without this [loan], he would lend to him;

Support: The Mishnah says "his Chatzer." It did not say "he may not lend to him his Kelim or animal for less."

Answer #2: Only to live in it without his friend's knowledge if forbidden in every case, even in a Chatzer not destined to be rented, and a man who does not normally rent;

Since he does without permission, it seems that he relies on the lender. Due to him, the owner bears;

What he does with his consent, is forbidden only regarding something that he would not do for the lender if not for the loan, similar to greeting him first with Shalom, below (75b);

We forbid only what he was not used to doing before [the loan], to give [Shalom] first.

Our Mishnah discusses this, like the simple meaning connotes, that we discuss a lender living with the borrower's consent. We forbid only a Chatzer destined to be rented.

Support: [The Mishnah teaches] "he may not rent from him for less [than the usual rental].

The Mishnah connotes also from the beginning of his dwelling there, that he rents from him with his consent.

Implied question: We conclude that the Chidush [of Rav Yosef is to forbid even a Chatzer not normally rented out and a man who does not normally pay rent]. Why didn't we say that he teaches that the Mishnah discusses even a Chatzer not normally rented out?

Answer: Our Mishnah discusses a Chatzer normally rented out, since he entered with [the owner's] consent.