Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 5:2

משנה: מַרְבִּין עַל הַשָּׂכָר וְאֵין מַרְבִּין עַל הַמֶּכֶר. כֵּיצַד הִשְׂכִּיר לוֹ אֶת הֶחָצֵיר וְאָמַר לוֹ אִם מֵעַכְשָׁיו אָתָּה נוֹתֵן לִי הֲרֵי הוּא לָךְ בְּעֶשֶׂר סְלָעִים לַשָּׁנָה וְאִם שֶׁלְּחֹדֶשׁ בְּחֹדֶשׁ בְּסֶלַע לַחֹדֶש מוּתָּר. מָכַר לוֹ אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ וְאָמַר לוֹ אִם מֵעַכְשָׁיו אָתָּה נוֹתֵן לִי הֲרֵי הִיא לָךְ בְּאֶלֶף זוּז וְאִם לַגּוֹרֶן בִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מְנָה אָסוּר. מָכַר לוֹ אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ וְנָתַן לוֹ מִקְצָת דָּמִים וְאָמַר לוֹ אֵימָתַי שֶׁתִּרְצֶה הָבֵא מָעוֹת וְטוֹל אֶת שֶׁלָּךְ אָסוּר. הִלְװָהוּ עַל שָׂדֵהוּ וְאָמַר לוֹ אִם אֵי אַתָּה נוֹתֵן לִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁלִּי הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁלּוֹ. וְכָךְ הָיָה בָּייֵתוֹס בֶּן זוֹנִין עוֹשֶׂה עַל פִּי חֲכָמִים. MISHNAH: One may increase rental fees but not sale price. How is this? He leased a courtyard saying to him³¹The landlord to the renter., if [you pay] now it is yours for ten tetradrachmas a year but if paid monthly it is a tetradrachma per month; this is permitted³²As explained in Bava Metzia 5:1:7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Metzia.5.1.7">Note 26.. He sold his field and said to him³³The seller to the buyer., if [you pay] now it is yours for 1’000 zuz, but if after the threshing floor³⁴When the farmer sells his crop; this is the only time of the year when he has ample cash. it is twelve mina; this is forbidden.
If one sold his field, [the buyer] made a partial payment and [the seller] said, anytime you wish bring the remainder and take yours; this is forbidden³⁵If the field is sold now but the yield remains the seller’s until it is fully paid for, the yield collected by the seller is a “premium for waiting.”. If one lent money on a field and said, if you do not repay me in three years from now, it will be mine, it is his³⁶A mortgage with a forfeiture clause.; Boethos ben Zenon³⁷In the Babli, 63a, ‘Arakhin 31a; Tosephta 4:2: On the instruction of R. Eleazar ben Azariah. acted thus following the Sages.

הלכה: מַרְבִּין עַל הַשָּׂכָר כול׳. תַּנֵּי. הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ. עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֱהֵא בָהּ אָרִיס. עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֱהֵא בָהּ שׁוּתָף. עַל מְנָת שֶׁהַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת שֶׁלִּי. עַל מְנָת שֶׁכְּשֶׁתִּמְכְּרֶנָּה לֹא תִמְכְּרֶנָּה אֶלָּא לִי. שֶׁכָּל־זְמַן שֶׁאֲנִי רוֹצֶה נוֹתֵן דָּמֶיהָ וְנוֹטְלָהּ. מוּתָּר. הָיָה חַייָב לוֹ מָעוֹת וְכָתַב לוֹ שָׂדֶהוּ בְמֶכֶר. כָּל־זְמַן שֶׁהַמּוֹכֵר אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת מוּתָּר. כָּל־זְמַן שֶׁהַלּוֹקֵחַ אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת אָסוּר. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ מוּתָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה. כָּךְ הָיָה בָּייֵתוֹס בֶּן זוֹנִין עוֹשֶׂה עַל פִּי חֲכָמִים. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ. מִשָּׁם רְאָייָה. מוֹכֵר אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת הָיָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה אָֽמְרֵי. מִבָּתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה לָמַד רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. דְּתַנֵּי. שָׁנָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַתּוֹרָה עָרֵי חוֹמָה הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמִין רִבִּית וְאֵינָהּ רִבִּית. תַּנַּיי חוֹרָן תַנֵּי. הֲרֵי זוֹ רִיבִּית אֶלָּא שֶׁהִתִּירָהּ הַתּוֹרָה. מָאן דָּמַר. הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּמִין רִיבִּית וְאֵינָהּ רִבִּית. רִבִּי מֵאִיר. מָאן דָּמַר. הֲרֵי זוֹ רִיבִּית אֶלָּא שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה הִתִּירָהּ. רִבִּי יוּדָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אִידִי. כַּד סָֽלְקִית מִגָּלוּתָא אַשְׁכְּחִית עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אִמִּי. הֲרֵי זוֹ כְמִין רִבִּית וְאֵינָהּ רִבִּית. אָמַר רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. לֹא אָֽמְרוּ אֶלָּא זוֹ רִבִּית שֶׁהִתִּירָהּ הַתּוֹרָה. כָּאן הַתּוֹרָה הִתִּירָהּ. הָא בְמָקוֹם אַחֵר לֹא. אֲפִילוּ כֵן לֹא אַשְׁגַּח רִבִּי אִמִּי. אָמַר. בַּייְתָא עִם דַּייָרָא דָאִיר. 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">Megillah 27b, Arakhin.31a">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 cities⁴³Leviticus.25.29-30">Lev. 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 Bava Metzia 5:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Metzia.5.1.1">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. Bava Metzia 6:5:1-2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Metzia.6.5.1-2">6:7, Notes 77–78 and Gittin 4:6:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.4.6.3">Giṭṭin 4:6, Note 168.) But antichretic loans are endorsed in Bava Metzia 6:5:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Metzia.6.5.1">Mishnah 6:7 in certain cases..