A rather surprising statement in today’s daf (Bava Metzia 75a), after days and days of restrictions on lending arrangements:
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים מוּתָּרִים לִלְווֹת זֶה מִזֶּה בְּרִבִּית. מַאי טַעְמָא – מִידָּע יָדְעִי דְּרִבִּית אֲסוּרָה, וּמַתָּנָה הוּא דְּיָהֲבִי אַהֲדָדֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לַאֲבוּהּ בַּר אִיהִי: הַלְוֵינִי מֵאָה פִּלְפְּלִין בְּמֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִין פִּלְפְּלִין, וַאֲרִיךְ.
And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It is permitted for Torah scholars to borrow from one another with interest. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? It is because they are fully aware that interest is prohibited, and therefore they do not intend the loan to be a formal business transaction. They willingly forgo the additional payments to each other at the outset, and the extra payment is a gift that they give one another. The Gemara relates: Shmuel said to Avuh bar Ihi: Lend me one hundred peppers in exchange for 120 peppers that I will give you at a later date. And you should know that this matter is fitting and appropriate, as I intend that the additional twenty peppers be a gift.
There are all sorts of ways to explain it, but one could say that they take the technical prohibition of ribbit seriously, and know how to mentally structure it so that it is not ribbit. (There may be repercussions, such as that this separate gift would not be collectible in court.)
It is so shocking that in Artscroll, footnote 25, the square brackets editor begins the comment with “[This statement cannot be taken in its plain meaning, because it is inconceivable that Torah scholars should be allowed to transgress any prohibition on interest.] Rather…”
I think this also impacted the scribe of the Escorial manuscript (or some scribe upstream), because they uniquely add some text.
The added text is: “And this is specifically Torah scholars. However, uneducated people [amei ha’aretz] who don’t know, no. Like this case…”
I think there may be an ad kan here, indicating that this is an inserted peirush. Still, it was something that bore insertion.
In the Mishnah on 75b, there is a statement from Rabban Gamliel about ribbit after the fact:
רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ רִבִּית מוּקְדֶּמֶת וְיֵשׁ רִבִּית מְאוּחֶרֶת. כֵּיצַד? נָתַן עֵינָיו לִלְווֹת הֵימֶנּוּ, וְהוּא מְשַׁלֵּחַ לוֹ וְאוֹמֵר: בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתַּלְוֵנִי – זוֹ הִיא רִבִּית מוּקְדֶּמֶת. לָוָה הֵימֶנּוּ וְהֶחְזִיר לוֹ אֶת מְעוֹתָיו, וְהוּא מְשַׁלֵּחַ לוֹ וְאוֹמֵר: בִּשְׁבִיל מְעוֹתֶיךָ שֶׁהָיוּ בְּטֵילוֹת אֶצְלִי – זוֹ הִיא רִבִּית מְאוּחֶרֶת.
Rabban Gamliel says: There is a case of pre-paid interest, and there is also a case of interest paid later, both of which are prohibited. How so? If he had hopes of borrowing money from him in the future, and he sends him money or a gift and says: I am sending you this gift in order that you will lend to me, this is pre-paid interest. Similarly, if he borrowed money from him and subsequently returned his money, and he later sends a gift to him and says: I am sending you this gift in order to repay you for your money, which was idle with me, preventing you from earning a profit from it, this is interest paid later.
Despite being attached to only one name, there doesn’t seem to be anyone who explicitly argues. And we seem to rule in accordance with this, that it counts as avak ribbit.
I don’t know that this factors into it, but there are some girsaot that have Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel instead. That would be Escorial, and Hamburg 165.
I would suspect that there may be influence from the next name in the Mishnah, Rabbi Shimon.
But recall that there is a principle that we rule like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel when he appears in the Mishnah, as I discussed the other day.
The Mishnah on 75a mentions Hillel. Plain Hillel, the Tanna, should be Hillel HaZaken.
מַתְנִי׳ לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ: הַלְוֵינִי כּוֹר חִטִּין וַאֲנִי אֶתֵּן לָךְ לַגּוֹרֶן. אֲבָל אוֹמֵר לוֹ: הַלְוֵינִי עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא בְּנִי אוֹ עַד שֶׁאֶמְצָא מַפְתֵּחַ. וְהִלֵּל אוֹסֵר. וְכֵן הָיָה הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר: לֹא תַּלְוֶה אִשָּׁה כִּכָּר לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ עַד שֶׁתַּעֲשֶׂיהָ דָּמִים, שֶׁמָּא יוּקְרוּ חִטִּין, וְנִמְצְאוּ בָּאוֹת לִידֵי רִבִּית.
MISHNA: A person may not say to another: Lend me a kor of wheat and I will give it back to you at the time the wheat is brought to the granary, as the wheat may increase in value, which would mean that when he gives him back a kor of wheat at the time the wheat is brought to the granary it is worth more than the value of the loan, and he therefore will have paid interest. But he may say to him: Lend me a kor of wheat for a short period of time, e.g., until my son comes or until I find the key, as there is no concern about a change in price during such a short interval of time. And Hillel prohibits the practice even in this case. And Hillel would similarly say: A woman may not lend a loaf of bread to another unless she establishes its monetary value, lest the wheat appreciate in value before she returns it, and they will therefore have come to transgress the prohibition of interest.
I don’t know why I am second guessing this identification. Who is his disputant? Shammai? The Chachamim? In the gemara, Rav Nachman quotes Shmuel that we rule like Hillel, but then the Talmudic Narrator that we don’t rule like Rav Nachman. Is this the famous Hillel we don’t rule like?
Who else could it plausibly be? The next Shmuel is a (quasi-)Amora, the son of Rabban Gamliel who was the son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. See Rav Hyman on Hillel II. I would not expect him in a Mishnah. On the other hand, an occasional “Rabbi” in the Mishnah is his brother, Rabbi Yehuda Nesia.
The gemara speaks of whether one can give one’s children the bitter taste of interest:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מוּתָּר לוֹ לָאָדָם לְהַלְווֹת בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵיתוֹ בְּרִבִּית, כְּדֵי לְהַטְעִימָן טַעַם רִבִּית. וְלָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא, מִשּׁוּם דְּאָתֵי לְמִיסְרַךְ.
Similarly, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It is permitted for a person to lend to his sons and the members of his household with interest, in order to have them taste the taste of interest so that they will understand how interest increases and how hard it is to repay it, which will discourage them from ever borrowing with interest again. The Gemara comments: But this is not correct, because the members of his household may become corrupted by doing so and act similarly with others in cases when there is no justification for such behavior.
This reminds me of the origins of Monopoly.
Monopoly is derived from The Landlord's Game, created in 1903 in the US by Lizzie Magie, as a way to demonstrate that an economy rewarding individuals is better than one where monopolies hold all the wealth.