Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Mezi'a

Baba Mezi'a 60a

HOW MUCH MORE SO NEW WITH OLD!¹  YET IN TRUTH IT WAS SAID THAT STRONG WINE MAY BE MIXED WITH MILD, BECAUSE IT IMPROVES IT.²  A MAN MUST NOT MIX THE LEES OF WINE WITH WINE, BUT HE [THE VENDOR] MAY GIVE HIM [THE VENDEE] ITS LEES.³  IF HIS WINE WAS DILUTED WITH WATER HE MUST NOT SELL IT IN HIS SHOP [IN SMALL QUANTITIES] UNLESS HE INFORMS HIM [THE CUSTOMER], NOR TO A MERCHANT, EVEN IF HE INFORMS HIM, BECAUSE [THE LATTER BUYS IT] ONLY IN ORDER TO CHEAT THEREWITH. WHERE IT IS THE PRACTICE TO ADULTERATE WINE WITH WATER, IT IS PERMISSIBLE.⁴  A MERCHANT MAY PURCHASE [GRAIN] FROM FIVE GRANARIES AND PUT IT INTO ONE STORE-ROOM,⁵  OR [WINE] FROM FIVE PRESSES AND PUT IT INTO THE SAME CASK, PROVIDING THAT IT IS NOT HIS INTENTION TO MIX THEM.⁶

GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: it goes without saying, when new [produce] stands at four [se'ahs per sela'], whilst old is priced at three, that they may not be intermixed; but even when new is at three and old at four, they may still not be mixed, because [the higher price of the new corn is due to the fact that] one wishes to store them until old.⁷

YET IN TRUTH IT WAS SAID THAT STRONG WINE MAY BE MIXED WITH MILD, BECAUSE IT IMPROVES IT. R. Eleazar said: From this it may be concluded that wherever it is stated 'in truth it was said', that is the halachah.⁸  Said R. Nahman: This was taught only when they [the wines] are in the Presses.⁹  But nowadays [wines] are mixed [even] after they have left the presses.¹⁰  — Said R. Papa: It is known and forgiven. R. Aha son of R. Ika said: That is in accordance with R. Aha. For it has been taught: R. Aha permits [mixing] in a commodity that is [first] tasted.¹¹

A MAN MUST NOT MIX THE LEES OF WINE WITH WINE, BUT HE [THE VENDOR] MAY GIVE HIM [THE VENDEE] ITS LEES. But you have ruled in the first clause that they may not be mixed at all? And should you reply that what is meant by, BUT HE MAY GIVE HIM ITS LEES, is that he informs him thereof; since the subsequent clause states, HE MUST NOT SELL IT IN HIS SHOP UNLESS HE INFORMS HIM [THE CUSTOMER], NOR TO A MERCHANT, EVEN IF HE INFORMS HIM, it follows that this clause means even if he does not inform him! — Said Rab Judah: It means this: A MAN MUST NOT MIX THE LEES OF yesterday's WINE with that of to-day's, nor vice versa, BUT HE [THE VENDOR] MAY GIVE HIM [THE VENDEE] ITS OWN LEES. It has been taught likewise: R. Judah said: When a man pours out¹²  wine for his neighbour [selling it to him], he must not mix [the lees] of yesterday's wine with that of to-day's, nor vice versa, but may mix yesterday's with yesterday's and to-day's with to-day's.¹³

IF HIS WINE WAS DILUTED WITH WATER HE MUST NOT SELL IT IN HIS SHOP [IN SMALL QUANTITIES] UNLESS HE INFORMS HIM, etc. Raba once brought wine from a shop. After diluting it he tasted it, and on finding that it was not good he returned it to the shop.¹⁴  Thereupon Abaye protested: But we learnt, NOR TO A MERCHANT, EVEN IF HE INFORMS Him!¹⁵  — He replied: My mixing is well known.¹⁶  And should you object, He may add [wine thereto], thus strengthening it, and then sell it [as pure wine] — if so, the matter is endless!¹⁷

WHERE IT IS THE PRACTICE TO ADULTERATE WINE WITH WATER, IT IS PERMISSIBLE, etc. A Tanna taught: In proportions of a half, a third or a quarter.¹⁸  Said Rab: And this [sc. the Mishnah] was stated in the time of the presses.¹⁹

MISHNAH. R. JUDAH SAID: A SHOPKEEPER MUST NOT DISTRIBUTE PARCHED CORN OR NUTS TO CHILDREN, BECAUSE HE THEREBY ACCUSTOMS THEM TO COME TO HIM;²⁰  THE SAGES PERMIT IT. NOR MAY HE REDUCE THE PRICE; BUT THE SAGES SAY, HE IS TO BE REMEMBERED FOR GOOD. ONE MUST NOT SIFT POUNDED BEANS:²¹  THIS IS THE VIEW OF ABBA SAUL. BUT THE SAGES PERMIT IT. YET THEY ADMIT THAT HE MUST NOT PICK OUT [THE REFUSE] FROM THE TOP OF THE BIN,²²  BECAUSE ITS ONLY PURPOSE IS TO DECEIVE THE EYE. MEN, CATTLE, AND UTENSILS MAY NOT BE PAINTED.²³

GEMARA. What is the Rabbis' reason? — Because he [this shopkeeper] can say to him [another shopkeeper], 'I distribute nuts; you distribute plums.

NOR MAY HE REDUCE THE PRICE; BUT THE SAGES SAY, HE IS TO BE REMEMBERED FOR GOOD, etc. What is the Rabbis' reason? —

1. If one undertakes to supply the produce of a particular field, he may not intermix it with the produce of another, even of the same year. If he undertakes to supply last year's grain, he may certainly not intermix the current year's the former being more suitable for milling.
2. But not vice versa; having agreed to supply full-bodied wine, one must not mix it with light wine.
3. This is discussed in the Gemara.
4. Because there is no cheating then, the practice being known and taken into account.
5. For selling from the whole indiscriminately.
6. I.e., he must not represent that he bought all from the same source, which is known for providing superior merchandise.
7. The higher price of the new corn is not due to its superiority, but to the fact that there is no sale that year and merchants are buying ahead for the following, whereas if they store last year's grain, it may be too old when they need it. Hence when one stipulates that he wants old corn, it is evident that he requires it for immediate use, and therefore it may not be mixed with new, though this is dearer.
8. Since the reason given is that it improves it, leaving no room for doubt on the matter, and this is introduced by the phrase, 'in truth etc.,' it follows that this phrase indicates the absolute certainty of the law. [Adopting this principle, the Tanna of our Mishnah will permit the mixing of old produce with new, contrary to the view of the Tanna in Tosef. B.M. III, v. Rosenthal, F., Hoffmann's Festschrift, p. 34ff.]
9. The mixing is then advantageous. But after each has acquired its own taste and bouquet, mixing of different wines has a deleterious effect.
10. Lit., 'not among the presses.'
11. Since the customer tastes the wine before buying it, there is no fraud.
12. The Heb. [H] denotes 'to pour out slowly,' so as to leave the sediment behind.
13. The lees of a different day's wine have an injurious effect, but not those of the same day's. Rashi, however observes that this is not meant literally, but that wine when sold may contain its own sediment, but not that of a different wine. 'To-day's' and 'yesterday's' are merely employed a convenient expressions of different wines.
14. For sale there.
15. And this shopkeeper too will sell it as unadulterated wine.
16. It was generally known that Raba diluted the wine with very much water. So that a prospective customer, in tasting it beforehand, would know what proportion of wine it contained, and pay accordingly.
17. It would be forbidden to sell even water to a wine-merchant, lest he mix it with wine and sell the whole as pure. But that is obviously absurd. Therefore the Mishnah forbids only a sale of those commodities which lend themselves to immediate deceit.
18. I.e., whatever proportions are permitted by custom, but not more.
19. The wine may be diluted whilst it is yet in the press, but not after.
20. When sent by mothers to make a purchase; this is unfair competition.
21. To remove the refuse. Owing to the better appearance of the beans he advances the price by more than the value of the refuse removed, and therefore this Tanna forbids it as fraud.
22. Leaving the refuse underneath.
23. To give them a younger or newer appearance, and thus make them realise a higher price. 'Men' refers to slaves.

Because he eases the market.¹

ONE MUST NOT SIFT POUNDED BEANS: THIS IS THE VIEW OF ABBA SAUL. BUT THE SAGES PERMIT IT, etc. Who are the Sages? — R. Aha. For it has been taught: R. Aha permitted it in a commodity that may be seen.²

MEN, CATTLE, AND UTENSILS MAY NOT BE PAINTED. Our Rabbis taught: An animal may not be given an appearance of stiffness, entrails may not be inflated,³  nor may meat be soaked in water.⁴  What is meant by 'one may not give an appearance of stiffness'? — Here [in Babylon] it is explained as referring to branbroth.⁵  Ze'iri said in R. Kahana's name: Brushing up [an animal's hair].⁶  Samuel permitted fringes to be put on a cloak.⁷  Rab Judah permitted a gloss to be put on fine cloths.⁸  Rabbah permitted hemp-cloths to be beaten.⁹  Raba permitted arrows to be painted. R. Pappa b. Samuel allowed baskets to be painted. But did we not learn, MEN, CATTLE, AND UTENSILS MAY NOT BE PAINTED? — There is no difficulty; one refers to new, the other to old.¹⁰

What is the purpose of painting men? — As in the case of a certain aged slave who went and had his head and beard dyed,¹¹  and came before Raba, saying to him, 'Buy me.' 'Let the poor be the children of thy house,'¹²  he replied. So he went to R. Papa b. Samuel, who bought him. One day he said to him, 'Give me some water to drink.' Thereupon he went, washed his head and beard white again, and said to him, 'See, I am older than your father.'¹³  At that he applied to himself the verse, 'The righteous is delivered out of trouble, and another cometh in his stead.¹⁴

CHAPTER V

MISHNAH. WHAT IS NESHEK AND WHAT IS TARBITH?¹⁵  WHAT IS NESHEK? ONE WHO LENDS A SELA' [FOUR DENARII] FOR FIVE DENARII, OR TWO SE'AHS¹⁶  OF WHEAT FOR THREE; THAT IS FORBIDDEN,¹⁷  BECAUSE HE [THEREBY] 'BITES' [THE DEBTOR]. AND WHAT IS TARBITH? THE TAKING OF INTEREST ON PRODUCE, E. G., IF A MAN PURCHASED WHEAT AT A GOLD DENAR [TWENTY-FIVE SILVER DENARII] PER KOR,¹⁸  WHICH WAS THE CURRENT PRICE,¹⁹  AND [SUBSEQUENTLY] WHEAT APPRECIATED TO THIRTY DENARII PER KOR. THEN [THE PURCHASER] SAID TO HIM, 'GIVE ME MY WHEAT, AS I WISH TO SELL IT AND BUY WINE WITH THE PROCEEDS;' TO WHICH [THE VENDOR] REPLIED, 'LET THE WHEAT BE CHARGED TO ME AS A DEBT OF THIRTY DENARII [PER KOR]. AND YOU HAVE A CLAIM OF WINE UPON ME FOR ITS VALUE;'²⁰  BUT HE ACTUALLY HAS NO WINE [AT THE TIME].

GEMARA. Now, since he [the Tanna] disregards²¹  the Biblical [meaning of] interest²²  and defines its Rabbinical [connotation]²³  it follows that Biblically speaking neshek and tarbith are Synonymous: whereas [in fact] there are Scriptural expressions, neshek of money, and ribbith of food!²⁴  — Do you think then that there can be neshek [loss to the debtor] without tarbith [profits to the creditor], or tarbith without neshek? How might there be neshek without tarbith? If he lent him a hundred [perutahs] for one hundred and twenty [perutahs], at first [when the loan is made] a danka²⁵  being valued at a hundred [perutahs], and subsequently [when the loan was repaid] at a hundred and twenty,²⁶  there is neshek, for he 'bites' him [the debtor] by taking from him something which he [the creditor] did not give; yet there is no tarbith [to the creditor], for there is no profit, since he lent him a danka and received back a danka! But, after all, if the original rate is the determining factor,²⁷  there is both neshek and tarbith; if the subsequent rate, there is neither neshek nor tarbith? Furthermore, how is tarbith [profit to the creditor] conceivable without neshek [loss to the debtor]? If he lent him a hundred [perutahs] for a hundred, the hundred being worth a danka at first, and now a fifth:²⁸  if you regard the first rate, there is neither neshek nor tarbith; if the final rate, there is both neshek and tarbith! — But, said Raba, you can find neither neshek without tarbith nor tarbith without neshek, and the only purpose of Scripture in stating them separately²⁹  is [to teach] that one transgresses two prohibitions [by taking interest].³⁰

Our Rabbis taught: [Thou shalt not give him thy money upon neshek [usury], nor lend him thy victuals for marbith [interest];³¹  [from this] I only know that the prohibition of neshek applies to money, and that of ribbith to provisions:³²  whence do we know that [the prohibition] neshek applies to provisions [too]? From the verse, [Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother neshek of money], neshek of victuals.³³  Whence do we know that the prohibition of ribbith applies to money? From the verse, neshek of money:

1. Competition is healthy, and prevents a 'hold up.'
2. The purchaser sees what he buys, and therefore there is no fraud.
3. In a shop, where they are displayed for sale, to make them look larger.
4. To make it look fat.
5. Which bloats the animal fed on it.
6. For the same purpose.
7. To make it look more valuable.
8. By rubbing it with a certain substance.
9. To make it appear thinner and of finer texture.
10. Old utensils may not be painted, as the purpose is to deceive and make them look new. But new ones may be painted to improve their appearance.
11. Black, making him look a young man.
12. This is a Mishnah in Aboth I, 5. Raba, by emphasizing the 'thy', gave it the meaning — 'I had rather give my hospitality to the poor of my own people.'
13. And it is not meet that you should impose menial tasks upon me. — It is noteworthy that the slave knew that he could rely upon the decency of the Jew to respect his age, though a slave, and one, moreover, who had practised deceit. This is in marked contrast to the treatment meted out to slaves amongst other people, both in ancient and in comparatively recent times.
14. Prov. XI, 8; the verse actually reads, 'and the wicked etc.' 'Another' was probably substituted by R. Papa intentionally: 'Raba — the righteous — was delivered from trouble, but I had the misfortune to buy you.
15. Neshek, from [H] 'to bite', denotes usury, 'bitten out', as it were, from the debtor, something received for nothing given. Tarbith, marbith, and ribbith from [H], 'to increase', denotes increase, profits. The question of the Mishnah is posited on Lev. XXV, 36: Take thou no neshek from him, nor tarbith.
16. Se'ah = six kabs, or 13,184.44 cu. cm. J.E. XII, 488.
17. [Rightly omitted in most texts.]
18. Kor is a measure of capacity, equal to thirty se'ahs. B.B. 86b, 105a.
19. One may purchase 'futures' in wheat at the current price, paying for it at the time of purchase and receiving it later, even if the price advances, without infringing the prohibition of usury.
20. Pricing the wine too at current rates.
21. In his explanation of marbith.
22. Which is usury on a loan transaction.
23. [The illustration of marbith by way of purchase in the Mishnah being a Rabbinical extension of the law.]
24. Thou shalt not give him any money upon neshek, nor lend him thy victuals for marbith. Lev. XXV, 37.
25. Pers. dankh; [G], a small Persian coin, the sixth of a denar, in general, one-sixth.
26. So Rashi. Tosaf., however, points out that the current value of a sixth of a denar was 32 perutahs, and it is inconceivable that the perutah should depreciate to such an extent. Tosaf, therefore renders: a hundred ma'ahs (ma'ah = a sixth of the denar = a danka) for a sixth of a maneh (maneh = 100 common shekels or zuz); or 100 issars (issar = 8 perutahs) for a sixth of a gold denar.
27. Lit., 'if you go according to the beginning'.
28. Of a denar, or, as stated above in n. 3.
29. V. Lev. XXV, 37, quoted in n. 1.
30. Each involving the penalty of lashes.
31. Lev. XXV, 37.
32. I.e., that in lending money on interest, the prohibition of neshek, and in lending provisions on interest, the prohibitions of ribbith, are violated.
33. Deut. XXIII, 20.