MUST ONE RETURN FIXED RIBIS?
(Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): R. Elazar learns from "v'Chei Achicha Imach" - return it, in order that the borrower will live.
Question: What does R. Yochanan learn from this verse?
Answer (Beraisa - Ben Petura): If two were in a wilderness, and one had a flask of water sufficient to enable one of them to return to civilization, but if they share it, both will die, it is best that they share the water, and neither will see the other die;
R. Akiva: "V'Chei Achicha Imach" (your brother will live with you) - your own life takes precedence over another's life.
Question (against R. Yochanan - Beraisa): If a man died, and left to his orphans money of Ribis that he collected, even if they know this, they need not return it.
Inference: They need not return it, but their father would have to return it!
Answer: Really, even their father is exempt. The Beraisa discusses the children for parallel structure to the Seifa.
(Seifa): If their father left them a cow, garment or any specific item, they must return it for the honor of their father.
Question: Children need not honor such a father!
"Do not curse a Nasi of your nation" refers to one who acts like your nation. (We are not concerned for honor of the wicked)!
Answer: We answer like Rav Pinchas answered (elsewhere). The case is, the father repented.
Question: If he repented, he should have returned it!
Answer: He died before he was able to.
Question (Beraisa): Thieves or people who lent on Ribis: even if they collected, they return it.
Question: The expression 'collected' does not apply to thieves!
If they stole, they stole! If they did not steal, why are they called thieves?
Answer: 'Thieves' refers to people who lent on Ribis. Even if they collected, they return.
Answer: Tana'im argue about whether or not it must be returned.
(Beraisa - R. Nechemyah and R. Eliezer ben Yakov): The lender and cosigner are not lashed because they can correct their sin through a Mitzvas Aseh.
Suggestion: The Aseh is returning the Ribis. Chachamim argue, and say there is no such Aseh.
Rejection: No, the Aseh is to tear the loan document.
Question: Does [the one who gave this answer] consider a document as if it was already collected (because it puts a lien on the borrower's land)?
If he does, the lender and cosigner already transgressed when they wrote the document, and they must tear the document;
Similarly, if the Ribis was paid, they must return the money!
If he does not consider a document as if it was already collected, they did not transgress anything. (Why do Chachamim argue?)
Answer: He does not consider a document as if it was already collected; Chachamim obligate for Shuma (setting Ribis upon the borrower).
Support (Mishnah): The following transgress a Lav: the lender, the borrower, the cosigner and the witnesses.
Question: Granted, the first three did an action. What did the witnesses transgress?
Answer: We conclude that they are liable for Shuma.
(Rav Safra): Any case in which the courts of Nochrim force the borrower to pay the lender, we make the lender return to the borrower. When they do not force the borrower to pay, we do not make the lender return it.
Question (Abaye): They force a borrower to repay a loan of a Se'ah of Peros on condition to return a Se'ah, and we don't force the lender to return it!
Answer (Rav Yosef): They consider that to be return of a deposit. Rav Safra refers to what they collect as Ribis.
Question (Ravina): If one who takes land for collateral and eats the Peros without deducting from the loan, they force the borrower to pay (if he took some of the Peros), and we do not make the lender return it!
Answer (Rav Ashi): They consider that to be a sale (the lender bought the land, and the borrower may redeem it).
Question: What Chidush did Rav Safra come to teach?
Answer: Any case in which Nochrim force the borrower to pay, i.e. fixed Ribis, we make the lender return it, i.e. R. Elazar's law;
What they do not force the borrower to pay, i.e. pre-loan Ribis (a gift in order that you will lend to me) and post-loan Ribis (a gift after returning the money, due to the money you lent to me), we do not make the lender return it.
THE CASE OF THE MISHNAH
(Mishnah): If Reuven bought a Kor of wheat from Shimon for 25 Dinarim, which was the going rate...(if Shimon has no wine, it is forbidden).
Question: Even if Shimon has no wine, it should be permitted!
(Beraisa): We may not contract to supply Peros for a set price until there is a set price in the market. When there is a set price, we may contract. Even if this seller does not have, others have (this seller could buy and supply the Peros now).
Answer #1 (Rabah): In our Mishnah, Reuven never gave money. He bought on credit .(Therefore, we cannot say that Shimon could have supplied the wine with Reuven's money.)
Support (Beraisa): If Yehudah told Levi 'give to me the Maneh that you owe to me, so I can buy wheat', and Levi answered 'I accept to supply to you a Maneh's worth of wheat (at today's price) over the course of the year', this is forbidden. (Even though Levi has wheat,) it is unlike giving money. (Then, Levi could have supplied the wheat with Yehudah's money.)
Rejection (Abaye): If Reuven never gave money, the Mishnah should forbid this even if Shimon has wine!
Answer #2 (Abaye): Our Mishnah is like Rav Safra taught.
(Rav Safra): Some things are permitted (letter of the law), but forbidden because they look like Ribis. For example, Yehudah asked to borrow 100 (Dinarim). Levi said, 'I don't have money. Take that value of my wheat.' Levi bought it back for 96. (Letter of the law) this is permitted, but it is forbidden because it looks like Ribis.
Also in our Mishnah, Reuven asked to borrow 30 Sela'im. Shimon said 'I don't have money. Take that value of my wheat.' Shimon bought it back for 25;
If Shimon has wine (to take in place of wheat), this is like a sale, and it is permitted. If he has no wine, one may not take their value in money, for this looks like Ribis.
Question (Rava): If so, the Mishnah should not say 'give me my wheat', rather, 'give me the money for my wheat'!
Answer: Indeed, that is the correct text.
Question (Rava): If so, the Mishnah should not say 'that I want to sell', rather, 'that I sold to you'!
Answer: Indeed, that is the correct text.
Question (Rava): If so, why does the Mishnah say 'I consider your wheat like 30? That is what he gave him!
Answer: He means 'like payment for the wheat which you took from me in place of 30 Dinarim'.
Objection (Rava): How can the Mishnah say 'you now have that value of wine by me', and Shimon has no wine'? It said that he bought a Kor of wheat for 25, and that was the price!