1)

(a)From which Gezeirah-Shavah does the Tana finally learn that the Lav of Ribis pertains to money with regard to the creditor (the only remaining case not to emerge directly from the Pesukim)?

(b)And what do we learn from "Neshech Kol Davar Asher Yishach"?

1)

(a)The Tana finally learns that the Lav of Ribis pertains to money with regard to the creditor too (the only remaining case not to emerge directly from the Pesukim) from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Neshech" "Neshech" from the debtor.

(b)From "Neshech Kol Davar Asher Yishach" we extend the Lav of Ribis to everything (besides just money and food).

2)

(a)Ravina disagrees with the previous Derashah. According to him, all computations are written explicitly in the Pasuk by the creditor too. How does he Darshen the Pasuk in Behar "es Kas'cha Lo Siten lo be'Neshech u've'Marbis Lo Siten Ochlecha"?

(b)What pushes him to learn like that?

(c)But how can Ravina argue with a Beraisa? According to him, why does the Tana cite the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Neshech" "Neshech"?

(d)According to him, what do then learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'?

2)

(a)Ravina disagrees with the previous Derashah. According to him, all computations are written explicitly in the Pasuk by the creditor too. He Darshens the Pasuk in Behar "es Kasp'cha Lo Siten lo be'Neshech u've'Marbis Lo Siten Ochlecha" as if the Torah had written "es Kasp'cha Lo Siten lo be'Neshech u've'Marbis, be'Neshech u've'Marbis Lo Siten Ochlecha".

(b)And he learns like that because otherwise, the Torah ought to have written "es Kasp'cha Lo Siten lo be'Neshech, ve'Ochl'cha Lo Siten be'Marbis".

(c)Ravina does not argue with the Beraisa at all. According to him what the Tana is saying is that if the Torah had not worded the Pasuk the way it did, we could have learned it from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' anyway.

(d)According to him, we learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that "Neshech Kol Davar Asher Yishach" applies to the creditor as well.

3)

(a)Rava discusses the three Lavin that concern depriving someone of his money (besides various other Lavin connected with Gezel). What are the other two besides Gezel?

(b)Why does the Torah find it necessary to write all three of them? Why could we not learn the other two ...

1. ... from Ribis?

2. ... from Gezel?

3. ... from Ona'ah?

(c)Then why could the Torah not at least have dispensed with one of them? Why could we not learn ...

1. ... Ribis from Gezel and Ona'ah?

2. ... Ona'ah from Ribis and Gezel?

3)

(a)Rava discusses the three La'avin that concern depriving someone of his money (besides various other La'avin connected with Gezel) Ribis, Gezel and Ona'ah.

(b)The Torah finds it necessary to write all three of them. We could not learn the other two ...

1. ... from Ribis because Ribis is unique, inasmuch as the debtor transgresses, too (an indication that this Lav has nothing to do with depriving someone of his money).

2. ... from Gezel because, as opposed to it, they are handing over the money of their own free will.

3. ... from Ona'ah because, unlike Ona'ah, who is not aware that he is being cheated, the other two are Mochel, and we would have thought that their Mechilah removes the Lav.

(c)Neither could the Torah have even dispensed with one of them. We could not have learned ...

1. ... Ribis from Gezel and Ona'ah because they are both performed without the owner's consent, whereas the debtor pays Ribis willingly.

2. ... Ona'ah from Ribis and Gezel because unlike them, it is part of a business transaction, which we would otherwise have thought the Torah permits.

4)

(a)We conclude that we could in fact, learn Gezel from Ribis and Ona'ah. Then why did the Torah find it necessary to write "Lo Sa'ashok es Re'acha ve'Lo Sigzol"?

(b)How do we know that the Pasuk comes to teach us that? Perhaps "Lo Sigzol" comes to add a Lav to Ribis or Ona'ah?

(c)And why does the Torah need to write the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Lo Tignovu"? Why can we not learn the Lav of Geneivah too, from Ribis and Ona'ah?

4)

(a)We conclude that we could in fact, learn Gezel from Ribis and Ona'ah. Nevertheless, the Torah found it necessary to write "Lo Sa'ashok es Re'acha ve'Lo Sigzol" to add a second Lav to "Lo Sa'ashok" (withholding a worker's wages).

(b)The Pasuk comes to add a Lav to someone who withholds a worker's wages rather than to add one to Ribis or Ona'ah, because that is where it is written.

(c)And the Torah sees fit to write "Lo Tignovu" (not to teach us the Lav of Geneivah per se, which we can learn from Ribis and Ona'ah, but) to teach us that the prohibition applies even if one steals only in order to pull the owner's leg, or in order to pay double (in the form of a gift, which he knows the owner will not otherwise accept from him).

61b----------------------------------------61b

5)

(a)Why do we not ask the same Kashya that we just asked on "Lo Tignov" in the Aseres ha'Dibros (i.e. why we cannot learn it from Ribis and Ona'ah)?

(b)We do however, go on to ask why the Torah needs to write a Lav by weights and measures. What do we initially try to answer?

(c)How do we then establish the Lav after pointing out that dipping one's weights in salt is pure Geneivah?

(d)The Torah writes in Kedoshim "Lo Sa'asu Avel ba'Midah, ba'Mishkal u'va'Mesurah". We just ascertained the significance of "ba'Mishkal". How does the Tana interpret ...

1. ... "ba'Midah"?

2. ... "ba'Mesurah"?

5)

(a)We do not ask the same Kashya that we just asked on "Lo Tignovu" in the Aseres ha'Dibros (why we cannot learn it from Ribis and Ona'ah) because that is a prohibition on kidnapping and has nothing to do with stealing money.

(b)We do however, go on to ask why the Torah needs to write a Lav by weights and measures. Initially, we try to answer that the Pasuk is coming to teach us that one even contravenes the Lav if one dips one's weights in salt to make them heavier (because some of the salt sticks to the surface).

(c)After pointing out that this is pure Geneivah, we establish the Lav as a second Lav for Geneivah.

(d)The Torah writes in Kedoshim "Lo Sa'asu Avel ba'Midah, ba'Mishkal u'va'Mesurah". We just ascertained the significance of "ba'Mishkal". The Tana interprets ...

1. ... "ba'Midah" as the rope with which they used to measure land-measurements (i.e. that one may not measure one partner's section in the summer (when the rope contracts) and that of the other, in the winter (when it expands).

2. ... "ba'Mesurah" as the froth that gathers when pouring liquid into a container.

6)

(a)What fraction of a Lug is 'Mesurah'?

(b)What 'Kal va'Chomer' do we therefore derive from it?

6)

(a)'Mesurah' is a thirtieth of a Lug (a fifth of an egg-volume).

(b)If one contravenes a Lav for stealing such a small measure, then how much more so for stealing a Hin ... a Lug ... or even a quarter of a Lug.

7)

(a)Rava comments that the Torah mentions Yetzi'as Mitzrayim in three places, two of them, Ribis and Tzitzis. What is the third?

(b)Yetzi'as Mitzrayim has the same connotation with regard to all three Lavin. What is it?

(c)What is now the connection to ...

1. ... Ribis?

2. ... Tzitzis?

3. ... Mishkolos?

7)

(a)Rava comments that the Torah mentions Yetzi'as Mitzrayim in three places; by Ribis by Tzitzis and by Mishkolos (weights and measures).

(b)Yetzi'as Mitzrayim has the same connotation with regard to all three La'avin, namely as a warning that, Hash-m was able to distinguish in Egypt between who was a Bechor and who was not. If for example, ten Egyptian men had relations (over the course of a number of years) with the same Egyptian woman, who bore each of the men a firstborn son, then at Makas Bechoros, each firstborn son died, because Hash-m knew that they were all firstborns to their fathers.

(c)The connection to ...

1. ... Ribis is that, so too, will Hash-m know when the money that Reuven lends Shimon, claiming that it belongs to a Nochri (whose money is not subject to Ribis), really belongs to him.

2. ... Tzitzis is that, so too, will He know when the Kala Ilan (a cheap fake-Techeles dye that someone used to dye one's Tzitzis, instead of the expensive blood of the Chilazon fish that appears out of the sea only once every seventy years) on one's garment is not really Techeles ... .

3. ... Mishkolos is that He will also know when a weight has been tampered with by dipping it in salt. And in all three cases, He will punish the perpetrators accordingly.

8)

(a)Rav Chanina from Sura di'Peras asked Ravina why the Torah mentions Yetzi'as Mitzrayim in connection with Sheratzim. What did he answer?

(b)Rav Chanina however, explained that this was not what bothered him. What did?

(c)Ravina resolved his problem by citing Tana de'Bei de'Rebbi Yishmael. What does Tana de'Bei de'Rebbi Yishmael say?

(d)Does this mean that someone who desists from eating Sheratzim receives a greater reward than someone who desists from contravening the three previous Lavin?

8)

(a)Rav Chanina from Sura di'Peras asked Ravina why the Torah mentions Yetzi'as Mitzrayim in connection with Sheratzim, to which he replied that it was a warning (following the same pattern as the previous cases) that Hash-m is aware when someone mixes the innards of non-Kosher fish with those of Kosher fish, and sells the mixture with a Kosher label.

(b)Rav Chanina however, explained that this was not what bothered him. What bothered him was the Lashon "ha'Ma'alah Eschem" which the Torah uses in connection with Sheratzim.

(c)Ravina resolved his problem by citing Tana de'Bei de'Rebbi Yishmael, who says that Hash-m considered it worthwhile to take us out of Egypt just so that we should desist from contaminating ourselves by eating Sheratzim. And "ha'Ma'aleh" is a Lashon of superiority, in the sense that people who degrade themselves by eating them are inferior.

(d)And this is in spite of the fact that someone who desists from eating Sheratzim does not receive a greater reward than someone who desists from contravening the three previous La'avin.

9)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah "ve'Eizehu Tarbis, ha'Marbeh be'Peiros ... '. How does Rebbi Avahu explain the fact that the previous cases are included in the Lav of Ribis too?

(b)What did Rebbi Avahu mean, when he added 'Ad Ka'an Yachin Rasha ve'Yilbash Tzadik'?

(c)Does this come to preclude the Seifa (Ribis d'Rabanan)?

(d)How does Rebbi Avahu go on to describe ...

1. ... Ribis d'Oraisa?

2. ... Ribis d'Rabanan?

9)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah "ve'Eizehu Tarbis, ha'Marbeh be'Peiros Keitzad ... '. Rebbi Avahu explains that this is (not because the previous cases are not included in Ribis, but) because the Tana is now beginning to explain Ribis d'Rabanan (whereas the Reisha speaks about Ribis d'Oraisa, as we explained earlier).

(b)When Rebbi Avahu added 'Ad Ka'an Yachin Rasha ve'Yilbash Tzadik', he meant that in the Reisha (by Ribis d'Oraisa), should the creditor die, his children are permitted to benefit from the Ribis that their father left them.

(c)This does not come to preclude the Seifa (Ribis d'Rabanan) where the same leniency obviously applies. What the Tana means is 'Afilu ad Ka'an ... (even in the Reisha) and certainly in the Seifa'.

(d)Rebbi Avahu goes on to describe ...

1. ... Ribis d'Oraisa as Ribis Ketzutzah (fixed interest).

2. ... Ribis d'Rabanan as Avak Ribis (a minor infraction).

10)

(a)What Halachic distinction does Rebbi Elazar draw between Ribis Ketzutzah and Ribis d'Rabanan?

(b)What does Rebbi Yochanan say?

(c)Various Amora'im extrapolate Rebbi Yochanan's ruling from different Pesukim. How does ...

1. ... Rebbi Yitzchak learn it from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "be'Neshech Nasan ... ve'Chai Lo Yichyeh ... "?

2. ... Rav Ada bar Ahavah from the Pasuk in Behar "Al Tikach me'Ito Neshech ve'Sarbis, ve'Yareisa me'Elokecha ... "?

3. ... Rava learn it directly from the above Pasuk in Yechezkel, which continues "Mos Yumas, Damav bo Yih'yeh"? To whom is the Pasuk comparing someone who lends on interest?

(d)How does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak extrapolate Rebbi Elazar's opinion from the end of the Pasuk of Ribis in Behar "ve'Chei Achicha Imach"?

10)

(a)Rebbi Elazar rules that 'Ribis Ketzutzah Yotz'ah be'Dayanin' (Beis-Din will obligate the creditor to return the Ribis to the debtor); whereas Avak Ribis 'Einah Yotz'ah be'Dayanim.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan rules that even 'Ribis Ketzutzah Einah Yotz'ah be'Dayanim'.

(c)Various Amora'im extrapolate Rebbi Yochanan's ruling from different Pesukim.

1. Rebbi Yitzchak learns it from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "be'Neshech Nasan ... ve'Chai Lo Yichyeh ... " 'le'Misah Nitan, ve'Lo le'Heshavon' (the Navi indicates that he has to die, but not to pay).

2. ... Rav Ada bar Ahavah from the Pasuk in Behar "Al Tikach me'Ito Neshech ve'Sarbis, ve'Yareisa me'Elokecha ... " le'Mora Naiten, ve'Lo le'Heshavon' (Ribis leads to a fear of G-d, but need not be returned).

3. ... Rava learns it directly from the above Pasuk in Yechezkel, which continues "Mos Yumas, Damav bo Yih'yeh". The Pasuk is comparing the creditor to a murderer (because sometimes the interest impoverishes the debtor, causing his death) and a murderer is Patur from paying for any simultaneous damage that the stroke which killed causes.

(d)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak extrapolates Rebbi Elazar's opinion from the end of the Pasuk of Ribis in Behar "ve'Chei Achicha Imach" and returning the Ribis will help the debtor to live.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF