A person should not give produce to a shopkeeper that he can sell it in the market and divide with him the profits. (The Gemara will explain the reasoning behind this prohibition.)

Nor should he give the shopkeeper money to buy produce and sell it in order to divide the profits, unless he pays the shopkeeper (at least) a minimum wage.

One may not give chickens and eggs so that his friend will make the chickens sit on the eggs until they hatch (in order to divide the profit). He may also not give young calves and foals to his friend to raise in order to divide up the profits, unless he only pays the person the price of his efforts and the food he gives them himself.

But one may receive calves and foals (without an evaluation, so that if they die, he is not responsible and if they live), they will divide the profits. (This is permitted, as since the recipient did not accept responsibility for them, it does not take the form of a loan). And one may raise them until they reach a third (of their full size) and for a donkey, until it can begin to carry loads.

(Gemara): (The Gemara comes to explain the first ruling of the Mishnah) A person once lent money to his friend. The lender told him, "Take two dinars as payment (for investing my money) and we will split any profits that you earn. (This is permitted since he clearly defined that part of the money was his payment for services rendered. However, without clearly defining this, it would be considered ribis, since the recipient will later return a higher amount than he was given.)

Beraisa: If one gave money to his friend to buy produce and divide the profits and the friend later denied receiving it, (since the giver has no proof) all he has is complaints.

However, if it was known (through witnesses) that he had given it, he can forcefully have his produce returned.

If one gave money to his friend to buy produce and divide the profits, if one of them wishes to delay the use of the produce because he thinks that they are worth more by doing so, the other one can force him to sell them now. If it was on the eve of the Shemita year (when produce was not common and one may also not do business with Shemita produce), the first one can force his friend to delay using the money until after the Shemita year, as this is the assumption of the partnership.

If one gave money to his friend to buy produce and divide the profits, if his friend said, "Take (the large sum of) a mana (100 zuz now) as I do not wish to keep giving you small sums from the profit'' - it is prohibited. (Perhaps the profit of a mana might never come and it therefore looks like the friend is paying him ribis.)

If the friend saw that the price of that produce (that he had already bought with the money) was rising (meaning that there will certainly be significant profit), it is permitted.

If one gave money to his friend to buy produce and divide the profits, the friend is permitted to purchase more produce for himself (and the giver cannot complain that the friend is only focusing his efforts on his own produce rather than their shared produce).

When he sells, he should not sell them both together (his produce and the shared produce); rather, he should first sell the shared produce and then later sell his own.

If one gave money to his friend to buy produce and divide the profits, he may buy any type of produce that he wishes, but he should not buy clothing or wood.

R. Yitzchak: This shows that if one prevents his friend from making profit, all his friend can do is complain.

If one prevents his friend from planting his field, he must compensate him.

If one prevents his friend's boat from sailing or his shop from opening, what is the law? (Perhaps they are different to a field because their profit is not guaranteed. This question remains unresolved.)

If a person wishes to move produce from a cheap location to an expensive location (to sell) and his friend told him, "Give it to me (here) and I will give you produce in the place that you were planning to bring it'' - as long as the giver takes responsibility for the journey, it is permitted. (Since from the time of the deal, the produce was considered to be a loan; therefore, in the destination, any amount that he ultimately gives over the value of the produce in the cheap location is considered ribis.)

If one takes a package from place to place (thinking that it is worth more in the second place) and his friend tells him, "Give it to me and I will pay you according to its value in the second place'' - if the giver is responsible during the transportation, it is permitted; if the buyer is responsible, it is prohibited.

However, donkey drivers who (are paid to buy and transport produce from a cheap location to an expensive location and) their payment is given by the merchants in the second location, they may give them produce in the expensive place according to the cheaper price.

R. Yehudah ben Pazi: (This that we permit the donkey drivers to do this) applies to a place that they can visit and return from on the same day. (However, for a longer journey, they would not be permitted.)

Rav Huna: (Whatever the distance, the donkey drivers) become the messengers of the merchants (of the expensive place and the responsibility falls on those merchants).

Question (Rav Huna): Based on this, if a messenger had an accident on the way, he is responsible - so too, if an accident happened to the donkey driver, he is responsible (since a donkey driver is like a paid watchman).

Rebuttal: No, sometimes the merchant stipulates with the donkey driver that he should be like a borrower (who is even liable for accidents).

Question (Beraisa - R. Hoshiyah): Just as the messenger is liable for all of it (if it was stolen), he is liable for part of it...? (We see in the Beraisa that it is the messenger who is liable. This is unlike Rav Huna who said that the one who ordered the produce is liable!)

Rebuttal: What is the problem? There (in (n) above), he pays according to the higher value; here, (in the case of the donkey drivers), he pays according to the lower value.