Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

The following rules apply when a person lends money to a colleague, and the borrower gives the lender his field as security for a set time or until the borrower repays the lender, at which time, the lender will leave the field.

Although the lender benefits from all of the produce of the field, even if he consumes the entire value of the debt, he should not be removed from the field without any payment. The rationale is that if he were removed without payment, it would be as if one had expropriated money taken as "the shade of interest" through legal process. Needless to say, if the produce that the lender consumes is worth more than the money he gave, the difference should not be expropriated by him. Similarly, we do not calculate from one promissory note to another promissory note when property is given as security.

When the property given as security belongs to orphans, and the lender consumes an amount of produce equivalent to his debt, he is removed from the property without any payment. If, however, the lender's benefit exceeded the amount of the debt, we do not expropriate the additional amount from him. In the case of orphans, we may calculate from one promissory note to another promissory note.

What is meant by "calculating from one promissory note to another promissory note"? One field was given to a lender as security for a debt of 100 dinarim and another field was given to him as security for another debt for another 100 dinarim. If both fields belonged to the same person and the lender consumed produce worth 50 from one field and produce worth 150 from the other field, we tell him: "You already consumed 200 dinarim worth of produce; you are not owed anything more." For it is as if the two debts were one debt and security given for the entire sum as one.

In a place where it is customary to remove the lender from property given as security whenever the borrower pays the debt, it is as if this stipulation were explicitly stated. It is not necessary to make an explicit statement. Conversely, in a place where it is customary not to remove the lender from property until the conclusion of the term for which the property was given as security, it is as if this stipulation was explicitly stated.

Whenever a person gives property as security without specifying a term for the loan, he cannot remove the lender from the property until at least twelve months pass.

Even in a place where it is customary to remove the lender from property given as security whenever the borrower desires to pay the debt, that custom can be superseded by an explicit condition. If a lender makes a stipulation that the borrower will not remove him from the property until after the full term for which the property was given as security, the borrower cannot pay the debt earlier and have him removed from the property.

In a place where it is customary not to remove the lender from property until after the full term for which the property was given as security, although the lender accepts a stipulation that he will leave the property whenever the borrower brings him his money, the stipulation is binding only when the lender affirms his commitment with a kinyan.

In a place where it is customary to remove the lender from property given as security whenever the borrower pays the debt, a creditor of the lender is not entitled to expropriate this property to collect his debt, as he can expropriate other properties belonging to his debtor. Similarly, a firstborn does not receive a double portion of it, and the Sabbatical year nullifies the debt. When the borrower pays the debt and causes the lender to leave the field, the lender may not take even produce that is ripe and that has fallen to the ground. If, however, he lifted the produce up before he was forced to leave the property, he acquires the produce.

In a place where it is customary that the borrower cannot remove the lender from property given as security until the end of the term of the loan, a creditor of the lender may expropriate this property, a firstborn receives a double portion of it, and the Sabbatical year cannot nullify the debt.

Although giving a field as security is forbidden and involves "the shade of interest," as explained, it is possible that this custom was established in error, in relation to a gentile, or practiced by a person who sinned and took property as security in that city. Since "the shade of interest is involved," we follow the local custom. There is someone who ruled that this is what is meant by making a deduction when taking security.

When a gentile gives his courtyard as security to a Jew in return for a loan, and afterwards, the gentile sells it to another Jew, the person in possession of the security does not have to pay the Jewish owner rent from the time he purchased the courtyard. Instead, he may dwell in the courtyard without paying rent until the gentile repays the loan taken out against the courtyard. The rationale is that according to secular law, the property belongs to the person to whom it was given as security until the debt is repaid. Only then, he leaves the property.

The following rules apply when a person designates a house or a field as security for a loan in his colleague's possession and the owner of the land derives the benefits from it. If the lender tells the borrower: "When you desire to sell this property, do not sell it to anyone but to me at this price," it is forbidden. If he told him: "Do not sell it to anyone else but to me at its fair value. It is on this condition that I am making the loan," it is permitted.

It is permitted to increase the rent offered for land in return for delayed payment. What is implied? A person rents a colleague a courtyard and tells him: "If you pay me now, it is yours at ten selaim a year. If you pay me month by month, the rent is a sela per month." This arrangement is permissible.

When a person rents a field to a colleague at ten korim a year, it is permissible for the tenant to tell the owner: "Give me a loan of 200 zuz to improve the field and I will pay you twelve korim a year." This is not considered interest, because if he uses this money to improve the field, it will be worth more to rent.

Similarly, if a person rents a colleague a store or a ship for ten dinarim, it is permissible for the renter to tell the owner: "Give me a loan of 200 zuz to use to remodel the store, decorate it and plaster it, or to improve the ship and its facilities, and I will pay you twelve dinarim per year." If, however, he tells him: "Give me a loan of 200 zuz so that I can do business with them in the store, purchase merchandise for the ship with them, or hire sailors, and I will increase the fee," that is forbidden.

It is forbidden to increase the compensation paid a person in return for delayed payment. What is implied? A person should not tell a colleague: "Perform work for me today that is worth one silver piece and I will perform work for you in a later week that is worth two silver pieces.

It is permissible for a person to tell a colleague: "Weed with me today in my field, and I will weed with you tomorrow in your field," or "Hoe with me today, and I will hoe with you tomorrow." He should not, however, tell him: "Weed for me and I will hoe for you later," or "Hoe for me and I will weed for you later." One law applies for the entire summer, and one law for the entire rainy season. A person should not, by contrast, say: "Plow for me in the summer and I will plow for you in the rainy season," for there is greater difficulty in plowing during the rainy season. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

It is forbidden to hire a worker in the early winter to perform tasks in the later winter at a dinar a day and give him the money in advance, when a worker's wage in the winter is ordinarily a sela. The rationale is that it appears that he is giving him a loan immediately so that he will later reduce his wages.

It is, however, permissible for an employer to tell a worker: "Work for me from today until this and this time at a dinar a day," even though his wages would ordinarily be a sela a day. The rationale is that since he already began working, the worker is not considered to be receiving benefit for money that was paid to him in advance.

It is forbidden to increase the price offered for merchandise in return for delayed payment. What is implied? A person sold landed property or movable property to his colleague and told him: "If you pay me now, the price is 100 zuzim. If you delay payment until this and this time, the price is 120." This is considered "the shade of interest," for it is as if he takes 20 zuz in return for giving him 100 to use until the time specified.

If the seller calls the purchaser to court, he is liable to pay only the 100 that it was worth at the time of the sale. Alternatively, if the article he purchased is intact, he may return it. Similarly, it is forbidden to sell movable property for 100 zuz with the stipulation that payment need not be made until a certain time, when it is worth 90 zuz in the marketplace, if payment is to be given immediately.

When, however, a person purchased an article for its fair market value on the condition that he may delay payment for twelve months, the seller may tell him: "Pay me a lesser amount now." There is no question of interest involved.

It is permissible to sell a colleague a jug of wine that is worth a dinar for two dinarim on the condition that he does not pay until the summer, provided that he accepts the stipulation that if an accident occurs to it, the jug is the seller's responsibility until the purchaser sells it - i.e., if it is lost or broken, the purchaser does not have to pay anything. Moreover, if he cannot find anyone to purchase it at a profit, he may return it to the owner.

Similarly, it is permissible for a person to sell a colleague wine for two dinarim and tell him: "Anything more than two dinarim can be your profit, since you are involving yourself in its sale. And if you do not succeed in selling it at the price you desire, you can return it to me." In this situation, even if it is lost, stolen or becomes vinegar, it is the purchaser's responsibility.

The following rules apply when a person possesses produce that has a selling price of ten dinarim in the marketplace, but if the purchaser sought to purchase it, he would have to purchase it for twelve. It is permissible to sell the produce for twelve dinarim to be paid after a twelve-month period. The rationale is that even if the purchaser brought his money immediately, he would pay twelve dinarim for it. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

It is forbidden to purchase fruit from an orchard before its growth is completed and it becomes ripe. The rationale is that the seller will sell it for less - e.g., he will sell produce for ten now, even though it will be worth twenty when its growth is completed. Thus, the increase is being given for the delayed delivery.

It is permissible, however, if he purchases a calf for a low price on the condition that it remain in the previous owner's possession until it grows older. For if the calf dies or becomes weakened, it is in the owner's possession. And it is common and frequent that an animal will become weak or die.

The following rules apply when a person gives money to the owner of a vineyard for the twigs and branches that will eventually be cut off. When they are cut off, they will be expensive. At present, however, he purchases them at a low price because he must wait until they dry out and are cut off. He must till the land under the vines while they are still attached to the ground. Thus, he is buying a tree for its offshoots. If he does not till the land, the money he pays is like a loan. Since the branches are being purchased for a lower price because of the delayed delivery, it is forbidden.

The following rules apply when watchmen in a field are given wheat from the grain heap as their wages at a price lower than its market value. When they go to the grain heap to collect their wages, they must perform work at the grain-heap, so that they will be receiving the wheat at the conclusion of the time for which they were hired. If they do not do so, their wages will be considered as a loan extended to the employers, and the fact that they were given the wheat at a low price will be considered to be interest paid to them in return for the delay in paying their wages until the harvest reached the grain heap.

Generally, the owners of fields would require sharecroppers to leave a field in Nissan. The sharecroppers would give the owners four se'ah for every portion of the field large enough to sow a kor as rent. It is permissible for an owner to allow his sharecroppers to remain in his field until lyyar, but to take from them six se'ah. This does not involve interest.

It is permissible for the seller to give a purchaser more than the measure originally stipulated when the purchaser does not collect payment until afterwards. For example, a person purchased four se'ah of wheat at a sela; this was the market price. He paid the money at that time, but did not come to collect the wheat until later. When he came, the seller increased the measure and gave him more. This is permitted, because he willingly gave him more. Had he not desired, he would not have given him more, because there was no stipulation to that effect.

When a person purchases a barrel of wine, it is permissible for him to pay the money to the seller and stipulate: "If it becomes vinegar from now until such and such a date, you are responsible. If, however, it increases or decreases in value, the barrel is mine." Since the purchaser also accepted the possibility of a depreciation in value, the transaction is considered as having the possibility of both gain and loss. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

Similarly, it is permissible for a person to buy 100 jugs of wine in Tishrei for a dinar each, but not to collect them until Tevet. And when he collects them, he may check each one, returning those that have become vinegar and taking those that are good wine. For he purchased only good wine from him. Those jugs whose contents became vinegar were fit to sour at the outset; it is just that the matter did not become known until later.

In a place where it is customary to rent out ships and receive payment for them, it is permissible to include a stipulation that if the ship is damaged, those damages will be assessed and reimbursement made over and above the fee charged. Similarly, it is permissible to hire out a pot of brass and the like and receive payment for it, and also to receive compensation if its weight decreased. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

It is forbidden to accept tzon barzel from another Jew, because this is considered "the shade of interest."

What is meant by the term tzon barzel? A person owned 100 sheep. A shepherd accepted the responsibility of caring for them on the condition that the shearing, the offspring and the milk would be split, either evenly, or one getting a third or a fourth for a year or two, as they stipulated. Included in the agreement is the condition that if the sheep die, the shepherd must make restitution for them.

This is forbidden, because the owner of the sheep is very likely to realize a profit, and highly unlikely to suffer a loss. Therefore, such an arrangement is permissible if the owner of the sheep accepts the condition that should the value of the sheep increase or decrease or should they be seized by predators, they are considered within his domain. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

The following laws apply when a person appraises an animal he receives from a colleague and tells him: "If it dies, I accept responsibility for 30 dinarim, and I will pay you a sela a month as a fee." This is permitted, because he did not establish this as the animal's value when alive, but only after its death.

A woman may rent out a chicken to a friend so that it can sit on eggs until they hatch for two chicks. There is no question of interest involved.

When a person owed a colleague four dinarim as interest and gave him an article worth five dinarim instead, when the interest is expropriated from him, five dinarim are taken. The rationale is that he received it as interest. Similarly, if the borrower gave the lender a garment or a utensil, that garment or that utensil itself should be returned to him. If, in lieu of the four dinarim he owed him, he rented him a property that was normally rented for three dinarim, four dinarim are expropriated from him, because he accepted the rental as being worth that price.

An order for produce cannot be placed until a market price has been established. Once a market price has been established, an order can be placed. Even though the person receiving the order does not have the desired produce, his colleague does.

What is implied? If the market price for wheat was fixed at four se'ah per sela, a purchaser may place an order of 100 se'ah and pay 25 sela. Even if the seller gives the purchaser the 100 se'ah of wheat later, at a time when a se'ah of wheat is selling for a sela, there is no interest involved at all. This applies even when the seller did not own any wheat at the time the order was placed.

When does the above apply? When the seller did not have in his possession any of the type of produce he sold. If, however, the seller had that type of produce in his possession, even if the work necessary to bring it to the market has not been completed, he may sell a produce order even though a market price has not been established. What is implied? If a farmer was one of the first to harvest, he may sell an order of grain even though the grain is still in the grainheap.

A person can sell an order for wine once the grapes have been reaped and placed in the vat. He can sell an order for oil, when it has been placed in the vat. An order for lime can be placed when it is lowered into the oven. And an order for earthenware vessels can be placed when the balls of clay are made.

When is that necessary? When using white clay. But if dark clay is used, an order for utensils to be made from it can be placed even if the balls have not been made, for that clay is readily available. Even if one person does not possess it, another does. Similarly, an order for fertilizer may be placed throughout the year, even though the seller does not possess fertilizer himself, because it is continuously available.

Whenever all that is necessary to complete a product is one or two tasks, an order can be placed with a seller. When three or more tasks are necessary, an order cannot be placed unless the market price has been issued. For since more than three tasks are necessary to complete the product, it is as if the person does not possess that type of substance at all, and as if it has not come into existence as of yet.

What is implied? When a grain heap must be a) placed in the sun to dry, b) threshed, and c) winnowed, the owner may not accept an order unless a market price has already been issued. If it was dry, and all that was necessary was that it be threshed and winnowed, he may accept an order.

If balls of clay lack shaping, drying, being placed in the kiln, being fired and being removed, the owner may not accept an order. If they are dry, and all that was necessary was that they be placed in the kiln and fired, he may accept an order. This applies when it is the custom of the buyer to remove the utensils from the kiln. If the seller is the one who removes them, they are considered to require the performance of three tasks. The owner may not accept an order unless a market price has already been issued. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

When a person who is going to milk his goats, shear his sheep or remove honey from his beehive meets a colleague, it is permissible for one to tell the other: "What I will milk from my goats is sold to you," "What I will shear from my sheep is sold to you," or "What I will remove from my beehive is sold to you." It is, however, forbidden for one to tell the other: "This and this amount of milk which I will milk from my goats is sold to you at this and this price," "This and this amount of wool that I will shear from my sheep is sold to you at this and this price," or "This and this amount of honey that I will remove from my beehive is sold to you at this and this price" unless he takes an order at the market price. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

Orders cannot be placed based on the market price of towns, because it is not firmly established, only on a market price established in a large city. If new wheat was being sold in a city at four se'ah for a sela and older wheat at three se'ah for a sela, an order may not be placed until an equal price is established for both the new and the old grain.

If wheat sold by gatherers was selling at four se'ah for a sela and wheat sold by a householder at three, one may place an order from a gatherer at the price of the gatherers. An order from a householder at the price of the gatherers may not be placed unless the price for householders is established [at the same rate].

Once a market price has been established, it is permissible to place an order even for a high rate of exchange.

What is implied? Wheat was being sold at four se'ah for a sela and a purchaser placed an order that a seller would later give him wheat at a low rate of exchange. If the price of wheat was later established at ten se'ah for a sela, the seller must give him ten se'ah as is the market price, for he placed an order at the high rate of exchange.

If the purchaser gave the seller money without making a stipulation and without placing an order for the high rate of exchange, and the price of the produce fell, the seller may give the purchaser the produce at the price that the produce was worth when the money was paid. If a person reneges on his commitment, he receives the adjuration mi shepara.

When does the above apply? When a person is placing an order for himself. When, however, a person is acting as an agent, either for the buyer or the seller, either the purchaser receives at the lower price or the seller must return the funds. When an agent was involved, the purchaser is not required to receive the adjuration mi shepara if he retracts because of the agent's error. For he will say: "I charged you with improving my position, not with undermining it," as explained above.

The following laws apply when wheat was being sold at four se'ah per sela, the seller took the money and promised to give the purchaser five se'ah for a sela. If the seller possesses wheat at that time, it is permitted. If the seller does not possess wheat, or even if he is owed a debt of wheat by others and he takes the money on condition that he collects what he is owed and gives it to the purchaser, it is forbidden. The rationale is that at the time of the transaction, the wheat has not yet been collected, and it is as if it does not exist. Hence, it is as if he fixed a time for a later delivery and reduced the price because of the postponement.

When wheat is selling at four se'ah for a sela in the large cities and six se'ah per sela in the villages, it is permitted to give a merchant a sela so that he will bring six se'ah from a village by a particular date. The wheat must, however, be considered to be in the possession of the purchaser. Thus, if is lost or stolen on the way, the purchaser suffers the loss.

It is forbidden for a distinguished person to carry out such a transaction. And if the transaction involves several types of merchandise, it is forbidden for all people to carry out such transactions. The rationale is that such types of merchandise are not continuously found in villages, in contrast to produce that is.

When donkey-drivers enter a city where the market-price is four se'ah for a sela, it is permitted for them to lower the price and sell wheat to their acquaintances or their brokers at five se'ah a sela in return for money given them at the outset, as soon as they enter the city, before they open their sacks and sell to others. The rationale is that they are not selling to them at the lower price because they gave them the money immediately and will not collect the produce until later, but because they inform them concerning the market price and offer them assistance.

The following rules apply when a person who is transporting his produce from one place to another place meets a colleague who tells him: "Give me your produce and I will give you produce that I possess in return at your destination." If the purchaser possesses such produce at that place, the transaction is permitted. If not, it is forbidden.

Slightly different laws apply when a person was transporting merchandise from place to place and a colleague told him: "Give me the merchandise and I will pay you the price it would be worth at your destination." If the seller is responsible for the merchandise until it reaches that destination, the transaction is permitted. If the purchaser is responsible, it is forbidden.

It is permissible for a person to give the owner of a garden payment for ten specific cucumbers or for ten specific watermelons, even though they are small and he stipulated that he would give them to him when they grow to full size. The rationale is that the seller leaves them and they grow by themselves. If he cut them off now, others would not grow in their place. Similar laws apply in all analogous cases where the seller will not suffer any loss or detriment by selling in advance.