Bava Metzia

for I interpret the Mishnayoth in accordance with his views. For R. Oshaia taught: If a man was his neighbour's creditor for a maneh, and he went and stood at his granary and said, 'Repay me my money, as I wish to purchase wheat therewith,' and he [the debtor] replied, 'I have wheat which I will supply you; go and charge me therewith against my debt at the current price.' The time came for selling,  and he said to him, 'Give me the wheat,  which I wish to sell and purchase wine with the proceeds;' to which he replied, 'I have wine; go and assess it for me at the current price.' Then the time came for selling wine, and he said to him, 'Give me my wine, for I wish to sell it and purchase oil for it;' to which he replied, 'I have oil to supply you; go and assess it for me at the current price:' in all these cases, if he possesses [these commodities] it is permitted; if not, it is forbidden.  [So in the Mishnah.] And what is meant by 'IF A MAN PURCHASED'? He purchased against his debt.  Raba said: Three deductions follow from R. Oshaia: [i] the debt may be offset against provisions, and we do not say, it is not as if the issar had come to his hand;  [ii] but only if he [the debtor] possesses [these commodities]; and [iii] R. Jannai's view is correct, viz., what is the difference between them themselves [sc. the provisions] and the value thereof?  For it was stated: Rab said: One may buy on trust against [future delivery of] crops, but not against [repayment of] money at [future prices].  But R. Jannai said: What is the difference between them themselves [sc. the crops] and the value thereof? An objection was raised: In all these cases, if he possesses [these commodities], it is permitted.  — R. Huna answered in Rab's name: This means that he drew [the produce into his possession].  If he drew it into his possession, need it be taught?  — But, e.g., he assigned a corner [of the granary] to him.  Samuel said: This is taught in accordance with R. Judah, who ruled: One-sided usury is permitted.  For it has been taught: If a man was his neighbour's creditor for a maneh, for which he [conditionally] sold him his field;  if the vendor enjoys the usufruct, it is permitted; if the purchaser, it is forbidden.  R. Judah ruled: Even if the purchaser has the usufruct, it is permitted.  R. Judah said to them: It once happened that Boethus b. Zunin [conditionally] sold his field, with the approval of R. Eleazar b. Azariah, and the purchaser took the usufruct. Said they to him: [Would you adduce] proof from thence? The vendor enjoyed its usufruct, not the purchaser. Wherein do they  differ? — Abaye said: They differ with respect to one-sided interest.  Raba said: They differ with respect to interest [received] on condition that it shall be returned. Raba said: Now that R. Jannai ruled: