בבא מציעא 71:2 — Soncino English Talmud

A surety to whom? Shall we say to an Israelite? But we learnt: The following violate the negative precept: The lender, the borrower, the surety, and the witnesses! Again if it means to a heathen: since, however, it is the law of the heathen to claim direct from the surety, it is he [the surety] who borrows from him! — R. Shesheth answered: It means that he engaged himself to bring his actions in accordance with Jewish law. But if he engaged to abide by Jewish law, he should not take usury either! — R. Shesheth replied: He pledged himself for the one but not for the other. AN ISRAELITE MAY LEND A HEATHEN'S MONEY [ON INTEREST] WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE HEATHEN, BUT NOT OF THE ISRAELITE. Our Rabbis taught: An Israelite may lend a heathen's money [on interest] with the knowledge of the heathen, but not of the Israelite. E.g., if an Israelite borrowed money from a heathen on interest, and was about to repay it, when another Israelite met him and proposed. 'Give it to me and I will pay you as you pay him' — that is forbidden; but if he presented him to the heathen, it is permitted. Similarly, if a heathen borrowed money from an Israelite on interest, and was about to repay it, when another Israelite met him and proposed. 'Give it to me, and I will pay you as you pay him,' it is permitted; but if he presented him to the Israelite, it is forbidden. Now, the second clause is well, for there the ruling is in the direction of greater stringency; but as for the first clause, since the law of agency does not apply to a heathen, it is he [the Israelite] who takes interest from him [his fellow-Israelite]! — R. Huna b. Manoah said in the name of R. Aha, the son of R. Ika: Here it is meant that he [the heathen] said to him [the Israelite], 'put it [the money] on the ground and you may go.' If so, why state it? — But, said R. Papa, it means, e.g., that he [the heathen] took it [from the first creditor] and personally gave it [to the second]. Yet even so, why state it? — I might think that the heathen himself, in acting so, transfers the money pursuant to the wish of the Israelite, therefore it is taught otherwise. R. Ashi said: When do we maintain that agency cannot be vested in a heathen, only in reference to terumah; but in all other Biblical matters the principle of agency holds good in the case of a heathen. This [distinction], however, of R. Ashi must be rejected. For why does terumah differ, that [agency] is not [allowed to a heathen]? Because it is written, [Thus] ye, ye also [shall offer an heave offering etc.], [teaching], just as ye are members of the Covenant, so also must your deputies be members of the Covenant! But [is not] the principle of agency, as applied to all Biblical matters, derived from terumah! Hence R. Ashi's distinction is to be rejected. Others state: R. Ashi said: In what sense do we maintain that agency cannot be vested in a heathen, only that they cannot be agents for us; but we can be agents for them. But this [distinction] of R. Ashi is to be rejected. For why the difference, that they cannot be agents for us? Because it is written, 'Ye, ye also', which teaches the inclusion of your agents; just as 'ye' are members of the Covenant, so must your agents be members of the Covenant? But with reference to ourselves being agents to them, does not the same [exegesis] apply: by 'just as "ye" [who appoint agents],' members of Covenant are meant. Hence R. Ashi's distinction is non-acceptable. Rabina said: Though a heathen has no power of agency, yet, by Rabbinical law, one can obtain possession on his behalf. For this is similar to a minor: surely, a minor, though excluded from the principle of agency, ^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ

^ᵃnote:I.e., on behalf of a Jew borrowing from a Jew.
^ᵇnote:Infra 75b.
^ᶜnote:I.e., a surety on behalf of a Jewish borrower to a Gentile lender.
^ᵈnote:[I.e., according to Persian law, v. B.B. 173b.]
^ᵉnote:From the point of view of Jewish law there are two transactions in this loan: the surety borrows money from the Gentile and pays interest thereon, and lends money to the Jew, upon which he receives interest. Hence it should be forbidden.
^ᶠnote:Should the debtor fail to repay, he would bring an action against him first.
^ᵍnote:I.e., obtained the Gentile's authority for the transaction.
^ʰnote:For then the Jew is merely the agent of the Gentile, and it is the latter who makes the loan, not the former.
^ⁱnote:For then the Gentile is merely the agent of the Jew.
^ʲnote:There is a well-defined principle in Jewish law that a man's agent is legally as himself. But this does not hold good between a Jew and a heathen. Now, in the second clause, where the heathen presents the Jewish borrower to the Jewish lender, yet actually gives his own money, the transaction should be permitted, because he cannot be legally regarded as the Jew's agent. Nevertheless, since the transaction does appear as between two Jews, the heathen acting merely as a vehicle of delivery, the Rabbis recognised the principle of agency, and forbade it. But in the first clause, where the Jew actually gives the money to his fellow-Jew, why should he be regarded as an agent of the heathen, and the transaction rendered legal?
^ᵏnote:So that the second Jew does not receive it from the first.
^ˡnote:I.e., that he is merely the means of the actual loan from one Jew to another.
^ᵐnote:V. Glos. A Jew cannot appoint a heathen to separate his terumah for him.
^ⁿnote:[H] V. Supra, p. 47, n. 1.
^ᵒnote:Num. XVIII, 28. It would have been sufficient to state, 'Thus ye shall offer etc.'; it is a general principle of exegesis that 'also' ([H]) denotes extension; hence 'ye also' implies that someone besides yourselves may separate your terumah. At the same time, since the extension is directly applied to 'ye', those whom it includes must be similar to 'ye'.
^ᵖnote:In Kid. 41b; hence just as a heathen cannot be deputed to separate terumah, so he is invalid in all other matters.
^ᵠnote:Hence in the first clause under discussion the loan is permissible, if the second Jew was presented to the heathen, even if the money passed directly from one Jew to another.
^ʳnote:I.e., the same exegesis which shows that the agents must be Jews, also shews that the principals must be Jews.