- If produce taken on a redeemed sale, or משכנתא, are רבית קצוצה or אבק רבית
The Gemara relates an incident in which someone sold property, but retained the right to redeem it when he can. This is forbidden because of ribbis (since if he redeems it, the purchase money was like a loan to the seller, and the buyer’s consumption of produce in the interim is ribbis). The Gemara asks if the produce consumption is considered רבית קצוצה – set ribbis, and must be repaid to the seller, or only אבק רבית – secondary ribbis, which he is not forced to repay. Rabbah bar Rav Huna and Rava ruled that it is אבק רבית. Abaye asked: משכנתא מאי – what about property pledged as collateral for a loan? If the lender consumed its produce, would it be רבית קצוצה? This question depends on the reason that the above case was ruled אבק רבית. Was it משום דלא קץ ליה – because [the seller] did not set for [the buyer] to take the produce as interest, and the same would apply by משכנתא, where they did not discuss taking the produce as interest? Or, was the lenient ruling specifically for a sale, as opposed to משכנתא, which is for an actual loan? Rabbah ruled this case אבק רבית. Ravina ruled stringently, even in the case of a redeemed field.
- Considering consumed produce as payment in a משכנתא באתרא דמסלקי
Rava said: הא משכנתא באתרא דמסלקי – regarding a pledged property in a place where [the borrower] can evict the lender before the loan is due by paying early, אכל שיעור זוזי – then if [the lender] consumed the field’s produce equal to the amount of money loaned (which is forbidden as אבק רבית), the borrower can consider the produce as payment for the loan and evict him. Any produce he ate beyond that amount is not collected from him, since it is אבק רבית. It also cannot be counted as payment towards another debt he owes the lender. Rav Ashi disagreed: השתא דאמרת אכל טפי לא מפקינן מיניה – now that you have said that if he ate more than the loan’s value, we do not collect reimbursement from him, because it is אבק רבית, we also do not evict him from the property where his consumption equals the loan amount. He explained: סלוקי בלא זוזי אפוקי מיניה הוא – evicting him without money payment is tantamount to collecting reimbursement from him, which is not done for אבק רבית.
- משכנתא בנכייתא, משכנתא דבי סורא
Rava said: האי משכנתא באתרא דמסלקי – regarding a pledged property in a place where [the borrower] can remove the lender by paying early, לא ניכול אלא בנכייתא – [the lender] may only eat its produce with a fixed yearly reduction of the debt, which is permitted even if the reduction is less than the produce’s likely value, because it is effectively a sale of the produce, and not ribbis (and he accepts the risk of a failed crop). Still, a צורבא מרבנן – Rabbinical scholar should not utilize this leniency, to avoid even the appearance of ribbis, since he serves as a model for others. The Gemara therefore suggests he can use the arrangement of קיצותא – definite stipulation, in which the lender’s free (or discounted) produce rights are limited to a number of years, after which his consumption is deducted at full value from the debt. This permit is itself a matter of dispute, and the Gemara concludes he can make an arrangement like משכנתא דסורא, where the written terms are: במשלם שניא אילין תיפוק ארעא דא בלא כסף – at the end of these years, this land will leave the lender’s possession without monetary payment. These terms give the appearance of purchasing the produce for the specified time period, rather than a loan.