Shylock’s World: The Merchant of Venice and the Talmud

...It was taught in a baraita: One who is traveling to eat a betrothal feast in his father-in-law’s house or to establish his Shabbat residence for an optional purpose, must return immediately to remove his chametz. This contradicts the mishna, which states that one who is going to a betrothal feast may nullify the chametz without returning for it, because the meal is considered a mitzva. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is not difficult. This baraita, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, while that mishna, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As it was taught in a baraita: A betrothal feast is optional; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: It is a mitzva.

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: A Torah scholar may not derive benefit from any feast that is not a mitzva. The Gemara asks: In what case? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In a case where the daughter of a priest marries an ignorant Israelite, or where the daughter of a Torah scholar marries an non-rabbinic peasant. Although a wedding feast is generally a mitzva, it is not in this case, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: When the daughter of a priest marries an Israelite, their union will not go well.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Anyone who benefits from partaking in an optional feast, which is not a mitzva, will ultimately be exiled, as it is stated: “And eat the lambs of the flock and the calves out of the midst of the stall” (Amos 6:4), and it is written: “Therefore now they shall go into exile at the head of the exiles; and the revelry of those who stretched themselves out shall pass away” (Amos 6:7). The Sages taught: Any Torah scholar who feasts excessively in any place will ultimately destroy his house, widow his wife, orphan his chicks, i.e., his children, and his Torah studies will be forgotten. Much dispute will come upon him, his words will not be heeded, and he will desecrate God’s name and the name of his master and the name of his father. And he will cause a bad name for himself, his children, and his descendants throughout future generations.

They sent to Mar Ukva: From where do we derive that song is forbidden? He scored parchment and wrote to them: “Rejoice not, O Israel, to exultation, like the gentile peoples” (Hosea 9:1). The Gemara asks: And let him send them a response from here, as well: “They do not drink wine with a song; strong drink is bitter to them who drink it” (Isaiah 24:9). The Gemara answers: If he had answered by citing that verse, I would say that this matter applies only to instrumental music, in accordance with the previous verse: “The mirth of tabrets ceases, the noise of them who rejoice ends, the joy of the harp ceases” (Isaiah 24:8); however, vocal song is permitted. Therefore, Mar Ukva teaches us that all types of song are forbidden.

(1) By the rivers of Babylon,there we sat,sat and wept,as we thought of Zion. (2) There on the poplars we hung up our lyres, (3) for our captors asked us there for songs,our tormentors, for amusement:“Sing us one of the songs of Zion.” (4) How can we sing a song of the LORD on alien soil? (5) If I forget you, O Jerusalem,let my right hand wither;

And from where is it derived that the verse: “With song they shall not drink wine” (Isaiah 24:9) is written about the period from the time when the Sanhedrin was nullified? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: From that which the verse states: “The Elders have ceased from the gate, the young men from their music” (Lamentations 5:14). This indicates that the dissolution of the Sanhedrin, who are the Elders from the gate, is linked to the end of the young men singing. Rav said: The ear that hears song should be uprooted, as it is prohibited to listen to music after the destruction of the Temple. Rava said: If there is song in a house there will be destruction on the threshold, as it is stated: “Voices shall sing in the windows; desolation shall be in the doorposts; for its cedar work shall be uncovered” (Zephaniah 2:14). The word “uncovered” [era] could be read to mean: Its city [ira].

Rav Huna said: The song of those who pull ships and lead the herd is permitted, for their singing assists them to establish a rhythm in their work. However, that of weavers is forbidden, as they sing only for their own enjoyment.

Rav Huna nullified all types of song, and this led to a general blessing: [...demand fell, economic upturn, luxury food became cheap]. (The price of one hundred ducks stood at a dinar, and one hundred se’a of wheat at a dinar, and there was no desire for them even at such a cheap price, due to their great abundance.) Later, when Rav Ḥisda came and belittled this prohibition, people began to sing again. As a result, [...demand rose, economic downturn, luxury food became scarce]. (One wanted a single duck for one dinar and it could not be found.)

Rav Yosef said: If men sing and women respond, Bollywood fashion, this is licentiousness. If women sing and men respond, inventing feminist Bollywood, it is as if one might as well be setting fire to woodchips. What difference is there? Rav Yosef indicates that in any case both are prohibited. The Gemara answers: To nullify one before the other, i.e., if it is impossible to ban singing entirely, they should at least stop the most problematic form.

MISHNA: One may not establish a deal with a storekeeper for half the profits. And similarly, one may not give a storekeeper money with which to acquire produce for the storekeeper to sell for half the profits. These activities are both prohibited unless the owner gives the storekeeper his wages as a salaried laborer hired to sell the produce, after which they can divide the remaining profits. One may not give eggs to another to place chickens on them in exchange for half the profits, and one may not appraise calves or foals for another to raise them for half the profits. These activities are both prohibited unless the owner gives the other wages for his toil and the cost of the food he gives to the animals in his temporary care. All this applies when the lender establishes a fixed minimum profit he insists on receiving regardless of what happens to the animals. But one may accept calves or foals to raise as a joint venture for half of the earnings, with one side providing the animals and taking full responsibility for losses, and the other providing the work and the sustenance, and the one raising them may raise them until they reach one-third of their maturation, at which point they are sold and the profits shared. And with regard to a donkey, it can be raised in this manner until it is large enough to bear a load.

The Sages taught: A woman may rent out to another woman a chicken to sit on the eggs belonging to the renter in exchange for two of the chicks hatched from the eggs. But with regard to a woman who said to another: The chicken is mine and the eggs are yours, and you and I shall share the chicks, i.e., my chicken will sit on your eggs until they hatch, Rabbi Yehuda permits this practice, and Rabbi Shimon prohibits it. He holds that since the owner of the chicken is responsible for half of the loss to the eggs, therefore part of this venture is a loan. As she is not being paid for her efforts, it is considered interest.

The Gemara relates: A business document emerged concerning the sons of Rav Ilish, as it was a venture entered into by their late father, in which it was written that Rav Ilish and his partner will share one-half of the profit and one-half of the loss. Rava said: Rav Ilish was a great man, and therefore he would not feed people with something forbidden. In other words, he certainly would not have involved himself in a joint venture through which someone would have earned money by means of interest, and an arrangement of this kind appears to constitute interest. Consequently, no matter what, there must have been some mistake with regard to this document. If the actual condition stated that one party would receive one-half of the profit, the other party must have agreed to accept upon himself two-thirds of the loss, or it must have been that the other party accepted one-half of the loss and that Rav Ilish was entitled to two-thirds of the profit. Either way, the disparity in the terms served as payment to Rav Ilish for his effort, removing any concern about violation of the prohibition of interest.

Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh said: There are times when one may inflate the rental fee paid for a store, such as in a case where one needs money in order to paint a design on its walls, or in the case of a ship, where one needs money to fashion a new sail [iskarya]. The Gemara explains: It is permitted when the money is borrowed to invest in a store in order to paint a design on its walls, because people will want to come to the more attractive store to purchase, and the profits are thereby increased. Similarly, it is permitted when the money is to be used for a ship to fashion a sail, because the profits from the use of the ship are greater since the sail is improved. Therefore, in these cases the arrangement is an investment, similar to the case of the field, and not interest.

MISHNA: One may not accept from a Jew sheep to raise or other items to care for as a guaranteed investment, in which the terms of the transaction dictate that the one accepting the item takes upon himself complete responsibility to repay its value in the event of depreciation or loss, but receives only part of the profit. This is because it is a loan, as the principal is fixed and always returned to the owner, and any additional sum the owner receives is interest. But one may accept a guaranteed investment from gentiles, as there is no prohibition of interest in transactions with them. And one may borrow money from them and one may lend money to them with interest. And similarly, with regard to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav], one may borrow money from him with interest and lend money to him with interest, since he is not a Jew. Also, a Jew may serve as a middleman and lend a gentile’s money to another Jew with the knowledge of the gentile, but not with the knowledge of a Jew, i.e., the middleman himself, as the Gemara will explain.

The Gemara challenges this explanation of the verse: The prohibition against paying interest to your brother is written explicitly in the continuation of that same verse in Deuteronomy: “Unto your brother you shall not lend with interest.” Consequently, there is no need to learn this halakha from an inference. The Gemara responds: It is necessary in order to teach that if one pays interest to a Jew he violates both the positive mitzva to pay interest to a gentile but not to a Jew, and the prohibition against paying interest to a Jew.

to teach that one may lend money with interest to a ger toshav only to the extent required to provide a livelihood to the lender, but not to do so as a regular business. Ravina said: Here in the mishna we are dealing with Torah scholars, for whom it is permitted to lend money to a gentile with interest. The Gemara explains: What is the reason the Sages decreed that one should not lend money to a gentile with interest? The reason is that perhaps the Jew will learn from the gentile’s actions. And since in this case the lender is a Torah scholar, he will not learn from the gentile’s actions.

There are those who teach that which Rav Huna said in connection with that which Rav Yosef taught: The verse states: “If you lend money to any of My people, even to the poor person who is with you” (Exodus 22:24). The term “My people” teaches that if one of My people, i.e., a Jew, and a gentile both come to borrow money from you, My people take precedence. The term “the poor person” teaches that if a poor person and a rich person come to borrow money, the poor person takes precedence. And from the term: “Who is with you,” it is derived: If your poor person, meaning one of your relatives, and one of the poor of your city come to borrow money, your poor person takes precedence. If it is between one of the poor of your city and one of the poor of another city, the one of the poor of your city takes precedence.

The Master said above: If one of My people and a gentile come to you for a loan, My people take precedence. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? Rav Naḥman said that Rav Huna said to me: It is necessary only to teach that even if the choice is to lend money to a gentile with interest or to a Jew for free, without interest, one must still give preference to the Jew and lend the money to him, even though this will entail a lack of profit.

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: Come and see the blindness in the eyes of those who lend money with interest. If a person calls another a wicked person in public, the other becomes insulted and he harasses him in all aspects of his life because he called him by this disgraceful name. But they who lend with interest bring witnesses and a scribe [velavlar] and a pen [vekulmos] and ink and write and sign a document that testifies: So-and-so denies the existence of the God of Israel, as the very fact that he lent with interest in defiance of the Torah is tantamount to a denial of the existence of God. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Concerning anyone who has money and lends it without interest, the verse says about him: “He who has not given his money with interest and who has not taken a bribe against the innocent, he who does these shall never collapse” (Psalms 15:5). From this statement, the opposite can also be inferred: You learn from this that concerning anyone who lends his money to others with interest, his property, i.e., his financial standing, collapses. The Gemara asks: But we see people who do not lend money with interest and nevertheless their property collapses. Rabbi Elazar says: There is still a difference: Those who do not lend money with interest collapse but then ultimately rise, but these, who lend with interest, collapse and do not rise again.

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Those who lend with interest lose more than they gain, as they will eventually be punished by God. Moreover, a loan of this kind desecrates the name of Heaven, as they cause it to seem that Moses our teacher is a scholar and his Torah is true. This is a euphemism; Rabbi Shimon means that their actions make a mockery of Moses and his Torah. And this is because they say: Had Moses our teacher known that there was a profit involved in the matter, he would not have written this. Not only do they violate a mitzva but they also belittle the Torah.