Bava Metzia 64: The Growth of Gourds and The Use of Slaves

Today's daf is in part a set of examples regarding yesterday's daf.   We are told the story of Rav who exclaimed "kari, kari", gourds, gourds, when Rav Kanana missed the context and wondered what had been said.   We learn that he was explaining that if Reuven gave Shimon money for very small gourds  but now Shimon wanted to give him larger gourds for more money, he could only do so if the gourds were in hand.  This might not have been the case because gourds grow by themselves, and so if Shimon waits a while, those same gourds will grow larger on their own.  Rav disagrees.

Rav turns to a baraita which states that it is permitted for Reuven to milk his goats, shear his sheep, or take honey from his hive to sell to Shimon.  However, if it is stipulated how much milk, wool or honey will be available in the future, this is not permitted.  It is critical that the amount agreed upon is available at the time of the contract.  Abbey suggests that Reuven can pay Shimon for a barrel of wine on the condition that if it turns to vinegar, Shimon suffers the financial loss and if the price changes, Reuven gains or loses.  The rabbis debate this point - Reuven is more likely to gain than to lose in this scenario, which is forbidden according to the halachot of ribit, interest!  But Abaye rules that if one accepts loss or gain as part of the original contract, such an agreement is permitted.  This sounds as though gambling is permitted while charging interest is not.

A Mishna teaches that if Reuven lent money to Shimon, he is no longer allowed to stay in Shimon's courtyard without paying rent.  Rent must be paid at the standard rate.  The borrower should not benefit financially from a loan, either.  The Gemara points out that we have already learned that one is permitted to stay in another's courtyard without paying if it is done without that person's knowledge.  This holds only when the owner is not losing money, as the courtyard is not normally rented out to anyone.

The rabbis come back to the importance of the original contract.  The arrangement for rent, payment, length of time, etc. must be stipulated in detail at the time that the contract is written.

Our daf ends with the note that Rav Yosef bar Chama's household would take slaves from the people who owned them money.  This is relevant because it was taught that a slave is not worth the food that he is fed, for the person who is 'borrowing' the slaves is paying for the slaves' food instead of the slaves' owners paying for their food.  The rabbis suggest that this was said only regarding Rav Nachman's own slave, Dari, who would dance and drink in bars.  All other slaves work and are worth more than the food that they eat.  One last argument - perhaps a person will be happy that his slave has been taken and 'used' for work.

It is always bizarre to speak of slavery with such a carefree, matter-of-fact tone.  Today's understandings of slavery are incredibly far removed from those of ancient Israel, even if those ancient understandings were not based on a notion of cruelty and disrespect but of survival and creating a 'safety net'.