Siman 164 — The mortgaged field, and the lender who leases it back
Four seifim: the חכירי נרשאי, the משכנתא דסורא, a sale followed by a lease, and a field taken by אסמכתא
יורה דעה · סימן קס״ד
הממשכן שדה לא יחכירנו
🌱 Foundations · מתחילים
✦ ❖ ✦
The lender holds his debtor’s field in pledge. May he turn round and lease it back to the very man who pledged it, and take a rent that the borrower would never have paid but for the debt? The whole matter of the siman lies in that question, and in a second one that follows from it: when a field has been promised “mine if you do not pay within three years”, whose are the fruits?
4.The summary table: what is permitted, what is not, and on what condition
5.The Shakh (7 ס״ק), the Taz (6), the Baer Hetev (5), the Nekudot HaKesef (1) — the full apparatus
6.The Rambam: הלכות מלווה ולווה, chapters 5 and 6
7.Contemporary cases
8.Summary and review questions
1. The text of the Mehaber — the four seifim
The siman falls into two halves. The first three seifim deal with a pledge followed by a lease: forbidden when the lessee is the borrower himself (seif 1), permitted when a third party has come between them in a משכנתא דסורא (seif 2), fully permitted when the field was first sold (seif 3). The last seif changes subject: the field promised upon non-payment, and the fate of the fruits eaten.
The heading announces five seifim, the edition gives four. The title of the siman reads ובו ה׳ סעיפים, and the text served by every available Hebrew edition divides into four. The missing break falls inside the last block: the Beit Yosef opens two distinct lemmas there — first the case, then the fate of the fruits — and that is where the printed editions separate seif ד from seif ה. We copy the heading as it stands, without adding a fifth block.
Seif 1 — the pledged field: the lender does not lease it back to its owner
הממשכן שדה לא יחכירנו. ובו ה׳ סעיפים: מי שהיתה שדה ממושכנת בידו לא יחזור וישכיר אותה לבעל השדה ויש מי שמתיר לעשות כן במשכנתא דסורא: הגה ובלבד שלא התנה מתחילה על כך (ריב״ש סי׳ ש״ה) וגם שכבר החזיק המלוה בשדה אבל בלאו הכי לכולי עלמא אסור (ב״י סימן קע״ב בשם תשובת רשב״א):
Title of the siman: one who takes a field in pledge shall not lease it out; and it contains five seifim.
One who held a field in pledge shall not turn round and rent it to the owner of the field; and there is one who permits doing so in a משכנתא דסורא.
Gloss:provided he did not stipulate it from the outset (Rivash, siman 305) and provided also that the lender had already taken possession of the field; otherwise it is forbidden according to all (Beit Yosef, siman 172, in the name of a responsum of the Rashba).
What the seif forbids is not the rent but the turning back. To lease out a field that has come into one’s hands is an ordinary transaction. What vitiates it here is the identity of the lessee: he is the borrower, and the rent he pays is a surplus he would owe no one but for the debt. The Rambam gives it its exact name: הערמת רבית — a circumvention of the prohibition of interest.
Seif 2 — the משכנתא דסורא, when a third party has come between
משכנתא דסורא אם בא אחר ושכר אותה מהמלוה מותר לחזור ולהשכיר אותה לבעל השדה (וע״ל סימן קע״ב):
A משכנתא דסורא: if another came and rented it from the lender, it is permitted to turn round and rent it to the owner of the field (and see below, siman 172).
The third party does not launder the transaction: he erases its proof. The Beit Yosef says so plainly — once another has leased the field, it no longer appears from the facts that the loan was made with that intention. This is a reasoning about what the thing shows, not about what it is worth; hence the place of the seif, immediately after the first.
Seif 3 — to sell first, and lease afterwards
מותר למכור שדהו לאחד ולהתנות עמו שיחכירנו (פי׳ החוכר הוא איש שמקבל עליו שדה חבירו לעבדה בתנאי שיתן לבעל כך וכך פירות בין יעשה השדה פירות בין לא יעשה) לו אח״כ:
It is permitted to sell one’s field to someone and to stipulate with him that he will lease it(explanation: the חוכר is a man who takes his fellow’s field to work it, on condition that he give the owner such and such produce, whether the field yields or not)to him afterwards.
A sale is not a pledge. Seif 1 forbids because the lender remains a lender; seif 3 permits because the buyer has acquired the very body of the field. The Beit Yosef adds that stipulating the lease in advance spoils nothing — the exact opposite of the condition set by the gloss on seif 1. The difference lies in the fact that the seller can no longer take the property back.
Seif 4 — “mine if you do not pay within three years”: the field and its fruits
הלוהו על שדהו וא״ל אם לא תתן לי מכאן ועד ג׳ שנים הרי הוא שלי ולא אמר מעכשיו בענין שאין המקח קיים תוך ג׳ שנים לא יאכל הפירות ואם אכלם הוי רבית קצוצה ויוצאת בדיינים: הגה ויש אומרים דמה שאכל תוך ג׳ שנים לא הוי אלא אבק רבית דהוי כמשכנתא בלא נכייתא (ב״י לדעת הרא״ש וטור ורש״י ותוס׳ ותלמידי רשב״א וראב״ד מביאם ב״י בח״מ סימן ר״ז ס״ס י״ג) וכמו שיתבאר לקמן סי׳ קע״ב אבל מה שאכל לאחר שלש שנים צריך להחזיר וכן עיקר:
He lent him on his field and said to him: if you do not give me within three years it is mine — and he did not say “from now”, in such a way that the acquisition does not hold: within three years he may not eat the fruits, and if he ate them it is fixed interest, and it is recovered in court.
Gloss:and some say that what he ate within the three years is only dust of interest, for it is like a משכנתא בלא נכייתא (Beit Yosef according to the Rosh, the Tur, Rashi, the Tosafot, the disciples of the Rashba and the Raavad, brought by the Beit Yosef in Choshen Mishpat siman 207) and as will be explained below in siman 172; but what he ate after three years he must return — and that is the main ruling.
Two propositions, and the Mehaber decides only the second. That the acquisition does not hold — אסמכתא — no one disputes. What is disputed is the qualification of the fruits eaten during the three years: fixed interest, recoverable in court, for the Mehaber; mere dust of interest, not recoverable, for the gloss. On what was eaten after the three years the two agree: it must be returned.
One question runs through all four seifim: does the lender draw from the field an advantage that comes to him from the debt? The rent paid by the borrower, yes. The rent paid after a third party has come between, no — the advantage can no longer be read there. The rent of a field that was bought, no — there is no debt any more. And the fruits of a field one believed acquired, yes — since the field was never acquired.
2. Background — the sugya, the Tur, the Beit Yosef
Seif 1 is the shaping of a single line of Rava, in the fifth chapter of Bava Metzia. Three practices are rejected there at once, among them that of the lessees of Neresh:
summary: Rava said the halakha follows neither the credits of the men of Papunya, nor the deeds of the men of Mehoza, nor the leases of the men of Neresh. The leases of Neresh: they used to write thus — so-and-so pledged his field to so-and-so, and then leased it back from him; and when did he acquire it, that he should convey it back? And now that they write “we acquired from him, and several terms passed, and then he leased it back”, so as not to shut the door before borrowers — it is well done; but it is nothing.
The gemara puts the question in a form worth remembering: אימת קנאה — when did the lender acquire the field, so as to be able to lease it back? A pledge is not an acquisition; one who leases out what he has not acquired takes not a rent but a surplus on his loan. And the clause the men of Neresh had added to cover themselves — “several terms have passed” — is dismissed in a word: ולאו מלתא היא.
The משכנתא דסורא, which seif 1 names without explaining, is defined a page earlier:
summary: this pledge, in a place where the creditor may be paid off, may be consumed only with deduction. […] It is permitted in the manner of the pledge of Sura, in which they write thus: at the completion of these years this field shall go out without money.
And the last seif comes from the mishna of the same chapter, and then from a saying of Rav Nahman:
summary: he lent him on his field and said to him: if you do not give me within three years it is mine — it is his. […] Thus we say in the name of Rabba: whatever is “if” does not acquire. […] Rav Nahman said: now that the Sages have said an אסמכתא does not acquire, the field returns and the fruits return. […] Is that to say that Rav Nahman holds that a waiver made in error is not a waiver?
The words והדרי פירי — “and the fruits return” — are the source of the whole of seif 4, and the question that follows them in the gemara is the source of its disputed half: if the fruits return, then the owner had not waived them; and if he had not waived them, why did he say nothing for three years? The answer of the Rosh, which the Beit Yosef reports, separates the two periods.
The Tur orders the matter in two lines:
« המלוה לחברו על שדהו אסור לחזור ולהשכירה לו בדבר קצוב לשנה » (טור יו״ד קס״ד)
« אפי׳ אם כתוב בשטר ששהתה ביד המלוה זמן רב קודם שהחכירוה ללוה » (טור יו״ד קס״ד)
« תוך ג׳ שנים לא יאכל הפירות ואם אכלם לא יחזיר דהוי ליה אבק רבית » (טור יו״ד קס״ד)
« ואם זה שתק והניחם בידו אחר ג׳ שנים מפני שהיה סבור שנחלטה לו וכשנודע לו שלא קנאה מוציאה מידו צריך להחזיר לו הפירות » (טור יו״ד קס״ד)
summary: one who lends his fellow on his field is forbidden to turn round and rent it to him for a fixed yearly sum; even if it is written in the deed that the field remained a long time in the lender’s hands before it was leased to the borrower. […] Within three years he shall not eat the fruits, and if he ate them he does not return them, for it is dust of interest; and if the other kept silent and left them in his hands after the three years because he thought the field had become his, and when he learnt that he had not acquired it he takes it back from him — he must return the fruits to him.
The Tur and the Mehaber do not say the same thing. The Tur writes ואם אכלם לא יחזיר — he does not return them; the Mehaber writes ואם אכלם הוי רבית קצוצה ויוצאת בדיינים — he does. The gloss of the Rama restores the Tur’s position as a יש אומרים. The disagreement is therefore not between the Mehaber and the Rama alone: it runs through the Rishonim.
The Beit Yosef names the sugya, sets out the dispute of the Rishonim, and then rules:
« זהו חכירי נרשאי דאסיקנא בפרק איזהו נשך » (בית יוסף יו״ד קס״ד)
« וכתב הרמב״ם בפ״ה שאינו אלא הערמת רבית וכתב ה״ה שכן דעת הרמב״ן והרשב״א אבל רש״י פירש שהיא רבית גמורה » (בית יוסף יו״ד קס״ד)
« כלומר ואיגלאי מילתא למפרע שע״ד כן הלווהו » (בית יוסף יו״ד קס״ד)
« ולענין הלכה נקיטינן דחכירי נרשאי אפי׳ במשכנתא דסורא אסור מדרבנן » (בית יוסף יו״ד קס״ד)
« כיון שגדולים אוסרים אין להקל » (בית יוסף יו״ד קס״ד)
summary: this is the case of the leases of Neresh, of which we concluded in the chapter Eizehu Neshekh that the halakha does not follow their practice. The Rambam wrote, in chapter 5, that it is only a circumvention of the prohibition of interest, and the Maggid Mishneh wrote that such is also the view of the Ramban and the Rashba; but Rashi explained that it is interest in the full sense — that is, it appears retroactively that he lent him on that condition. […] And as to the law, we hold that the leases of Neresh are forbidden rabbinically even in a pledge of Sura […] since great authorities forbid, one should not be lenient.
On seif 3 he gives the reason for the permission:
« אבל בכאן שגוף הבית מכור לו לגמרי יכול הוא להשכירו או להחכירו אח״כ למי שירצה ואף למוכר עצמו » (בית יוסף יו״ד קס״ד)
« ואף על פי שכשמכר לו הבית התנה שיחכירנו לו אחר כן אין בכך כלום כיון שגוף הבית קנוי למחכיר » (בית יוסף יו״ד קס״ד)
summary: but here, where the body of the house is sold to him entirely, he may rent it or lease it afterwards to whomever he wishes, and even to the seller himself; and although, when he sold him the house, he stipulated that he would lease it to him afterwards, that is of no account, since the body of the house is acquired to the lessor.
And on the last seif, he sets the Rosh against the Rambam and the Rif:
« וכתב הרא״ש בעלה קמ״ג ד״א והדרי פירי אותן שאכל אחר ג׳ שנים כלומר משום דהוי מחילה בטעות וכל כה״ג לאו מחילה הוא » (בית יוסף יו״ד קס״ד)
« אבל אותם שאכל תוך ג׳ שנים מטעם רבית אכלם אינו מחזיר » (בית יוסף יו״ד קס״ד)
« אבל הרמב״ם כתב בפ״ו מה״מ דרבית קצוצה הוי וכן דעת הרי״ף וכמ״ש בסימן קע״ב ולדעתם מחזיר כל פירות שאכל בין תוך ג׳ בין אחר ג » (בית יוסף יו״ד קס״ד)
summary: the Rosh wrote that “the fruits return” refers to those he ate after three years, because it is a waiver made in error, and such a waiver is none; but those he ate within the three years he ate by way of interest, and he does not return them. The Rambam, however, wrote in chapter 6 of the laws of the lender that it is fixed interest, and such is also the view of the Rif; and according to them he returns all the fruits he ate, both within the three years and after.
3. The vocabulary — to be laid down once and for all
מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא — the pledge of land. The debtor hands his field or house to the creditor, who takes its fruits while the debt runs. It is not a sale: the property remains the debtor’s, and the creditor has only the enjoyment of it.
מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא בְּנַכְיְיתָא — the pledge with deduction. Each year of enjoyment is deducted from the debt. This is the form the gemara requires where the debtor may pay off the creditor whenever he wishes: לא ניכול אלא בנכייתא. The pledge without deduction — משכנתא בלא נכייתא — is the term of comparison used by the gloss on seif 4.
מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא דְּסוּרָא — the pledge of Sura. In it one writes expressly: at the end of these years the field shall go out without payment. The creditor therefore has nothing to claim at the term, and the Taz infers that the transaction no longer bears the name of a loan but of a lease — אין שם הלואה עליו אלא שכירות.
חֲכִירוּת — the fixed-rent lease. The Shulhan Arukh itself gives the definition, in brackets, at seif 3: the חוכר takes his fellow’s field to work it and undertakes to give the owner a fixed quantity of produce, whether the field yields or not. It is this fixity that distinguishes him from the אריס, who shares the crop.
חֲכִירֵי נַרְשָׁאֵי — the leases of Neresh. The arrangement named by the gemara: to pledge the field, then lease it back. This is the case of seif 1, and the halakha does not follow that practice.
אַסְמַכְתָּא — a commitment made on an “if”. One who says “if I do not pay, the field is yours” does not expect it to come to that: he therefore does not truly divest himself, and the acquisition does not hold. The gemara’s formula: כל דאי לא קני. Adding the word מעכשיו — “from now” — saves the acquisition, and that is precisely what seif 4 points out as missing.
הַעֲרָמַת רִבִּית — the circumvention of the prohibition of interest. A transaction each piece of which is lawful, and whose assembly produces the result the Torah forbids. The Rambam places our leases of Neresh in this category, and not in that of interest proper.
רִבִּית קְצוּצָה — fixed interest. Stipulated in advance: forbidden by the Torah, and recoverable in court — ויוצאת בדיינים. This is the qualification the Mehaber gives to the fruits eaten within the three years.
אֲבַק רִבִּית — the “dust of interest”. What resembles interest without being it: forbidden rabbinically, and not recoverable in court. This is the qualification of the gloss, and the Rambam gives its general definition.
מְחִילָה בְּטָעוּת — a waiver made in error. The owner let the lender consume the fruits after the three years because he believed the field lost. Having learnt that it was not, his tolerance counts for nothing — and the fruits return. This is the Rosh’s reasoning, taken up by the Shakh and the Taz.
4. The summary table — what is permitted, and on what condition
The situation
The rule
Where
Field in pledge, leased back to the borrower himself
אסור
Seif 1
The same, in a משכנתא דסורא
יש מי שמתיר
Seif 1
The same, if the lease had been stipulated from the loan
אסור
Gloss on seif 1
The same, if the lender had not taken possession of the field
לכולי עלמא אסור
Gloss on seif 1
משכנתא דסורא, after a third party rented the field from the lender
מותר
Seif 2
To sell the field, then lease it to the seller
מותר
Seif 3
The same sale, without a קנין גמור
אסור
Taz ס״ק ה
Fruits eaten within the three years (Mehaber)
רבית קצוצה ויוצאת בדיינים
Seif 4
Fruits eaten within the three years (the gloss’s יש אומרים)
אבק רבית
Gloss on seif 4
Fruits eaten after the three years
צריך להחזיר וכן עיקר
Gloss on seif 4
The two conditions of the gloss on seif 1 do not operate at the same level. The first — not having stipulated the lease from the outset — bears on intention: a lease promised in advance is the price of the loan. The second — that the lender have already taken possession — bears on the thing itself: without possession there is no pledge, only a loan, and the rent is simply interest. That is why the gloss says of this second case לכולי עלמא אסור.
5. The Shakh, the Taz, the Baer Hetev and the Nekudot HaKesef
The apparatus of this siman is given here in full: the Shakh has seven ס״ק, the Taz six, the Baer Hetev five, and the Nekudot HaKesef a single entry, answering the Taz. The Pithei Teshuva does not comment on this siman — it resumes at siman 165.
The Shakh — seven entries
ס״ק א — even if the deed says the field stayed long in his hands
« אפילו כתוב בשטר ששהתה בידה מלוה זמן רב קודם שהחכירהו ללוה. טור. פי׳ ואפילו האמת נמי הכי ששהתה זמן רב בידו אסור » (ש״ך יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק א)
summary: even if it is written in the deed that the field stayed a long time with the lender before being leased to the borrower — thus the Tur; and the Shakh adds that even if it is true in fact, it is forbidden.
ס״ק ב — what seif 2 reveals of the Mehaber’s position
« ואם שכר משמע דעת המחבר כהפוסקים דר״ק הוא ולזה בסעיף ב׳ במשכנתא דסורא דוקא כתב שאם בא אחר לשכרה מותר להשכיר לבעל השדה » (ש״ך יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק ב)
« אבל למאן דס״ל דהוי ר״ק כי אפסקיה אחר סגי לאפוקי מר״ק אבל א״ר אכתי הוי אבל במשכנתא דסורא לכ״ע שרי » (ש״ך יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק ב)
summary: and if he rented — it appears that the Mehaber’s view is that of the authorities who hold it to be fixed interest; and that is why only at seif 2, in the pledge of Sura, did he write that if another came and rented it, it is permitted to rent it to the owner of the field. […] But for one who holds it to be fixed interest, a third party’s interposition suffices to take it out of fixed interest, while dust of interest still remains; in a pledge of Sura, however, it is permitted according to all.
summary: see the responsa of the Mabit, part one, siman 123, folio 57, at length on this.
ס״ק ו — the cross-reference to Choshen Mishpat, and a difficulty
« כמבואר בח״מ סי׳ ר״ז ס״י וק״ק דשם כתב המחבר גם סברת י״א דלא הוי אלא א״ר » (ש״ך יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק ו)
summary: as is explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 207 seif 10; and there is a slight difficulty: there the Mehaber also brought the view of those who say it is only dust of interest.
ס״ק ז — why the three years cut the case in two
« מפני שהיה סבור שנחלטה לו וכשנודע לו שלא קנאה מוציאה מידו דהוי מחילה בטעות » (ש״ך יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק ז)
« אבל תוך ג׳ שנים לא הוי טעות שהרי בידו וברשותו היה להחזיר המעות למלוה » (ש״ך יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק ז)
summary: because he thought the field had become his, and when he learnt that he had not acquired it he takes it back from him — it is a waiver made in error; but within the three years there is no error, for it was in his power to return the money to the lender.
ס״ק ב is the strongest in the siman. The Shakh does not argue with the Mehaber: he reads his arrangement. If the Mehaber placed the third-party permission only at seif 2, it is because in the case of seif 1 it would not suffice — hence that seif 1 is, in his eyes, fixed interest and not a mere circumvention. A position deduced from a silence, and from where a sentence stands.
The Taz — six entries
ס״ק א — even after many years, and even with no possession at all
« אפילו שנים הרבה וה״א שכבר קנאה לפירותיה אפילו הכי אסור להשכירה לו כיון שהוא לוה שלו ושקיל מיניה יותר ממה שהלוהו » (ט״ז יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק א)
« וכל שכן אם לא החזיק בה כלל המלוה דלא קנאה כלל ולא הוה כאן רק הלואה בעלמא » (ט״ז יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק א)
« וזה פשיטא שאסור אפילו במשכנתא דסורא לכולי עלמא כמ״ש רמ״א בסמוך » (ט״ז יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק א)
summary: even many years — and I might have thought he had already acquired the field as to its fruits — even so it is forbidden to rent it to him, since he is his borrower and he takes from him more than he lent him; and all the more so if the lender took no possession at all, for he acquired nothing and there is here only a loan. And this is obvious, that it is forbidden even in a pledge of Sura according to all, as the Rama writes just after. And the Beit Yosef brought the dispute: for Rashi it is fixed interest, for the Rambam dust of interest.
ס״ק ב — the interposed third party: the Beit Yosef and the Darkhei Moshe do not agree
« וכתב ב״י בשם תלמידי רשב״א דאם בא אחר לשכרה מהמלוה יכול בעל השדה לשכור ממנו כיון דאפסקיה אחר שרי » (ט״ז יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק ב)
« וכתב ד״מ אבל בתשובת רשב״א שמביא ב״י אח״כ משמע דאפי׳ אחר באמצע אסור וכן הוא לקמן סימן קע״ב בשם הרא״ש » (ט״ז יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק ב)
summary: the Beit Yosef wrote in the name of the Rashba’s disciples that if another came and rented it from the lender, the owner of the field may rent it from him, since another has come between; but the Darkhei Moshe wrote that from the Rashba’s responsum, which the Beit Yosef brings afterwards, it appears that even with another in the middle it is forbidden — and so it is below at siman 172 in the name of the Rosh.
ס״ק ג — what the pledge of Sura is: a lease, not a loan
« מבואר לקמן סימן קע״ב דהיינו שהשכין לו באופן שלא יצטרך לפדות ממנו אלא יאכל איזה שנים ויחזירנה בחנם דבזה אין שם הלואה עליו אלא שכירות » (ט״ז יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק ג)
summary: it is explained below at siman 172 that this is where he pledged it to him in such a way that he will not need to redeem it from him, but will eat its fruits for some years and return it for nothing; in which the transaction no longer bears the name of a loan but of a lease.
ס״ק ד — “this is puzzling”: the Taz’s question on seif 2
« תמוה הוא הא פסק בסעיף א׳ דיש מי שמתיר במשכנתא דסורא דהיינו אפילו ללוה עצמו » (ט״ז יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק ד)
« ובלבוש כתב כאן דמיירי בלא החזיק המלוה בשדה ולא נראה לע״ד דכל שלא החזיק כלל בשדה לא קנאה והוה הלואה בעלמא » (ט״ז יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק ד)
« ותו דא״כ היה לו לש״ע לבאר כן בפירוש דמיירי בלא החזיק » (ט״ז יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק ד)
« על כן נראה לע״ד דבודאי קאי אדעה הראשונה שהתחיל בריש הסעיף מי שהיתה שדה ממושכנת » (ט״ז יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק ד)
« דעל זה אמר כאן דמכל מקום אי אפסקינהו אחר שרי לכולי עלמא והיינו אחר שהחזיק בה המלוה » (ט״ז יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק ד)
summary: this is puzzling, for he already ruled in seif 1 that there is one who permits in a pledge of Sura — that is, even to the borrower himself. The Levush wrote here that the seif speaks of a case where the lender did not take possession of the field; and this does not seem right to me, for as long as he did not take possession he did not acquire it and there is only a loan. And further, if so, the Shulhan Arukh should have said it expressly. Therefore it seems to me that seif 2 attaches to the first view of seif 1 — “one who held a field in pledge” — which covers even a pledge of Sura; and upon that view he says here that in any case, if another has come between, it is permitted according to all, namely after the lender has taken possession of the field.
ס״ק ה — the sale of seif 3 requires a full kinyan
« כיון שגוף הבית מכור לו לגמרי והוא גדול באדנות הבית לעולם יותר מן השוכר ממנו » (ט״ז יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק ה)
« ופשוט הוא גם כאן שצריך שיקנה הלוקח הבית תחילה בקנין גמור כדרך שהמכירה נקנית בעלמא דאם לא כן הוה כהלואה ואסור » (ט״ז יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק ה)
summary: since the body of the house is sold to him entirely, and he is greater in mastery over the house, for ever, than the one who rents it from him. And it is obvious that here too the buyer must first acquire the house by a full mode of acquisition, as any sale is acquired; otherwise it would be like a loan, and forbidden.
ס״ק ו — what was eaten after three years was eaten by robbery
summary: for this he ate by robbery; and what the owner allowed him to eat is a waiver made in error, and in such a case it is not a waiver.
The Nekudot HaKesef — one entry, addressed to the Taz
The Nekudot HaKesef are the Shakh’s notes on the Taz. Here they aim at the Taz’s ס״ק ד — the passage where he rejects the Levush on the ground that without possession the lender acquired nothing:
« ובש״ך ס״ק ה׳ כתבתי בשם הריטב״א וב״ה דאפילו לא נחית המלוה לתוך המשכונה כלל » (נקודות הכסף יו״ד קס״ד)
summary: and in the Shakh, at that ס״ק, I wrote in the name of the Ritva and the Be’er HaGola that even if the lender did not enter into the pledge at all.
The reply takes one line, and it is decisive: the Taz rejects the Levush because in his eyes “without possession there is nothing”; the Shakh sets against him a source — the Ritva — for whom the permission holds precisely even without possession. The disagreement is therefore not about reading the seif but about what possession does to a pledge. Note that the numbering of the Shakh’s ס״ק as these notes give it does not coincide with that of the electronic edition we follow.
The Baer Hetev — five entries
« כתב הש״ך אפילו כתוב בשטר ששהתה ביד המלוה זמן רב קודם שהחכירהו ללוה ואפילו האמת נמי הכי אסור » (באר היטב יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק א)
« דהיינו שהשכין לו באופן שלא יצטרך לפדות ממנו אלא יאכל איזה שנים ויחזירנו בחנם דבזה אין שם הלואה עליו אלא שכירות » (באר היטב יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק ב)
« וכתב ב״י בשם תלמידי רשב״א דאף בסתם משכנתא אם בא אחר ושכרה מהמלוה יכול בעל השדה לשכור ממנו כיון דאפסקיה אחר » (באר היטב יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק ב)
« וסיים הריטב״א ואפילו לא נחית המלוה לתוך המשכנתא כלל וכן קבלתי ממורי הרב » (באר היטב יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק ג)
« אבל הט״ז כתב דכל שלא החזיק המלוה בשדה לא קנאה והוי הלואה בעלמא » (באר היטב יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק ג)
« כתב הט״ז ופשוט הוא דגם כאן צריך שיקנה הלוקח הבית תחלה בקנין גמור כדרך שהמכירה נקנית בעלמא דאל״כ הוי כהלואה ואסור » (באר היטב יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק ד)
« מפני שהיה סבור שנחלטה לו וכשנודע לו שלא קנאה מוציאה מידו דהוי מחילה בטעות אבל תוך ג׳ שנים לא הוי טעות » (באר היטב יו״ד קס״ד ס״ק ה)
summary: the Baer Hetev here brings, entry by entry, the Shakh and the Taz. (א) even if it is written in the deed that the field stayed long with the lender, and even if it is true — forbidden. (ב) what the pledge of Sura is, and the view of the Rashba’s disciples that even in an ordinary pledge an interposed third party permits. (ג) the Ritva’s conclusion, and the Taz’s objection: without possession the lender acquired nothing. (ד) the Taz: a full mode of acquisition is needed for the sale of seif 3. (ה) why the fruits eaten after three years are returned, and not those of the first three.
The Baer Hetev adds nothing of his own on this siman: he transmits. The Pithei Teshuva, for its part, does not comment on this siman — which, in a block where it is present everywhere else, says something: the questions of 164 had been settled by the Rishonim, and the Aharonim found no new case in them to debate.
6. The Rambam — הלכות מלווה ולווה, chapters 5 and 6
The two halves of the siman have two distinct addresses in the Rambam, and the difference is not one of arrangement but of qualification. The pledged field leased back appears in chapter 5, among things “permitted that it is forbidden to do”; the field taken by אסמכתא appears in chapter 6, among the interests of the Torah.
« יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן מֻתָּרִין וְאָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹתָן מִפְּנֵי הַעֲרָמַת רִבִּית » (רמב״ם הלכות מלווה ולווה פרק ה׳ הלכה ט״ו)
« וְכֵן מִי שֶׁהָיְתָה שָׂדֶה מְמֻשְׁכֶּנֶת בְּיָדוֹ לֹא יַחְזֹר וְיַשְׂכִּיר אוֹתָהּ לְבַעַל הַשָּׂדֶה מִפְּנֵי הַעֲרָמַת רִבִּית » (רמב״ם הלכות מלווה ולווה פרק ה׳ הלכה ט״ו)
« שֶׁהֲרֵי זֶה עוֹמֵד בְּשָׂדֵהוּ כְּשֶׁהָיָה וְנוֹתֵן לָזֶה שָׂכָר בְּכָל חֹדֶשׁ בִּשְׁבִיל מְעוֹתָיו שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ » (רמב״ם הלכות מלווה ולווה פרק ה׳ הלכה ט״ו)
summary: there are things that are permitted and that it is forbidden to do, because of the circumvention of the prohibition of interest. […] And likewise, one who had a field in pledge in his hands shall not turn round and rent it to the owner of the field, because of the circumvention of the prohibition of interest: for this man stands in his field as before, and gives the other a rent every month for the money he lent him.
The Rambam’s last sentence is the definition of the problem in a single image: the borrower has not moved from his field. Nothing has changed for him except that he pays every month. What he pays is therefore not rent — he received nothing — but the price of time.
« לְפִיכָךְ מְנַכֶּה כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא רִבִּית שֶׁל תּוֹרָה » (רמב״ם הלכות מלווה ולווה פרק ו׳ הלכה ד׳)
« וְכֵן הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה אוֹ חָצֵר בְּאַסְמַכְתָּא הוֹאִיל וְלֹא קָנָה הַגּוּף הֲרֵי כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל רִבִּית וּמַחֲזִיר אוֹתָן » (רמב״ם הלכות מלווה ולווה פרק ו׳ הלכה א׳)
« וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא אֲבַק רִבִּית וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בְּדַיָּנִין » (רמב״ם הלכות מלווה ולווה פרק ו׳ הלכה א׳)
« כָּל הַלְוָאָה בְּתוֹסֶפֶת כָּל שֶׁהוּא הֲרֵי זוֹ רִבִּית שֶׁל תּוֹרָה וְיוֹצְאָה בְּדַיָּנִין » (רמב״ם הלכות מלווה ולווה פרק ו׳ הלכה א׳)
summary: one who lends his fellow on the field and says to him “if you do not return to me within three years it is mine” — he has not acquired it, because it is an אסמכתא; therefore he deducts all the fruits he ate, because it is interest of the Torah. […] And likewise one who sells a field or a courtyard by אסמכתא: since he did not acquire the body of the property, all the fruits he ate are interest, and he returns them. […] And anything forbidden as interest apart from these is forbidden rabbinically, lest one come to interest of the Torah; and that is called dust of interest, and it is not recoverable in court. […] Any loan with an increment of whatever kind is interest of the Torah, and it is recoverable in court.
The Mehaber here follows the Rambam and the Rif: the fruits are interest of the Torah, and they are recovered — even those of the first three years. The Rama restores the other reading, that of the Rosh, the Tur, Rashi and the Tosafot, which sees in them only dust of interest so long as the three years run. Note that the division is not Sefarad against Ashkenaz: it is already among the Rishonim.
7. Contemporary practical cases
Case 1 — A property given as security, which the debtor goes on occupying against a rent
This is precisely the case of seif 1, and it is forbidden. The Rambam gives the plain criterion: זה עומד בשדהו כשהיה — the occupant has not moved, and what he pays is the price of his delay. It makes no difference that the deed speaks of rent, nor that the property stayed long in the creditor’s hands: the Shakh dismisses that clause at ס״ק א. Ask your Rav.
Case 2 — The same arrangement, but a third party first rents the property from the creditor
Seif 2 permits it — but only in a משכנתא דסורא, and the Taz at ס״ק ד shows how disputed the scope of that permission is. The Darkhei Moshe further reports, in the name of a responsum of the Rashba, that even with a third party in the middle it would be forbidden. An arrangement resting entirely on the interposition of a third party is therefore not to be built from a study page. Ask your Rav.
Case 3 — Selling the property, then leasing it back
Seif 3 permits it, and the Beit Yosef even says that stipulating the lease in advance makes no difference. But the Taz at ס״ק ה sets the condition that decides everything: a קנין גמור is needed, an acquisition completed in the ordinary forms of a sale. A “sale” that left the seller free to take his property back would not be a sale, and the whole would fall back under seif 1. Ask your Rav.
Case 4 — A security that becomes ownership for want of payment
This is seif 4. The point to retain is that the clause does not work: it is an אסמכתא, and the property is not acquired. The practical question is therefore never about ownership but about the fruits taken meanwhile — and that is where the Mehaber and the gloss diverge. Ask your Rav.
Case 5 — The debtor let it pass for years
Do not infer waiver from silence. The Rosh, the Shakh at ס״ק ז and the Taz at ס״ק ו say together that the silence of one who believed his property lost is a מחילה בטעות and is worth nothing. The Shakh also gives the converse criterion: so long as it was in his power to repay, his silence was no error. Ask your Rav.
8. Summary of Siman 164
In one sentence: a creditor may draw from the thing given as security no advantage that comes to him from the loan — neither a rent paid by the borrower, nor the fruits of a field that an “if you do not pay” clause could never make his; and when that advantage ceases to be legible — a third party has come between, or the property has been genuinely sold — the prohibition falls with it.
Memory table
What the siman says
In Hebrew
Retain
The basic prohibition
מי שהיתה שדה ממושכנת בידו לא יחזור וישכיר אותה לבעל השדה
The lessee is the borrower: the rent is the price of the loan
The lenient view
ויש מי שמתיר לעשות כן במשכנתא דסורא
Only in a משכנתא דסורא — and the Beit Yosef does not permit
The gloss’s first condition
ובלבד שלא התנה מתחילה על כך
Nothing stipulated at the outset
The gloss’s second condition
וגם שכבר החזיק המלוה בשדה אבל בלאו הכי לכולי עלמא אסור
Without possession there is no pledge
The interposed third party
משכנתא דסורא אם בא אחר ושכר אותה מהמלוה מותר לחזור ולהשכיר אותה לבעל השדה
What is no longer legible is no longer forbidden
The sale followed by a lease
מותר למכור שדהו לאחד ולהתנות עמו שיחכירנו
The body of the property has changed hands
The clause that does not work
הלוהו על שדהו וא״ל אם לא תתן לי מכאן ועד ג׳ שנים הרי הוא שלי ולא אמר מעכשיו
אסמכתא: without מעכשיו, nothing is acquired
The Mehaber’s ruling on the fruits
בענין שאין המקח קיים תוך ג׳ שנים לא יאכל הפירות ואם אכלם הוי רבית קצוצה ויוצאת בדיינים
Fixed interest, recoverable in court
The view reported by the gloss
ויש אומרים דמה שאכל תוך ג׳ שנים לא הוי אלא אבק רבית דהוי כמשכנתא בלא נכייתא
Dust of interest only, within the three years
Where all agree
אבל מה שאכל לאחר שלש שנים צריך להחזיר וכן עיקר
After three years, he returns
Review questions
Why does the gemara ask אימת קנאה? What does that question prove against the leases of Neresh?
The gloss on seif 1 sets two conditions. Show that the second is not of the same nature as the first, and explain why it is said to be לכולי עלמא.
The Shakh at ס״ק ב deduces the Mehaber’s position from where a sentence stands. Reconstruct his reasoning.
The Taz finds seif 2 תמוה. What is his difficulty, what answer does the Levush give, and why does the Taz reject it?
Why is the sale of seif 3 permitted while the pledge of seif 1 is not? What condition does the Taz add, and what would happen without it?
The Mehaber and the gloss diverge on the fruits eaten within the three years and agree on those after. Explain both, and say what role מחילה בטעות plays.
To go further
If you wish to go deeper into this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan : the Rashi / Rambam controversy on the nature of the חכירי נרשאי, the Shakh’s inference at ס״ק ב, the Taz’s question on seif 2 and the Nekudot HaKesef’s reply, the קנין גמור of seif 3, and the division of the three years
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis : the tables, the vocabulary of the block, the golden rules, the mnemonic and the classic pitfalls
⚖️ Level 4 — Halakha lema‘asse : the practical ruling (Shakh, Taz, Baer Hetev, Nekudot HaKesef) and contemporary cases
The sources of this level may be consulted on Sefaria: