2) MAY A BORROWER PAY "AVAK RIBIS" TO THE LENDER?
QUESTION: The Gemara says that a document was found which revealed that Rav Ilish engaged in a transaction which apparently involved payment of Avak Ribis to a lender. Rava exclaimed, "Rav Ilish is a great man, and he would never make someone sin!"

Rava's wording seems odd. Rava should have said, "Rav Ilish is a great man, and he would never commit a sin!" Since the prohibition of Ribis applies to both the lender and the borrower, this is the wording that Rava should have used. Why did Rava say instead that Rav Ilish "would never make someone sin"?

ANSWERS:
(a) The RASHBA (Teshuvos #938) proves from the Gemara here that in contrast to ordinary Ribis, which both the lender is forbidden from taking and the borrower is forbidden from giving, the prohibition of Avak Ribis applies only to the lender. The borrower is not prohibited from paying Avak Ribis per se. Rather, if he pays Avak Ribis he causes the lender to transgress the prohibition against accepting Avak Ribis.

(b) The ROSH explains that the specific transaction in the case of the Gemara here did not involve a prohibition against paying Ribis. In this case, Rav Ilish accepted half of someone's merchandise as a loan, and he agreed to sell all of the merchandise in return for splitting the profits with the owner, paying him back the value of the borrowed goods after the sale. Since he was responsible for selling the merchandise, the owner was required to pay him for his work (as the Mishnah earlier (68a) says), for otherwise he is paying Avak Ribis to the owner by working and selling the owner's share of the merchandise. Since he is not actually working for nothing, as he would work anyway to sell his share of the merchandise, his work is not considered Avak Ribis. The Rosh explains that this is why Rava says that Rav Ilish "would never make someone sin," since he would only be making the lender sin ("Lifnei Iver"), but he would transgress no prohibition of Avak Ribis himself.

There are several different ways to understand the words of the Rosh.

1. The MISHNEH L'MELECH (Hilchos Malveh v'Loveh 4:2) explains that the Rosh argues with the Rashba. The Rashba understands that there is a general rule that a borrower who pays Avak Ribis never transgresses a prohibition of Ribis. The Rosh understands that the borrower who pays Avak Ribis could transgress a prohibition of Ribis in a different case. It is only because Rav Ilish was working anyway that there was no prohibition for him to pay Avak Ribis (aside from "Lifnei Iver").

2. The Mishneh l'Melech quotes the RANACH (2:21) who says that the Rosh agrees with the Rashba. However, the Mishneh l'Melech rejects this approach for many reasons, among them that it is not consistent with the wording of the Rosh.

REBBI AKIVA EIGER (in DERUSH V'CHIDUSH, 72b) writes that he does not understand how these Rishonim can deduce from the Gemara that there is no prohibition of Avak Ribis for a borrower. Why do the Rishonim not assume that there is no prohibition of Avak Ribis for the borrower until he pays? If this is true, it is possible that Rav Ilish entered into the transaction but never planned to pay the Ribis, as he would take his partner to Beis Din (if necessary) in order to show him that this is Ribis. This assumption might have prompted Rava's statement that Rav Ilish would not make someone sin. Rebbi Akiva Eiger explains that although this sounds like a clever scheme, the lender does transgress Avak Ribis when the agreement is made. Accordingly, it is possible that Rava said that Rav Ilish was a great man who would never enter into such a transaction even though he transgresses nothing, because he would be causing the lender to sin! If this is the explanation of the Gemara, there is no proof that the borrower does not transgress Avak Ribis when he pays the money to the lender. Rebbi Akiva Eiger leaves this question unanswered. (Y. Montrose)