2) PAYING THE BORROWER FOR HIS TROUBLE
OPINIONS: The Beraisa (end of 72b) discusses the case of a person who notices that his friend is going to sell merchandise in a place where he can receive a higher price for his goods, and he makes him an offer. Instead of his friend having to go from place to place to sell his merchandise, he will take it and sell it for him. However, he will keep as a loan the proceeds of the sales, and he will pay back the money at a later date. The Beraisa rules that if the merchandise remains in the possession of the original owner until it is sold, and the money becomes a loan only after the sale, such an arrangement is permitted. If, however, the merchandise is transferred to seller immediately, this arrangement is forbidden, because the merchandise in that place is worth less than the money that the borrower will pay back.

The Mishnah earlier (68a) teaches that a borrower may not work for free for his lender by selling merchandise for him. When the Beraisa here says that the transaction is permitted when the merchandise stays in the possession of the original owner until it is actually sold, does it mean that it is permitted only if the borrower is paid for selling the merchandise (as the Mishnah earlier states), or is this case different in some way from the case of the Mishnah earlier?

(a) TOSFOS (DH b'Reshus) says that the Beraisa permits this arrangement only when the seller (borrower) is paid for his work, as the Mishnah earlier states. If this, however, is the Beraisa's intention, then it is obvious. Since the Mishnah already permits such an arrangement, why does the Beraisa need to repeat it? Tosfos explains that the Beraisa mentions this Halachah only as an introduction to the following Halachah. The Beraisa says that if the merchandise is loaned immediately to the borrower before he reaches the place where it is more valuable, the arrangement is prohibited. Why would one have thought that it is permitted? Tosfos explains that one might have thought that since the normal way of doing business is to buy in a place where the merchandise is cheap and sell in a place where it is expensive, it is considered as though this merchandise has a higher value even in the place where it is cheap. This is why the Beraisa must teach that this arrangement nevertheless is considered Ribis.

(b) The RITVA quotes the RE'AH who says that the lender does not have to pay the borrower to sell the goods. This is also the opinion of the MORDECHAI and the OR ZARU'A. Three reasons are given to explain this opinion:

1. The Ritva explains that the case is where the borrower wants to gain a name as a seller of merchandise, and therefore he wants to sell things. In order to achieve his goals, he is willing to sell the other person's merchandise pro bono, even without receiving any loan.

The Ritva apparently understands that the case of the Beraisa is not comparable to the case of the Mishnah earlier because the Mishnah is discussing a person who is already an established merchant who does not want to be bothered selling merchandise without being paid.

2. The BEIS YOSEF (YD 173) understands that according to this opinion, there was never any agreement that the seller would receive a loan. The seller just happens to borrow the money afterwards (see the Gemara earlier on 43a, "Ma'os she'Einan Tzerurin," for why this is permitted).

3. The TAZ (YD 173:24) explains that the seller exerts himself for the owner of the merchandise because he wants to receive the loan, and not because he wants to benefit the owner. Although the money the seller borrows is a considerable benefit to the seller, these Rishonim maintain that he may sell the merchandise (and borrow the money) as long as it is not done in order to benefit the lender. (Y. Montrose)