as I resolve the mishna in accordance with his opinion, expressed in the baraitot he edited.

Rava explains: As Rabbi Oshaya teaches in a baraita: One was owed one hundred dinars by another, and he went and stood by the other’s granary and said: Give me my money, as I wish to buy wheat with it, and the other said to him: I have wheat in my granary that I will give you; go and calculate for me the amount to which you are entitled at the current market rate. When the time to sell wheat arrived, the lender said to him: Give me wheat, as I want to sell it and acquire wine with the money received for it. The borrower said to him: I have wine that I will give you; go and calculate for me the amount of wine to which you are entitled at the current market rate.

The baraita continues: Then the time to sell wine arrived, and the lender said to the borrower: Give me my wine, as I want to sell it and acquire oil with the money received for it. The borrower said to him: I have oil that I will give you; go and calculate for me the amount of oil to which you are entitled at the current market rate. With regard to all such cases, if the borrower has wine and oil, the transaction is permitted, as this is a proper sale. But if he does not have these items it is forbidden. Since he cannot give him the merchandise at the current moment, if its value appreciates in the interim he is considered to have paid an additional sum for the delay of the repayment of the debt. Rava concludes his explanation: And what is the meaning in the mishna of: Acquired? It means that he acquired it as payment for his loan.

Rava said: Conclude from this baraita of Rabbi Oshaya three halakhot: Conclude from it that one may establish repayment of a loan upon produce, meaning that a borrower can promise to pay the lender in produce over the course of a year, based on the market rate at the beginning of the year, and we do not say that this is like a case where his issar has not already come into his possession, as Rabbi Ḥiyya said in the baraita on the previous amud. Since he owns produce it is as though he has provided it at the present time, and the current lack of payment is not significant. Accordingly, one can conclude from it another halakha, that this practice is permitted provided that he has produce in his possession. And further conclude from it that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yannai.

This is as Rabbi Yannai says: What difference is it to me if he referred to the produce, and what difference is it to me if he referred to the produce’s value? If he stipulated that he would receive a certain amount of produce, he can later take its value in money rather than the produce itself without violating the prohibition of interest.

As it was stated that amora’im disagreed about this issue: Rav says that one may make an arrangement of trust with regard to the delivery of items such as produce, i.e., one may loan the money in advance with the agreement that he will be repaid with produce at a later date, but one may not make an arrangement of trust with regard to money, i.e., one may not loan the money in advance with the agreement that he will receive the value of the produce at a later date, as this has the appearance of collecting interest. And Rabbi Yannai says: What difference is it to me if the agreement concerned the produce, and what difference is it to me if it concerned the produce’s value? Just as the lender can take the produce and sell it himself, he can likewise accept the value of the produce directly.

The Gemara raises an objection against Rav’s opinion from the above baraita: With regard to all of them, if the borrower has the items in his possession, it is permitted, apparently even if he actually pays with something else. Rav Huna says that Rav says: That baraita is stated with regard to a case where the lender pulled the produce itself, thereby performing an act of acquisition. The Gemara questions Rav Huna’s statement: If he pulled the produce, does it need to be said? After all, there was a proper act of acquisition. Rather, the baraita is discussing a case where the borrower designated a corner for the lender in which to place the produce that he acquired. For the purposes of this halakha, such an action is sufficient.

And Shmuel said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita, which permits the practice if the borrower is in possession of such produce? It is in accordance with that of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that uncertain interest, a transaction that may or may not result in the payment of interest, is permitted. Rabbi Yehuda holds that if at the time of the loan it was not certain that the agreement would result in the paying of interest, then even if it is so that if specific circumstances were to develop there would be interest paid according to the agreement, the transaction is permitted.

As it is taught in a baraita: If one was owed one hundred dinars by another, and the borrower performed a sale of his field for him in order to repay the one hundred dinars, if they agreed that the seller, i.e., the borrower, consumes the produce of the field until the debt is repaid, this is certainly permitted, but if the buyer, i.e., the lender, consumes the produce, it is prohibited, as he is in effect taking the produce as interest while awaiting the payment that he is owed. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the buyer consumes the produce, it is permitted.

The tanna relates: Rabbi Yehuda said to the Sages: An incident occurred involving Baitos ben Zunin, who performed a sale of his field on the basis of a directive from Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and that was a case where the buyer consumed the produce. The Sages said to the tanna: Will you bring a proof from there? The reverse was the case: It was the seller, not the buyer, who consumed the produce.

The Gemara asks: What is the difference in opinion between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda? Abaye said: The difference between them concerns the halakha of uncertain interest. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, if it is uncertain that a transaction will ultimately involve the payment of interest, it is permitted. Rava said: The difference between them involves the status of interest taken on the condition that it be given back. Rava maintains that Rabbi Yehuda did not mean that the lender can consume the produce without payment, as he must repay the amount he ate if the borrower pays off his debt. The first tanna rules that since the sale is not yet final, his consumption of the produce constitutes interest.

Rava said: Now that Rabbi Yannai is saying