Lend me a kor of wheat, and the lender may set a price for him, stating that the borrower must repay the wheat in the future according to the value of wheat at the time of the loan. If, by the time the borrower must repay the loan, the wheat depreciates in value, he gives the lender a quantity of wheat equivalent to what he borrowed, and if it appreciates, he gives the value of the wheat he borrowed as per the market rate when he borrowed it, as agreed, but no more.

The Gemara questions this ruling: If the price of wheat depreciates, why should it be permitted for the borrower to pay him with wheat worth less than the value of the amount he borrowed? But he fixed a price at the time of the loan, and therefore the borrower owes him this amount of money. Rav Sheshet said: This is what the tanna is saying: If the lender did not set a price but merely lent him wheat, and it depreciates in value, the lender takes his wheat, as they did not agree that the borrower must repay the wheat according to its value at the time that the loan was taken out. But if it appreciates in value, the borrower gives the value of the wheat he borrowed as per the market rate when he borrowed it, in order to avoid the payment of interest.

MISHNA: A person may not say to another: Lend me a kor of wheat and I will give it back to you at the time the wheat is brought to the granary, as the wheat may increase in value, which would mean that when he gives him back a kor of wheat at the time the wheat is brought to the granary it is worth more than the value of the loan, and he therefore will have paid interest. But he may say to him: Lend me a kor of wheat for a short period of time, e.g., until my son comes or until I find the key, as there is no concern about a change in price during such a short interval of time. And Hillel prohibits the practice even in this case. And Hillel would similarly say: A woman may not lend a loaf of bread to another unless she establishes its monetary value, lest the wheat appreciate in value before she returns it, and they will therefore have come to transgress the prohibition of interest.

GEMARA: Rav Huna said: One who has a se’a of an item in his house may borrow a se’a of that item. Since he has available a se’a that he could give back right away, he may borrow one se’a, and similarly, if he has two se’a available he may borrow two se’a. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Even if he has only one se’a, he may borrow several kor in reliance upon it. Since he can repay part of the loan immediately, and as the market value has yet to change there is only a concern about future interest, this concern is mitigated when it does not apply to the entire loan.

The Gemara comments: Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches a baraita in support of Rabbi Yitzḥak’s ruling: If one does not have a drop of wine or if he does not have a drop of oil, he may not borrow wine or oil. Consequently, by inference it can be derived: If he does have a drop of wine or oil, he may borrow many drops in reliance upon it, as the tanna is certainly not referring to a case where he borrows just a few meager drops.

§ The mishna teaches: And Hillel prohibits this practice. Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of Hillel. The Gemara comments: But the halakha is not, in fact, in accordance with the ruling of Shmuel.

§ The mishna further teaches: And Hillel would similarly say: A woman may not lend even a loaf of bread due to concern that she will violate the prohibition of interest. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This is the statement of Hillel, but the Rabbis say that one may borrow various types of foods without specification and repay them without specification. If neighbors are not particular with one another about these items, there is no concern about interest, in contrast to Hillel’s opinon.

And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to the members of a group of people that eat together who are particular with each other and insist that each pay for precisely what he ate, if they dine together on Shabbat, they transgress a prohibition with regard to the strictures of measure, and with regard to the strictures of weight, and with regard to the strictures of counting, all of which are calculations that are forbidden on Shabbat. And they transgress a prohibition with regard to lending and repaying on a Festival, and according to the statement of Hillel, they also transgress the prohibition with regard to interest.

And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It is permitted for Torah scholars to borrow from one another with interest. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? It is because they are fully aware that interest is prohibited, and therefore they do not intend the loan to be a formal business transaction. They willingly forgo the additional payments to each other at the outset, and the extra payment is a gift that they give one another. The Gemara relates: Shmuel said to Avuh bar Ihi: Lend me one hundred peppers in exchange for 120 peppers that I will give you at a later date. And you should know that this matter is fitting and appropriate, as I intend that the additional twenty peppers be a gift.

Similarly, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It is permitted for a person to lend to his sons and the members of his household with interest, in order to have them taste the taste of interest so that they will understand how interest increases and how hard it is to repay it, which will discourage them from ever borrowing with interest again. The Gemara comments: But this is not correct, because the members of his household may become corrupted by doing so and act similarly with others in cases when there is no justification for such behavior.

MISHNA: A person may say to another: Weed the wild growths from my field with me now, and I will weed your field with you at a later stage, or: Till my field with me today and I will till with you on a different day. But he may not say to him: Weed with me today and I will till with you a different day, or: Till with me today and I will weed with you, as due to the different nature of the tasks it is possible that one of them will have to work harder than the other did, which is a type of interest, since he repaid him with additional labor.