Neither a Lender Nor a Borrower Be?

If someone borrows a loaf of bread before Pesach, does he have to pay it back after Pesach? After all, if the Jewish lender would have kept the loaf of bread in his possession, it would have become worthless. The reader may suggest that the owner could have eaten it. The Mishna Berura (450:1) would counter that the scenario being discussed is where the loan took place right at the end of the zman achila. The person had extra bagels that he bought that morning. Instead of being magnanimous and offering the soon-to-be-worthless bagels for free, he loaned them to his friend. The lender does not sell chometz gamur and would have disposed of them. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch rules (based on a Gemara in Avoda Zara 62) that the borrower must pay back the loaf of bread. At the time he borrowed it, the loaf did have value, therefore he must return another loaf after Pesach or its value at the time he borrowed it. The borrower may even pay back the value of the loaf on chol hamoed Pesach.

Still, the Mishna Berura raises the following question: doesn’t borrowing a loaf of bread violate the rabbinic prohibition of borrowing non-money consumable items? (As opposed to lending an item where literally the exact same item is returned, i.e. lending a chair or ball.) There is a Torah mitzvah to lend money. However, there is also a Torah prohibition against charging interest. This prohibition is easy to avoid when lending money. After all, someone who borrows $1,000 in cash will make sure to pay back only $1,000. However, borrowing consumable items is fraught with danger. Tosfos (Bava Metzia 75a) says that we are concerned for the following scenario. A lender loaned a borrower a bushel of wheat. At the time, the market price was $6 a bushel. Perhaps the price of wheat will rise. By the time the borrower pays back a different bushel, wheat may cost $8 a bushel. The lender will profit $2 on the loan of the bushel which is akin to collecting forbidden interest. Granted, it will not be considered Torah interest, because in the final analysis, he loaned a bushel of wheat and was paid back a bushel of wheat. However, since the price rose in the interim, it is similar to interest. Therefore, the rabbis forbade it. (This is in contradistinction to the main currency of any country as we view it as having a steady price [Chazon Ish].)

Technically, it should always be forbidden to borrow non-money consumable items because of this concern. Indeed, Hillel declared in the Mishna (ibid. 75a) that a woman should not loan a loaf of bread to her friend for this very reason.

However, the Gemara states that the halacha does not follow Hillel. Specifically, the rabbis permit a neighbor to lend a loaf of bread to their neighbor. Tosfos explains that neighbors are typically not concerned about small fluctuations in price. They just see a loaf of bread for its food value. Therefore, even if the price of a loaf of bread fluctuates a little, it is of no concern. It is interesting to note that only the Rema cites this leniency as practical halacha. Indeed, the Gr”a writes that the Shulchan Aruch does not accept it. This leads to the question as to how the Shulchan Aruch can discuss a situation of lending a loaf of bread before Pesach if lending loaves is always forbidden even among neighbors.

The Nesivos Shalom explains that the rabbis carved out a huge exception to the prohibition against lending consumable items. If the item has a stable market price and is widely available, it may be lent. The Rema will agree to this, too. This practically permits the lending of eggs, ketchup, flour, sugar, diapers, and band-aids. All these items are readily available in the store at the time of the loan. We don’t view the loan as a real loan. We view it as if the lender is just exchanging his bottle of ketchup for the one in the store which the borrower will soon buy. Even in the unlikely scenario that the price of the item did suddenly increase, it would still be permitted to return the more expensive but identical item to the lender. (Chut Shani Ribbis 11:3)

However, the Rema’s logic regarding neighbors cited above actually represents another leniency. The aforementioned discussion revolves around returning virtually the same item that one borrowed. For example, one who borrows a bottle of ketchup will pay back a bottle of ketchup. (We disregard the price fluctuation.) What if the returned item is not exactly the same? Suppose someone borrows a loaf of bread, may he return a loaf of bread that is a little bigger? According to the Shulchan Aruch, he may not. He must return the same size loaf or smaller. However, according to the Rema who holds that neighbors are not too meticulous with each other, the borrower may return a loaf of bread that is slightly larger and this is not considered interest. (Indeed, uptight neighbors cannot rely on this leniency.) Someone who borrowed an onion may return an onion that is a little bigger. Rav Yishai, a Sefardi posek, opined that Sefardim rely on the Rema as well.

The Mishnas Ribbis cautions, however, that clearly noticeable differences are still an issue. Someone runs out of eggs and asks a neighbor to borrow a dozen eggs. The neighbor says she is sorry but she only has 11. She loans 11 eggs. When it comes time to return the eggs, the borrower may feel it’s petty to take one egg from the dozen and return 11. However, the Mishnas Ribbis said it is required! An extra egg is a clearly noticeable difference and paying back an extra egg would be considered ribbis (even if called a gift).

There are situations, however, where neighbors ask to “borrow” items but they really mean “can I have an item?” Some neighbors have a relationship where they don’t pay back items. They simply take turns “borrowing” from each other. That is not borrowing but gifting and is not subject to the laws of ribbis.