Bava Metzia 61A

אם אינו ענין לנשך כסף, שהרי כבר נאמר ״לא תשיך לאחיך״, תנהו ענין לרבית כסף.

If the verse is not referring to the matter of neshekh with money, as it is already stated in that same verse: “You should not lend with interest [tashikh] to your brother,” indicating that taking money as interest is prohibited, apply the expression “neshekh of money” to the matter of ribit, i.e., tarbit with money.

אין לי אלא בלוה, במלוה מנין?

The baraita continues: I have derived a source for this prohibition only with regard to a borrower, for whom it is prohibited to pay interest on a loan. From where is it derived that there is also a prohibition stated with regard to a lender?

נאמר נשך בלוה ונאמר נשך במלוה. מה נשך האמור בלוה ⁠– לא חלקת בו בין בכסף בין באוכל בין בנשך בין ברבית, אף נשך האמור במלוה ⁠– לא תחלוק בו בין בכסף בין באוכל בין בנשך בין ברבית. מנין לרבות כל דבר? תלמוד לומר: ״נשך כל דבר אשר ישך״.

The baraita answers: Neshekh is stated with regard to a borrower, and neshekh is stated with regard to a lender. Just as concerning neshekh that is stated with regard to a borrower, you did not distinguish with regard to it between a loan of money and a loan of food, or between whether the interest is forbidden as neshekh or as ribit, so too, concerning neshekh stated with regard to a lender, do not distinguish with regard to it between a loan of money and a loan of food, or between whether the interest is forbidden as neshekh or as ribit. The baraita concludes: From where is it derived to include in the prohibition interest of any sort? The verse states: “Neshekh of anything that is lent with interest.”

רבינא אמר: לא נשך באוכל ולא רבית בכסף צריכי קרא, דאי כתיב ״את כספך לא תתן לו בנשך ואכלך במרבית״⁠ – כדקאמרת. השתא דכתיב ״את כספך לא תתן לו בנשך ובמרבית לא תתן אכלך״, קרי ביה הכי: ״את כספך לא תתן לו בנשך ובמרבית״, ״ובנשך ובמרבית לא תתן אכלך״.

Ravina said: An explicit verse is not required, neither to derive neshekh of food nor to derive ribit of money. As, if it were written: You should not give him your money with neshekh and your food with marbit, juxtaposing neshekh with money alone and marbit with food alone, it would be as you say, that there is a need for the derivation of the baraita. But now that it is written: “You should not give him your money with neshekh and with marbit you should not give him your food,” interposing both neshekh and marbit between money and food, read into the verse this interpretation: Your money you should not give him for neshekh and for marbit; and for neshekh and for marbit you should not give your food.