If one said: "Borrow me a mana" (which is twenty-five selas), and he answered: "I have no money in cash, but I can furnish wheat for a mana," and he accepted, and thereafter the lender buys it from him for twenty-four selas, this is lawful, but nevertheless it is prohibited to be practised, as it appears usurious.[...] if one said: "Borrow me thirty dinars," and he said: "I have no cash, but I can furnish you wheat for this amount," and he accepted, and thereafter the lender bought from him for a golden dinar (which is twenty-five silver dinars) as the market price at that time, but before delivering it to him the price increased to thirty, and when the lender came to require his wheat the borrower said: "I have no wheat, but wine for thirty dinars," then, if he possesses it he may do so, as he took from him a trade article and repays him with a trade article, but if not he will be compelled to give him the value of the wheat at the increased price (i.e., thirty dinars), and this appears usurious. Said Rabha to him: If so, why does the Mishna state, Give me my wheat (the value of which when he bought it was only a golden dinar; the borrower of the wheat is considered now a seller and the buyer has not made a drawing or paid any money for it that he should acquire any title to it, hence the seller may retract and give him back twenty-five dinars; we must then say that the lender claims thirty dinars, the value of the wheat he sold him first)
Текст, конечно, читается непросто, но идей там, наверное, еще полно.
Еще забавное оттуда же, о том, как надо делить активы между кредиторами. Если есть три кредитора, которым мы должны 100, 200 и 300, то, по нынешним законам, активы разделят между ними в соотношении долей 1:2:3. Талмуд предписывает тремя примерами правила раздела в разных долях в зависимости от того, сколько всего активов:
Логика тут совсем неочевидная. Этот пример 2000 лет куча мудрецов толковали разными сложными способами, пока несколько лет назад не появилась довольно изящная формальная теория.