Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 3, 2016 | 讘壮 讘诪专讞砖讜谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Metzia 38

If one is watching an item and it begins to rot, should he sell it or does he need to leave it as is and return in whatever condition it is? 聽Is there a difference if the item has totally rotted? 聽What if it is wine that turned to vinegar or honey or oil that totally spoiled? 聽Different opinions are brought and also different explanations. 聽Is there a connection between this issue and whether or not a one聽is allowed to go into a relative’s field who has been taken captive and work the field or not?

讜讛讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪砖讜诐 讛驻住讚 讛专诪讗讬 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讜诇讗 讝讜 讗祝 讝讜 拽转谞讬

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei as he stated in the mishna: Due to the loss of the fraud? It is not due to the fact that the vessel will not remain intact. Consequently, there is no reason to believe that Rabbi Yosei would concede to the Rabbis in the instance where money was deposited. Rather, both of the cases are necessary according to the Rabbis. And although the first case could have been inferred from the second case, the tanna teaches the mishna employing the style of: Not only this but also that, i.e., the mishna began with an obvious example and continued with a more novel one.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻拽讬讚 驻讬专讜转 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛谉 讗讘讜讚讬谉 诇讗 讬讙注 讘讛谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪讜讻专谉 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛 诇讘注诇讬诐

MISHNA: In the case of one who deposits produce with another, even if it is lost due to spoilage or vermin, the bailee may not touch it, as it is not his. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He sells it before the court, as by doing so he is like one returning a lost item to the owner, since through its sale he prevents the owner from losing the value of his produce.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 讘拽讘 砖诇讜 诪转砖注讛 拽讘讬诐 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 注砖讗谉 讛诪驻拽讬讚 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讞专

GEMARA: What is the reason that the first tanna said that the bailee should not touch the produce? Rav Kahana says that it is based on the principle: A person prefers a kav of his own produce to nine kav of another鈥檚 produce. Consequently, despite the spoilage, the owner prefers that the bailee not touch the produce. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: We are concerned that perhaps the one who deposited the produce rendered it teruma and tithe for produce in another place, resulting in the buyer consuming produce that is teruma and tithe inappropriately.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诪驻拽讬讚 驻讬专讜转 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讙注 讘讛谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 注讜砖讛 讗讜转谉 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 诇驻讬讻讱

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of one who deposits produce with another, the bailee may not touch it, and therefore the owner may render it teruma or tithe for produce in another place. Granted, according to Rav Kahana, this is the reason that the tanna teaches: And therefore the owner renders them teruma. The concern that the owner may render the produce teruma and tithe is not the reason why the bailee may not sell it, and the halakha that the owner may render the produce teruma and tithe results from the halakha that the bailee may not sell it.

讗诇讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讗讬 诇驻讬讻讱 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 诇讗 谞讝讘讬谉 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 注讜砖讛 讗讜转谉 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讞专

But according to Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k, what is the meaning of the term therefore? According to his explanation, the fact that the owner may render the produce teruma and tithe is the very reason why the bailee may not sell the produce. The Gemara explains: This is what the tanna is saying: Now that the Sages said that the bailee may not sell the produce due to the fact that we are concerned that perhaps the owner had rendered it teruma, the owner can be confident that the produce is still in the possession of the bailee. Therefore, the owner may render it teruma and tithe for produce in another place even ab initio.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 讗讘诇 讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讻专谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The dispute in the mishna is in a case where the produce deteriorates at its standard rate of deterioration. But if the produce deteriorates at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration, everyone agrees that the bailee sells it before the court.

讗讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜讚讗讬 驻诇讬讙讗 讗讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讬 诇讬诪讗 驻诇讬讙讗 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 拽讗诪专

The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yo岣nan certainly disagrees with the opinion of Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k, as the concern that the owner might have rendered the produce teruma or tithe applies regardless of the rate of deterioration. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rabbi Yo岣nan disagrees with the opinion of Rav Kahana? The Gemara answers: When Rav Kahana says that one prefers his own produce, it was in a case where the produce deteriorates at its standard rate of deterioration that he says it. When the rate of deterioration is accelerated, he would agree that the bailee sells the produce.

讜讛讗 专讜爪讛 讘拽讘 砖诇讜 诪转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 拽讗诪专 讙讜讝诪讗 讘注诇诪讗

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rav Kahana say: A person prefers a kav of his own produce to nine kav of another鈥檚 produce? This indicates that even if the rate of deterioration was accelerated, one prefers his own produce, as in the case he describes eight-ninths of the produce is lost. The Gemara answers: This expression is merely an exaggeration, and actually one prefers his own produce only when its rate of deterioration is standard.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诇驻讬讻讱 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 注讜砖讛 讗讜转谉 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 讜讝讘谞讬谞讛讜 讜拽讗 讗讻讬诇 讟讘诇讬诐 讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 诇讗 砖讻讬讞

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Therefore, the owner renders it teruma or tithe for produce in another place. And let the owner be concerned that perhaps the produce deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration, and the bailee sold it, in which case the owner would be eating untithed produce. The Gemara answers: Deterioration at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration is uncommon, and the Sages do not issue decrees for uncommon cases.

讜讗讬 诪砖转讻讞讬 诪讗讬 诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 注砖讗谉 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讻讬 诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 谞诪讬 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讘讚诪讬 转专讜诪讛 诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: And if it is found that more of the produce is missing than would be lost according to the standard rate of deterioration, what should be done? According to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, do we sell it? But let us be concerned that perhaps the owner already rendered this produce teruma and tithe for produce in another place. The Gemara answers: Even when we sell the produce, it is to priests at the price of teruma that we sell it. Consequently, even if the owner rendered it teruma, it is consumed by priests and therefore there is no concern.

讜诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 谞诪讬 谞讝讘谞讬谞讛讜 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讘讚诪讬 转专讜诪讛 讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 住讘专 讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 诇讗 砖讻讬讞 诪讬讚讬 讜讻讬 诪砖转讻讞 诇拽诪讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讬讗 讬转讬专 诪讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诪拽诪讬讛 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 讛诇讻讱 讻讬 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 谞讝讘谞讬谞讛讜 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讘讚诪讬 转专讜诪讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k as well, since the concern is that perhaps the owner rendered the produce teruma, let the bailee sell the produce to priests at the price of teruma. The Gemara answers: It is with regard to this that they disagree, as Rabba bar bar 岣na holds: Deterioration at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration is not common at all. And when it occurs that the produce deteriorates at the greater rate, it is only from now on that it is assumed that it became deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration. Therefore, if the owner had rendered the produce teruma and tithe for produce in another place, it is assumed that it was before it deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration that he did it. Therefore, when the produce deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration, the bailee should sell the produce to priests at the price of teruma, as it may be teruma.

讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 住讘专 讬转专 诪讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 诪砖讻讞 砖讻讬讞 讜讻讬 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 诇讗诇转专 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 谞讝讘谞讬谞讛讜 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚拽讚讬诐 讜诪讝讘讬谉 诇讛讜 讜讻讬 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诇讗 讬讚注 讚讝讘谞讗 讜拽讗 讗讻讬诇 讟讘诇讬诐

And Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k holds: Deterioration at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration is common. And when the produce became deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration, it may be immediately that it became deteriorated to that extent. And if you say: Let us sell it, the concern is that at times the bailee will sell it early. And when the owner renders the produce teruma and tithe for produce in another place, he does not know that the bailee already sold the produce, and the owner eats untithed produce.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诪驻拽讬讚 驻讬专讜转 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讛专拽讬讘讜 讬讬谉 讜讛讞诪讬抓 砖诪谉 讜讛讘讗讬砖 讚讘砖 讜讛讚讘讬砖 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讙注 讘讛谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讜砖讛 诇讛诐 转拽谞讛 讜诪讜讻专谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讻砖讛讜讗 诪讜讻专谉 诪讜讻专谉 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讜讻专谉 诇注爪诪讜

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of one who deposits produce with another and it rotted, wine and it fermented, oil and it putrefied, honey and it spoiled, the bailee may not touch them; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He effects a remedy for these items and sells them in court. The baraita adds: And when he sells them, he sells them to others and does not sell them to himself, even for the same price, so no one will suspect that he bought it at a discount.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讙讘讗讬 爪讚拽讛 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 注谞讬讬诐 诇讞诇拽 驻讜专讟讬谉 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讬谉 驻讜专讟讬谉 诇注爪诪谉 讙讘讗讬 转诪讞讜讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 注谞讬讬诐 诇讞诇拽 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬诐 诇注爪诪谉

On a similar note, with regard to charity collectors, when they do not have poor people to whom to distribute charity, they change copper perutot that they collected for more valuable silver coins only for other people, but they do not change the coins for themselves, to avoid suspicion. If collectors for the charity plate collected ready-made food for the poor, at a time where there are no poor people to whom to distribute the food, they sell the food only to others but do not sell the food to themselves.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 驻讬专讜转 讜讛专拽讬讘讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讬转专 诪讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 诇讗 讘讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 讜讛讗 讬讬谉 讜讛讞诪讬抓 砖诪谉 讜讛讘讗讬砖 讚讘砖 讜讛讚讘讬砖 讚讬转专 诪讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 谞讬谞讛讜 砖讗谞讬 讛谞讬 讻讬讜谉 讚拽诐 拽诐

In any event, it is taught: Produce and it rotted. What, is it not referring even to a case where they all rotted at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration? The Gemara rejects this: No; it is referring to a case where they deteriorated at their standard rate of deterioration. The Gemara asks: But aren鈥檛 the cases of wine and it fermented, oil and it putrefied, and honey and it spoiled cases where these items deteriorated at a rate greater than their standard rate of deterioration, as there is a significant difference in the price of wine before and after fermentation, and in the price of oil before and after putrefaction? The Gemara rejects that proof: Those cases are different. Once they become spoiled, they remain spoiled but do not continue to deteriorate. Therefore, although their deterioration was significant, there is nothing gained by selling it.

砖诪谉 讜讛讘讗讬砖 讚讘砖 讜讛讚讘讬砖

On a related note, the Gemara asks: Concerning the cases of oil and it putrefied, honey and it spoiled,

诇诪讗讬 讞讝讜 砖诪谉 讞讝讬 诇讙诇讚讗讬 讚讘砖 诇讻转讬砖讗 讚讙诪诇讬

for what use are they fit? According to the Rabbis, one sells them in court. Apparently, they must have some value. The Gemara answers: Oil is fit for tanners who would coat the hides with oil even if it had a foul odor. Honey it fit as a salve for a wound on the back of camels.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讜砖讛 诇讛诐 转拽谞讛 讜诪讜讻专谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讗讬 转拽谞转讗 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇拽谞拽谞讬诐

It is taught in the baraita: And the Rabbis say that the bailee effects a remedy for the spoiled products and sells them in court. The Gemara asks: What remedy does he effect for those products? Rav Ashi said: It is a remedy for the casks. Although the contents of the barrel are irreversibly spoiled, leaving it in the barrels will ruin the barrels.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诇讛驻住讚 诪专讜讘讛 讞砖砖讜 诇讛驻住讚 诪讜注讟 诇讗 讞砖砖讜 讜诪专 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讛驻住讚 诪讜注讟 谞诪讬 讞砖砖讜

The Gemara asks: Since Rabbi Meir agrees that when there is deterioration at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration, the bailee should sell the deposit, with regard to what issue do Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree? The Gemara answers: The dispute is that one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds: The Sages were concerned for a significant loss, but the Sages were not concerned for an insignificant loss, like damage to the barrels. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds: The Sages were concerned even for an insignificant loss.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讬诪讻专诐 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 讗转诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He sells it before the court, due to the fact that in doing so he is like one returning a lost item to the owner. It was stated that Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis.

讜讛讗 讗诪专讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讚讗 讝诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖砖谞讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讞讜抓 诪注专讘 讜爪讬讚谉 讜专讗讬讛 讗讞专讜谞讛

The Gemara asks: But why is it necessary for Rabbi Yo岣nan to issue that ruling specifically in this case? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan already say one other time that in general the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? As Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Every place where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taught a ruling in our mishna, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, except for the following three cases: The responsibility of the guarantor (Bava Batra 173b), and the incident that occurred in the city of Tzaidan (Gittin 74a), and the dispute with regard to evidence in the final disagreement (Sanhedrin 31a). By inference, in all other cases, Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion.

讗诪讜专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Abba and Rabba bar bar 岣na are amora鈥檌m and disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. Rabbi Abba holds that there was no general ruling, and therefore a ruling was necessary in this case. Rabba bar bar 岣na holds that Rabbi Yo岣nan issued a general ruling.

诪讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 谞砖诪注 讚诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬 砖讘讜讬 诪讚专讘谞谉 谞砖诪注 讚讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬 砖讘讜讬

The Gemara notes: From the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it is learned that the court authorizes a relative, who is the heir apparent, to descend and manage the property of a captive. A bailee who sells rotting produce is like one returning a lost item to the owner; one who manages the property of a captive who is unable to do so himself should have the same status. From the statement of the Rabbis, who say that the bailee may not touch the rotting produce, it is learned that the court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 讜注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讻专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讬 讻专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讜专讬讚讬谉

The Gemara rejects this parallel: And from where do you draw that conclusion? Perhaps Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel states his opinion here only due to the fact that the principal, i.e., the rotting produce, is destroyed. But there, indeed, the court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive, because if the land lies fallow, the land will remain intact, even if the captive will not profit. And perhaps the Rabbis state their opinion only here based either on the reason of Rav Kahana, that a person prefers his own produce, or on the reason of Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k, that there is concern that perhaps the owner designated the produce as teruma or tithe. But there, with regard to the captive鈥檚 property, those reasons do not apply, and indeed the court authorizes the relative to manage it.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚转专讬 讟注诪讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬 砖讘讜讬 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讚 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗 诇讗 转专讬 讟注诪讬 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that they are two independent reasons for these two halakhot? But doesn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Shmuel says: The court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive? Is it not due to the fact that there is one common reason for both halakhot? The Gemara rejects that reasoning: No, they are based upon two unrelated reasons, and Shmuel ruled the halakha in each case independently.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬 砖讘讜讬 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专讬 讟注诪讬 谞讬谞讛讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to say that the two halakhot are unrelated, as Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and Rav Na岣an says: The court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive. Rather, learn from it that they are based upon two unrelated reasons. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that they are unrelated.

讗转诪专 砖讘讜讬 砖谞砖讘讛 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬讜 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬讜

The Gemara notes that it was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to one who was taken captive. Rav says: The court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive. Shmuel says: The court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive.

讘砖砖诪注讜 讘讜 砖诪转 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪讜专讬讚讬谉

The Gemara limits the scope of the dispute: In a case where they heard that the captive died, everyone agrees that the court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive. The relative is the prospective heir and will tend to the land as if it were his own. If the captive returns, he will compensate the relative for his expenditures.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘砖诇讗 砖诪注讜 讘讜 砖诪转 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 讚诇诪讗 诪驻住讬讚 诇讛讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讻讗专讬住 诇讗 诪驻住讬讚 诇讛讜

When they disagree, it is in a case where they did not hear that the captive died and presumably he will return. Rav says: The court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive, lest he devalue the property. Since presumably the owner of the property is alive, the relative assumes that he will eventually be required to return the property to the owner. Therefore, he does not tend to the land as if it were his own but will farm the land to increase its short-term yield, at the expense of its long-term condition. And Shmuel says: The court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive. Since the Master said: In any case where one works a field that is not his, we appraise his work as if he were a sharecropper, the relative will not devalue the property. It is in his best interest to tend to the land to ensure that he will receive his payment.

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讜讞专讛 讗驻讬 讜讛专讙转讬 讗转讻诐 讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 砖谞砖讜转讬讛诐 讗诇诪谞讜转 讜讘谞讬讛诐 讬转讜诪讬诐 讗诇讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讬讜 谞砖讬讻诐 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. Rabbi Eliezer says: By inference, from that which is stated: 鈥淢y wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you鈥 (Exodus 22:23), I know that their wives shall be widows and their children orphans. Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎nd your wives shall be widows and your children orphans鈥 (Exodus 22:23)? Why is this clause in the verse necessary?

诪诇诪讚 砖谞砖讜转讬讛诐 诪讘拽砖讜转 诇讬谞砖讗 讜讗讬谉 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜讘谞讬讛谉 专讜爪讬诐 诇讬专讚 诇谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讛谉 讜讗讬谉 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗讜转谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讬专讚 讜诇诪讻讜专 转谞谉

The verse teaches an additional punishment, that the men will be killed with no witnesses. Their wives will seek to marry, and the courts will not allow them to do so without witnesses to their husbands鈥 deaths. And their children will wish to descend to their father鈥檚 property, to inherit it, and the courts will not allow them to do so. Apparently, the court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive. Rava said: We learned in the baraita that the courts do not allow them to descend and to sell the land, but the court does authorize a relative to descend and manage the land.

讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讜驻砖讟讛 专讘 砖砖转 诪讛讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 注诪专诐 讚诇诪讗 诇讬专讚 讜诇诪讻讜专 转谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇诪讗 诪驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讗转 讚诪注讬讬诇讬谉 驻讬诇讗 讘拽讜驻讗 讚诪讞讟讗 讜讛讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚谞砖讜转讬讛诐 [讜讘谞讬讛诐] 拽转谞讬 诪讛 讛转诐 讻诇诇 诇讗 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻诇诇 诇讗

The Gemara relates: There was a similar incident in Neharde鈥檃, and Rav Sheshet resolved the matter from this baraita and ruled that the court does not authorize a relative to descend to the property of a captive. Rav Amram said to him: Perhaps we learned in the baraita that the courts do not allow a relative to descend and to sell the land? Rav Sheshet said mockingly to him, employing a similar style: Perhaps you are from Pumbedita, where people pass an elephant through the eye of a needle, i.e., they engage in specious reasoning. But doesn鈥檛 the juxtaposition between their wives and their children in the verse teach that the meaning is similar in both cases? Just as there, with regard to the wives, it means that they may not remarry at all, so too here, with regard to the sons, it means that they may not descend to the property at all.

讜诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬 砖讘讜讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讬讜专讚 诇谞讻住讬 砖讘讜讬 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讬讚讜 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诪注 砖诪诪砖诪砖讬谉 讜讘讗讬谉 讜拽讚诐 讜转诇砖 讜讗讻诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讝专讬讝 讜谞砖讻专 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 谞讻住讬 砖讘讜讬讬谉 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 讗讜 讗讞讬讜 讗讜 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛诪讜专讬砖讬谉 讛诇讻讜 诇讛诐 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜砖诪注讜 讘讛谉 砖诪转

The Gemara comments: And the matter of whether the court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who descends to the property of a captive and works his field, the court does not confiscate it from his possession. And furthermore, even if he heard that the owners are approaching and arriving, and the one who descended to the field preceded their arrival and uprooted and consumed produce that grew that year, that person is deemed diligent and he profits, as he received a return on the work that he invested. And these are the cases where there is captives鈥 property: Cases where one鈥檚 father, or brother, or one of those relatives who bequeaths him an inheritance went to a country overseas, and those in his locale heard that the relative died.

讛讬讜专讚 诇谞讻住讬 谞讟讜砖讬诐 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讬讚讜 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 谞讻住讬 谞讟讜砖讬诐 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 讗讜 讗讞讬讜 讗讜 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛诪讜专讬砖讬谉 讛诇讻讜 诇讛诐 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜诇讗 砖诪注讜 讘讛诐 砖诪转 讜讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖诪注转讬 砖讛谞讟讜砖讬诐 讻砖讘讜讬讬谉

In the case of one who descends to abandoned property, the court removes it from the possession of the one managing it. And these are the cases where there is abandoned property: Cases where one鈥檚 father, or brother, or one of those relatives who bequeaths him an inheritance went to a country overseas, and those in his locale did not hear that the relative died. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: I heard that the legal status of abandoned property is like that of the property of captives, and it is not confiscated from the possession of the one managing it. The dispute between the first tanna and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel parallels the dispute between Rav and Shmuel.

讛讬讜专讚 诇谞讻住讬 专讟讜砖讬诐 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讬讚讜 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 谞讻住讬 专讟讜砖讬诐 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 讗讜 讗讞讬讜 讗讜 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛诪讜专讬砖讬谉 讻讗谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 诇讛讬讻谉 讛诇讻讜

With regard to one who descends to forsaken property, the court removes it from his possession. And these are the cases where there is forsaken property: Cases where one鈥檚 father, or brother, or one of those relatives who bequeaths him an inheritance was here, and the relative does not know where they went. Everyone agrees that in these instances the court does not authorize a relative to descend to the property.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛谞讱 讚拽专讜 诇讛讜 谞讟讜砖讬诐 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛谞讬 讚拽专讜 诇讛讜 专讟讜砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is different about one property, that it is called abandoned property? And what is different about the other property, that it is called forsaken property?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 38

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 38

讜讛讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪砖讜诐 讛驻住讚 讛专诪讗讬 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讜诇讗 讝讜 讗祝 讝讜 拽转谞讬

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei as he stated in the mishna: Due to the loss of the fraud? It is not due to the fact that the vessel will not remain intact. Consequently, there is no reason to believe that Rabbi Yosei would concede to the Rabbis in the instance where money was deposited. Rather, both of the cases are necessary according to the Rabbis. And although the first case could have been inferred from the second case, the tanna teaches the mishna employing the style of: Not only this but also that, i.e., the mishna began with an obvious example and continued with a more novel one.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻拽讬讚 驻讬专讜转 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛谉 讗讘讜讚讬谉 诇讗 讬讙注 讘讛谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪讜讻专谉 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛 诇讘注诇讬诐

MISHNA: In the case of one who deposits produce with another, even if it is lost due to spoilage or vermin, the bailee may not touch it, as it is not his. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He sells it before the court, as by doing so he is like one returning a lost item to the owner, since through its sale he prevents the owner from losing the value of his produce.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 讘拽讘 砖诇讜 诪转砖注讛 拽讘讬诐 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 注砖讗谉 讛诪驻拽讬讚 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讞专

GEMARA: What is the reason that the first tanna said that the bailee should not touch the produce? Rav Kahana says that it is based on the principle: A person prefers a kav of his own produce to nine kav of another鈥檚 produce. Consequently, despite the spoilage, the owner prefers that the bailee not touch the produce. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: We are concerned that perhaps the one who deposited the produce rendered it teruma and tithe for produce in another place, resulting in the buyer consuming produce that is teruma and tithe inappropriately.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诪驻拽讬讚 驻讬专讜转 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讙注 讘讛谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 注讜砖讛 讗讜转谉 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 诇驻讬讻讱

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of one who deposits produce with another, the bailee may not touch it, and therefore the owner may render it teruma or tithe for produce in another place. Granted, according to Rav Kahana, this is the reason that the tanna teaches: And therefore the owner renders them teruma. The concern that the owner may render the produce teruma and tithe is not the reason why the bailee may not sell it, and the halakha that the owner may render the produce teruma and tithe results from the halakha that the bailee may not sell it.

讗诇讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讗讬 诇驻讬讻讱 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 诇讗 谞讝讘讬谉 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 注讜砖讛 讗讜转谉 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讞专

But according to Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k, what is the meaning of the term therefore? According to his explanation, the fact that the owner may render the produce teruma and tithe is the very reason why the bailee may not sell the produce. The Gemara explains: This is what the tanna is saying: Now that the Sages said that the bailee may not sell the produce due to the fact that we are concerned that perhaps the owner had rendered it teruma, the owner can be confident that the produce is still in the possession of the bailee. Therefore, the owner may render it teruma and tithe for produce in another place even ab initio.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 讗讘诇 讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讻专谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The dispute in the mishna is in a case where the produce deteriorates at its standard rate of deterioration. But if the produce deteriorates at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration, everyone agrees that the bailee sells it before the court.

讗讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜讚讗讬 驻诇讬讙讗 讗讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讬 诇讬诪讗 驻诇讬讙讗 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 拽讗诪专

The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yo岣nan certainly disagrees with the opinion of Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k, as the concern that the owner might have rendered the produce teruma or tithe applies regardless of the rate of deterioration. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rabbi Yo岣nan disagrees with the opinion of Rav Kahana? The Gemara answers: When Rav Kahana says that one prefers his own produce, it was in a case where the produce deteriorates at its standard rate of deterioration that he says it. When the rate of deterioration is accelerated, he would agree that the bailee sells the produce.

讜讛讗 专讜爪讛 讘拽讘 砖诇讜 诪转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 拽讗诪专 讙讜讝诪讗 讘注诇诪讗

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rav Kahana say: A person prefers a kav of his own produce to nine kav of another鈥檚 produce? This indicates that even if the rate of deterioration was accelerated, one prefers his own produce, as in the case he describes eight-ninths of the produce is lost. The Gemara answers: This expression is merely an exaggeration, and actually one prefers his own produce only when its rate of deterioration is standard.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诇驻讬讻讱 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 注讜砖讛 讗讜转谉 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 讜讝讘谞讬谞讛讜 讜拽讗 讗讻讬诇 讟讘诇讬诐 讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 诇讗 砖讻讬讞

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Therefore, the owner renders it teruma or tithe for produce in another place. And let the owner be concerned that perhaps the produce deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration, and the bailee sold it, in which case the owner would be eating untithed produce. The Gemara answers: Deterioration at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration is uncommon, and the Sages do not issue decrees for uncommon cases.

讜讗讬 诪砖转讻讞讬 诪讗讬 诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 注砖讗谉 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讻讬 诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 谞诪讬 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讘讚诪讬 转专讜诪讛 诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: And if it is found that more of the produce is missing than would be lost according to the standard rate of deterioration, what should be done? According to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, do we sell it? But let us be concerned that perhaps the owner already rendered this produce teruma and tithe for produce in another place. The Gemara answers: Even when we sell the produce, it is to priests at the price of teruma that we sell it. Consequently, even if the owner rendered it teruma, it is consumed by priests and therefore there is no concern.

讜诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 谞诪讬 谞讝讘谞讬谞讛讜 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讘讚诪讬 转专讜诪讛 讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 住讘专 讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 诇讗 砖讻讬讞 诪讬讚讬 讜讻讬 诪砖转讻讞 诇拽诪讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讬讗 讬转讬专 诪讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诪拽诪讬讛 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 讛诇讻讱 讻讬 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 谞讝讘谞讬谞讛讜 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讘讚诪讬 转专讜诪讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k as well, since the concern is that perhaps the owner rendered the produce teruma, let the bailee sell the produce to priests at the price of teruma. The Gemara answers: It is with regard to this that they disagree, as Rabba bar bar 岣na holds: Deterioration at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration is not common at all. And when it occurs that the produce deteriorates at the greater rate, it is only from now on that it is assumed that it became deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration. Therefore, if the owner had rendered the produce teruma and tithe for produce in another place, it is assumed that it was before it deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration that he did it. Therefore, when the produce deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration, the bailee should sell the produce to priests at the price of teruma, as it may be teruma.

讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 住讘专 讬转专 诪讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 诪砖讻讞 砖讻讬讞 讜讻讬 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 诇讗诇转专 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 谞讝讘谞讬谞讛讜 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚拽讚讬诐 讜诪讝讘讬谉 诇讛讜 讜讻讬 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诇讗 讬讚注 讚讝讘谞讗 讜拽讗 讗讻讬诇 讟讘诇讬诐

And Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k holds: Deterioration at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration is common. And when the produce became deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration, it may be immediately that it became deteriorated to that extent. And if you say: Let us sell it, the concern is that at times the bailee will sell it early. And when the owner renders the produce teruma and tithe for produce in another place, he does not know that the bailee already sold the produce, and the owner eats untithed produce.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诪驻拽讬讚 驻讬专讜转 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讛专拽讬讘讜 讬讬谉 讜讛讞诪讬抓 砖诪谉 讜讛讘讗讬砖 讚讘砖 讜讛讚讘讬砖 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讙注 讘讛谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讜砖讛 诇讛诐 转拽谞讛 讜诪讜讻专谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讻砖讛讜讗 诪讜讻专谉 诪讜讻专谉 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讜讻专谉 诇注爪诪讜

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of one who deposits produce with another and it rotted, wine and it fermented, oil and it putrefied, honey and it spoiled, the bailee may not touch them; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He effects a remedy for these items and sells them in court. The baraita adds: And when he sells them, he sells them to others and does not sell them to himself, even for the same price, so no one will suspect that he bought it at a discount.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讙讘讗讬 爪讚拽讛 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 注谞讬讬诐 诇讞诇拽 驻讜专讟讬谉 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讬谉 驻讜专讟讬谉 诇注爪诪谉 讙讘讗讬 转诪讞讜讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 注谞讬讬诐 诇讞诇拽 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬诐 诇注爪诪谉

On a similar note, with regard to charity collectors, when they do not have poor people to whom to distribute charity, they change copper perutot that they collected for more valuable silver coins only for other people, but they do not change the coins for themselves, to avoid suspicion. If collectors for the charity plate collected ready-made food for the poor, at a time where there are no poor people to whom to distribute the food, they sell the food only to others but do not sell the food to themselves.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 驻讬专讜转 讜讛专拽讬讘讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讬转专 诪讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 诇讗 讘讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 讜讛讗 讬讬谉 讜讛讞诪讬抓 砖诪谉 讜讛讘讗讬砖 讚讘砖 讜讛讚讘讬砖 讚讬转专 诪讻讚讬 讞住专讜谞谉 谞讬谞讛讜 砖讗谞讬 讛谞讬 讻讬讜谉 讚拽诐 拽诐

In any event, it is taught: Produce and it rotted. What, is it not referring even to a case where they all rotted at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration? The Gemara rejects this: No; it is referring to a case where they deteriorated at their standard rate of deterioration. The Gemara asks: But aren鈥檛 the cases of wine and it fermented, oil and it putrefied, and honey and it spoiled cases where these items deteriorated at a rate greater than their standard rate of deterioration, as there is a significant difference in the price of wine before and after fermentation, and in the price of oil before and after putrefaction? The Gemara rejects that proof: Those cases are different. Once they become spoiled, they remain spoiled but do not continue to deteriorate. Therefore, although their deterioration was significant, there is nothing gained by selling it.

砖诪谉 讜讛讘讗讬砖 讚讘砖 讜讛讚讘讬砖

On a related note, the Gemara asks: Concerning the cases of oil and it putrefied, honey and it spoiled,

诇诪讗讬 讞讝讜 砖诪谉 讞讝讬 诇讙诇讚讗讬 讚讘砖 诇讻转讬砖讗 讚讙诪诇讬

for what use are they fit? According to the Rabbis, one sells them in court. Apparently, they must have some value. The Gemara answers: Oil is fit for tanners who would coat the hides with oil even if it had a foul odor. Honey it fit as a salve for a wound on the back of camels.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讜砖讛 诇讛诐 转拽谞讛 讜诪讜讻专谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讗讬 转拽谞转讗 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇拽谞拽谞讬诐

It is taught in the baraita: And the Rabbis say that the bailee effects a remedy for the spoiled products and sells them in court. The Gemara asks: What remedy does he effect for those products? Rav Ashi said: It is a remedy for the casks. Although the contents of the barrel are irreversibly spoiled, leaving it in the barrels will ruin the barrels.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诇讛驻住讚 诪专讜讘讛 讞砖砖讜 诇讛驻住讚 诪讜注讟 诇讗 讞砖砖讜 讜诪专 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讛驻住讚 诪讜注讟 谞诪讬 讞砖砖讜

The Gemara asks: Since Rabbi Meir agrees that when there is deterioration at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration, the bailee should sell the deposit, with regard to what issue do Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree? The Gemara answers: The dispute is that one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds: The Sages were concerned for a significant loss, but the Sages were not concerned for an insignificant loss, like damage to the barrels. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds: The Sages were concerned even for an insignificant loss.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讬诪讻专诐 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 讗转诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He sells it before the court, due to the fact that in doing so he is like one returning a lost item to the owner. It was stated that Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis.

讜讛讗 讗诪专讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讚讗 讝诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖砖谞讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讞讜抓 诪注专讘 讜爪讬讚谉 讜专讗讬讛 讗讞专讜谞讛

The Gemara asks: But why is it necessary for Rabbi Yo岣nan to issue that ruling specifically in this case? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan already say one other time that in general the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? As Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Every place where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taught a ruling in our mishna, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, except for the following three cases: The responsibility of the guarantor (Bava Batra 173b), and the incident that occurred in the city of Tzaidan (Gittin 74a), and the dispute with regard to evidence in the final disagreement (Sanhedrin 31a). By inference, in all other cases, Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion.

讗诪讜专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Abba and Rabba bar bar 岣na are amora鈥檌m and disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. Rabbi Abba holds that there was no general ruling, and therefore a ruling was necessary in this case. Rabba bar bar 岣na holds that Rabbi Yo岣nan issued a general ruling.

诪讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 谞砖诪注 讚诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬 砖讘讜讬 诪讚专讘谞谉 谞砖诪注 讚讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬 砖讘讜讬

The Gemara notes: From the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it is learned that the court authorizes a relative, who is the heir apparent, to descend and manage the property of a captive. A bailee who sells rotting produce is like one returning a lost item to the owner; one who manages the property of a captive who is unable to do so himself should have the same status. From the statement of the Rabbis, who say that the bailee may not touch the rotting produce, it is learned that the court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 讜注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讻专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讬 讻专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讜专讬讚讬谉

The Gemara rejects this parallel: And from where do you draw that conclusion? Perhaps Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel states his opinion here only due to the fact that the principal, i.e., the rotting produce, is destroyed. But there, indeed, the court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive, because if the land lies fallow, the land will remain intact, even if the captive will not profit. And perhaps the Rabbis state their opinion only here based either on the reason of Rav Kahana, that a person prefers his own produce, or on the reason of Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k, that there is concern that perhaps the owner designated the produce as teruma or tithe. But there, with regard to the captive鈥檚 property, those reasons do not apply, and indeed the court authorizes the relative to manage it.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚转专讬 讟注诪讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬 砖讘讜讬 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讚 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗 诇讗 转专讬 讟注诪讬 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that they are two independent reasons for these two halakhot? But doesn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Shmuel says: The court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive? Is it not due to the fact that there is one common reason for both halakhot? The Gemara rejects that reasoning: No, they are based upon two unrelated reasons, and Shmuel ruled the halakha in each case independently.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬 砖讘讜讬 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专讬 讟注诪讬 谞讬谞讛讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to say that the two halakhot are unrelated, as Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and Rav Na岣an says: The court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive. Rather, learn from it that they are based upon two unrelated reasons. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that they are unrelated.

讗转诪专 砖讘讜讬 砖谞砖讘讛 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬讜 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬讜

The Gemara notes that it was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to one who was taken captive. Rav says: The court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive. Shmuel says: The court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive.

讘砖砖诪注讜 讘讜 砖诪转 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪讜专讬讚讬谉

The Gemara limits the scope of the dispute: In a case where they heard that the captive died, everyone agrees that the court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive. The relative is the prospective heir and will tend to the land as if it were his own. If the captive returns, he will compensate the relative for his expenditures.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘砖诇讗 砖诪注讜 讘讜 砖诪转 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 讚诇诪讗 诪驻住讬讚 诇讛讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讻讗专讬住 诇讗 诪驻住讬讚 诇讛讜

When they disagree, it is in a case where they did not hear that the captive died and presumably he will return. Rav says: The court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive, lest he devalue the property. Since presumably the owner of the property is alive, the relative assumes that he will eventually be required to return the property to the owner. Therefore, he does not tend to the land as if it were his own but will farm the land to increase its short-term yield, at the expense of its long-term condition. And Shmuel says: The court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive. Since the Master said: In any case where one works a field that is not his, we appraise his work as if he were a sharecropper, the relative will not devalue the property. It is in his best interest to tend to the land to ensure that he will receive his payment.

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讜讞专讛 讗驻讬 讜讛专讙转讬 讗转讻诐 讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 砖谞砖讜转讬讛诐 讗诇诪谞讜转 讜讘谞讬讛诐 讬转讜诪讬诐 讗诇讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讬讜 谞砖讬讻诐 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. Rabbi Eliezer says: By inference, from that which is stated: 鈥淢y wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you鈥 (Exodus 22:23), I know that their wives shall be widows and their children orphans. Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎nd your wives shall be widows and your children orphans鈥 (Exodus 22:23)? Why is this clause in the verse necessary?

诪诇诪讚 砖谞砖讜转讬讛诐 诪讘拽砖讜转 诇讬谞砖讗 讜讗讬谉 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜讘谞讬讛谉 专讜爪讬诐 诇讬专讚 诇谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讛谉 讜讗讬谉 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗讜转谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讬专讚 讜诇诪讻讜专 转谞谉

The verse teaches an additional punishment, that the men will be killed with no witnesses. Their wives will seek to marry, and the courts will not allow them to do so without witnesses to their husbands鈥 deaths. And their children will wish to descend to their father鈥檚 property, to inherit it, and the courts will not allow them to do so. Apparently, the court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive. Rava said: We learned in the baraita that the courts do not allow them to descend and to sell the land, but the court does authorize a relative to descend and manage the land.

讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讜驻砖讟讛 专讘 砖砖转 诪讛讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 注诪专诐 讚诇诪讗 诇讬专讚 讜诇诪讻讜专 转谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇诪讗 诪驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讗转 讚诪注讬讬诇讬谉 驻讬诇讗 讘拽讜驻讗 讚诪讞讟讗 讜讛讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚谞砖讜转讬讛诐 [讜讘谞讬讛诐] 拽转谞讬 诪讛 讛转诐 讻诇诇 诇讗 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻诇诇 诇讗

The Gemara relates: There was a similar incident in Neharde鈥檃, and Rav Sheshet resolved the matter from this baraita and ruled that the court does not authorize a relative to descend to the property of a captive. Rav Amram said to him: Perhaps we learned in the baraita that the courts do not allow a relative to descend and to sell the land? Rav Sheshet said mockingly to him, employing a similar style: Perhaps you are from Pumbedita, where people pass an elephant through the eye of a needle, i.e., they engage in specious reasoning. But doesn鈥檛 the juxtaposition between their wives and their children in the verse teach that the meaning is similar in both cases? Just as there, with regard to the wives, it means that they may not remarry at all, so too here, with regard to the sons, it means that they may not descend to the property at all.

讜诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬 砖讘讜讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讬讜专讚 诇谞讻住讬 砖讘讜讬 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讬讚讜 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诪注 砖诪诪砖诪砖讬谉 讜讘讗讬谉 讜拽讚诐 讜转诇砖 讜讗讻诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讝专讬讝 讜谞砖讻专 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 谞讻住讬 砖讘讜讬讬谉 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 讗讜 讗讞讬讜 讗讜 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛诪讜专讬砖讬谉 讛诇讻讜 诇讛诐 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜砖诪注讜 讘讛谉 砖诪转

The Gemara comments: And the matter of whether the court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who descends to the property of a captive and works his field, the court does not confiscate it from his possession. And furthermore, even if he heard that the owners are approaching and arriving, and the one who descended to the field preceded their arrival and uprooted and consumed produce that grew that year, that person is deemed diligent and he profits, as he received a return on the work that he invested. And these are the cases where there is captives鈥 property: Cases where one鈥檚 father, or brother, or one of those relatives who bequeaths him an inheritance went to a country overseas, and those in his locale heard that the relative died.

讛讬讜专讚 诇谞讻住讬 谞讟讜砖讬诐 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讬讚讜 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 谞讻住讬 谞讟讜砖讬诐 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 讗讜 讗讞讬讜 讗讜 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛诪讜专讬砖讬谉 讛诇讻讜 诇讛诐 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜诇讗 砖诪注讜 讘讛诐 砖诪转 讜讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖诪注转讬 砖讛谞讟讜砖讬诐 讻砖讘讜讬讬谉

In the case of one who descends to abandoned property, the court removes it from the possession of the one managing it. And these are the cases where there is abandoned property: Cases where one鈥檚 father, or brother, or one of those relatives who bequeaths him an inheritance went to a country overseas, and those in his locale did not hear that the relative died. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: I heard that the legal status of abandoned property is like that of the property of captives, and it is not confiscated from the possession of the one managing it. The dispute between the first tanna and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel parallels the dispute between Rav and Shmuel.

讛讬讜专讚 诇谞讻住讬 专讟讜砖讬诐 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讬讚讜 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 谞讻住讬 专讟讜砖讬诐 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 讗讜 讗讞讬讜 讗讜 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛诪讜专讬砖讬谉 讻讗谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 诇讛讬讻谉 讛诇讻讜

With regard to one who descends to forsaken property, the court removes it from his possession. And these are the cases where there is forsaken property: Cases where one鈥檚 father, or brother, or one of those relatives who bequeaths him an inheritance was here, and the relative does not know where they went. Everyone agrees that in these instances the court does not authorize a relative to descend to the property.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛谞讱 讚拽专讜 诇讛讜 谞讟讜砖讬诐 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛谞讬 讚拽专讜 诇讛讜 专讟讜砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is different about one property, that it is called abandoned property? And what is different about the other property, that it is called forsaken property?

Scroll To Top