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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 13, 2016 | 讬状讘 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 48

Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish debate whether money can acquire an item from the Torah but the rabbis decreed that it doesn’t or that only pulling works to acquire an item by Torah law. 聽Sources are brought to try to prove each side. 聽If you give a deposit and then want to change your mind, it is considered that you committed to the entire transaction or just for the part that your deposit covered? 聽Rav and Rabbi Yochanan debate this point. 聽An attempt to question Rav’s opinion is brought but the case dealt with land and the gemara explained that since land can be acquired through money, the deposit is sufficient to require both sides to follow through with the whole transaction but the same would not apply to moveable items as they cannot be acquired through money – therefore one must only keep his commitment for the part that he already paid for.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讟诇讬转 拽讜谞讛 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 讜讗讬谉 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 拽讜谞讛 讟诇讬转 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讻讱 讛诇讻讛 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 诪讬 砖驻专注 诪讗谞砖讬 讚讜专 讛诪讘讜诇 讜诪讗谞砖讬 讚讜专 讛驻诇讙讛 讜诪讗谞砖讬 住讚讜诐 讜注诪讜专讛 讜诪诪爪专讬诐 讘讬诐 讛讜讗 注转讬讚 诇讬驻专注 诪诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜诪讚 讘讚讬讘讜专讜

Rabbi Shimon says: Even though the Sages said that when one party takes possession of a garment, the other party acquires a gold dinar, but when one party takes possession of a gold dinar, the other party does not acquire a garment, in any case, that is what the halakha would be. But the Sages said with regard to one who reneges on a transaction where one party pulled the gold dinar into his possession: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the people of the generation of the dispersion, and from the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and from the Egyptians in the Red Sea, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement.

讜讛谞讜砖讗 讜谞讜转谉 讘讚讘专讬诐 诇讗 拽谞讛 讜讛讞讜讝专 讘讜 讗讬谉 专讜讞 讞讻诪讬诐 谞讜讞讛 讛讬诪谞讜

The baraita concludes: And one who negotiates, where the negotiation culminates with a statement committing himself to acquire the item, did not acquire the item without a formal act of acquisition. But with regard to one who reneges on his commitment, the Sages are displeased with him.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讗谞讜 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讗诇讗 讗讬谉 专讜讞 讞讻诪讬诐 谞讜讞讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讚讘专讬诐 讜讗讬讻讗 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 诪注讜转 拽讗讬 讘讗讘诇 讚讘专讬诐 讜诇讬讻讗 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 诪注讜转 诇讗 拽讗讬 讘讗讘诇

And Rava says: With regard to one who reneges on his commitment, we have only the statement that the Sages are displeased with him, but not that he is subject to a curse. The Gemara explains: If there is a statement of commitment and there is the payment of money accompanying it, he stands subject to the curse: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment. If there is a statement of commitment and there is no payment of money accompanying it, he does not stand subject to the curse: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment.

讗诪专 专讘讗 拽专讗 讜诪转谞讬转讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 拽专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻讞砖 讘注诪讬转讜 讘驻拽讚讜谉 讗讜 讘转砖讜诪转 讬讚 讗讜 讘讙讝诇 讗讜 注砖拽 讗转 注诪讬转讜 转砖讜诪转 讬讚 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讬讞讚 诇讜 讻诇讬 诇讛诇讜讗转讜 注砖拽 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讬讞讚 诇讜 讻诇讬 诇注砖拽讜

Rava says: A verse and a baraita support the opinion of Reish Lakish that money does not effect acquisition of movable property by Torah law. A verse, as it is written: 鈥淎nd deal falsely with his colleague in a matter of deposit, or of pledge, or of robbery, or oppressed his colleague鈥 (Leviticus 5:21). The verse is referring to cases similar to a deposit where there is denial of an item and not merely a debt. With regard to the term 鈥減ledge,鈥 Rav 岣sda says: This is referring to a case where the debtor designated a vessel as collateral for his loan and then denies his debt. With regard to the term 鈥渙ppressed,鈥 Rav 岣sda says: This is referring to a case where the employer designated a vessel for him to guarantee payment of his wages and withheld payment, resulting in his oppression.

讜讻讬 讗讛讚专讬讛 拽专讗 讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讛 讻讬 讬讞讟讗 讜讗砖诐 讜讛砖讬讘 讗转 讛讙讝诇讛 讗砖专 讙讝诇 讗讜 讗转 讛注砖拽 讗砖专 注砖拽 讗讜 讗转 讛驻拽讚讜谉 讗砖专 讛驻拽讚 讗转讜 讜讗讬诇讜 转砖讜诪转 讬讚 诇讗 讗讛讚专讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讞住专讗 诪砖讬讻讛

And when the verse repeats three of these cases after stating that each individual admitted that he lied and is liable to return the item that he misappropriated, it is written: 鈥淎nd then it shall be, if he has sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took by robbery, or the thing that he has gotten by oppression, or the deposit that was deposited with him鈥 (Leviticus 5:23), while the verse does not repeat the term 鈥減ledge.鈥 What is the reason that the verse omits that case? Is it not because it lacks pulling by the lender? Since the lender did not pull the item designated as collateral for the loan, he did not acquire the item and is not liable to bring an offering for taking a false oath if he fails to pay, as he denied owing an abstract debt, not an actual item. Apparently, there is no full-fledged acquisition without pulling the item into one鈥檚 possession.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讗讬诪讗 诪注讜砖拽 讛讜讗 讚讛讚专 拽专讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟诇讜 诪诪谞讜 讜讞讝专讜 讜讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇讜

Rav Pappa said to Rava: Say that it suffices that the verse repeated the case of oppression. In that case, there is also no denial of an actual item, merely of an obligation to pay one鈥檚 worker. The halakha would be the same in the case of a pledge, i.e., of a loan where the lender designated an item although there was no pulling. The Gemara rejects that contention: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the workers took the item for their payment from the employer, and then deposited that item with him, and the employer than denied having received that deposit. Accordingly, he is denying owing an actual item, not an abstract debt.

讛讬讬谞讜 驻拽讚讜谉 转专讬 讙讜谞讬 驻拽讚讜谉

The Gemara challenges this explanation: That is precisely the case of a deposit that is already mentioned in the verse. What novel element is introduced by this case? The Gemara explains: There are two types of deposit: A standard deposit and the case where one deposits with a bailee an item that had previously belonged to the bailee.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转砖讜诪转 讬讚 谞诪讬 诇讬讛讚专讬讛 讜诇讜拽诪讬讛 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟诇讜 讛讬诪谞讜 讜讞讝专 讜讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇讜 讗讬 讗讛讚专讬讛 拽专讗 诇讗 转讬讜讘转讗 讜诇讗 住讬讬注转讗 讛砖转讗 讚诇讗 讗讛讚专讬讛 拽专讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: If so, and that is the explanation of the verse, let the verse repeat the case of a pledge as well, and interpret it in a case where the lender took the item from him by pulling it into his possession, and then deposited that item with the debtor. The Gemara responds: If the verse had repeated the case of a pledge it would be neither a refutation of nor a support for the opinion of Reish Lakish, as the cases could be explained otherwise. Now that the verse does not repeat the case of a pledge, it supports his opinion that one acquires movable property only by means of pulling it into his possession.

讜转砖讜诪转 讬讚 诇讗 讗讛讚专讬讛 拽专讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪谞讬谉 诇讬转谉 讗转 讛讗诪讜专 诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗讜 诪讻诇 讗砖专 讬砖讘注 注诇讬讜 诇砖拽专 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇专讘讜转 转砖讜诪转 讬讚 诇讛讬砖讘讜谉 讘讛讚讬讗 诪讬讛讗 诇讗 讗讛讚专讬讛 拽专讗

The Gemara asks: And does the verse not repeat the case of a pledge? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon said: From where is it derived to apply that which is stated above, in the first verse cited from Leviticus, to the verse stated below, i.e., the second verse cited from Leviticus? It is derived as it is written: 鈥淥r anything about which he has taken a false oath鈥 (Leviticus 5:24). And Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: This clause serves to include the case of a pledge in the requirement of return, teaching that even in the case where the debtor designated an item as collateral for a loan, the lender is obligated to return the item although there was no pulling. The Gemara rejects that contention: In any event, the verse did not repeat the case of a pledge explicitly, and one derives support for the opinion of Reish Lakish from that omission.

诪转谞讬转讗 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 谞转谞讛 诇讘诇谉 诪注诇 讜讗诪专 专讘 讚讜拽讗 讘诇谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讞住专讗 诪砖讬讻讛 讗讘诇 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬转讗 讚诪讞住专讗 诪砖讬讻讛 诇讗 诪注诇 注讚 讚诪砖讬讱

From where do we derive support for the opinion of Reish Lakish from a baraita? It is as it is taught in a baraita: If one had consecrated money and gave it to a bathhouse attendant [leballan] as payment for use of the bath, he is liable for misuse of consecrated property as soon as he pays him, even before he uses the bathhouse. And Rav says: One can infer that it is specifically with regard to one giving the consecrated money to a bathhouse attendant that he is liable immediately, as in that case there is no lack of pulling, since he is paying for usage of the bathhouse, not for an item. But one can infer that in cases involving other matters, where the one giving the consecrated money is acquiring an item and there is a lack of pulling, he is liable for misuse only once he pulls the item he is purchasing. Apparently, by Torah law, it is only by means of pulling an item into his possession, not through payment of money, that one acquires an item.

讜讛转谞讬讗 谞转谞讛 诇住驻专 诪注诇 讜住驻专 讛讗 讘注讬 诇诪诪砖讱 转住驻讜专转 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘住驻专 谞讻专讬 讚诇讗讜 讘专 诪砖讬讻讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If one had consecrated money and gave it to a barber, he is liable for misuse of consecrated property immediately, as soon as he gives him the money, and in the case of a barber, doesn鈥檛 he need to pull the haircut utensils in order for their transaction to be finalized? The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a gentile barber, who is not subject to the requirement of pulling, which applies only to Jews, as it is written: 鈥淎nd if you sell to your colleague something that is sold.鈥 Everyone agrees that a transaction with gentiles is finalized with the payment of money.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 谞转谞讛 诇住驻专 讗讜 诇住驻谉 讗讜 诇讻诇 讘注诇讬 讗讜诪谞讜转 诇讗 诪注诇 注讚 讚诪砖讱 拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讗谉 讘住驻专 谞讻专讬 讻讗谉 讘住驻专 讬砖专讗诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: If one had consecrated money and gave it to a barber, or to a sailor, or to any craftsmen, he is liable for misuse of consecrated property only once he pulls the item belonging to the worker. The Gemara asks: These two baraitot are difficult, as they contradict each other. The first baraita states that if one had consecrated money and he gave it to a barber, he is liable for misuse of consecrated property as soon as he gives the money. The second baraita states that he is liable for misuse of consecrated property only once he pulls the item. Rather, must one not conclude from it that here, the halakha in the first baraita is with regard to one who gives consecrated money to a gentile barber, who is liable when he gives the money to the barber, and there, the halakha in the second baraita is with regard to one who gives consecrated money to a Jewish barber, who is liable only once he pulls the item? The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the case.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讘专 转讜专讛 诪注讜转 拽讜谞讜转 讜讘讚拽讛 诇讜讬 讘诪转谞讬转讬讛 讜讗砖讻讞 谞转谞讛 诇住讬讟讜谉 诪注诇

The Gemara comments: And so says Rav Na岣an, in agreement with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: By Torah law, the giving of money effects acquisition of movable property. The Gemara adds: And Levi examined his compendium of baraitot, and he discovered this baraita: If one had a consecrated ma鈥檃 and he gave it to a wholesaler [siton] as the first payment for a large quantity of produce, he is liable for misuse of consecrated property. This baraita describes a situation where the buyer did not pull the produce, yet he is liable for misuse. Apparently, by Torah law the giving of money effects acquisition.

讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讱 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗

But this baraita is difficult according to Reish Lakish. The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish could have said to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, not that of the Rabbis.

讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 诪讬 砖驻专注 讜讻讜壮 讗讬转诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗讜讚讜注讬 诪讜讚注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讬诇讟 诇讬讬讟讬谞谉 诇讬讛

搂 The mishna teaches with regard to one who reneges on a transaction after the money was paid: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the generation of the dispersion, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement. It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute. Abaye said that we inform one who seeks to renege on a transaction: Be aware that this is the punishment of one who does not stand by his statement. Rava said that we curse him with that statement.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗讜讚讜注讬 诪讜讚注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞砖讬讗 讘注诪讱 诇讗 转讗专 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讬诇讟 诇讬讬讟讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘注诪讱 讘注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 注诪讱

The Gemara elaborates: Abaye said that we inform him, as it is written: 鈥淣or curse a ruler among your people鈥 (Exodus 22:27), from which it is derived that it is prohibited to curse a ruler or any other member of the Jewish people. Rava said that we curse him, and the prohibition against cursing is not a concern, as it is written: 鈥淎mong your people,鈥 from which it is derived that the prohibition applies only with regard to one who performs an action befitting your people, not one who reneges on a transaction after the money is paid.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讬讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讗诪诇讞讗 诇住讜祝 讗讬讬拽专 诪诇讞讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讛讘 诇讛讜 讜讗讬 诇讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讱 诪讬 砖驻专注 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讜讚讜注讬 诪讜讚注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讘专 讗讜讚讜注讬 讛讜讗 讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诪讬诇讟 诇讬讬讟讬谞谉 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗转讬 诇拽讘讜诇讬 注诇讬讛 诇讟讜转讗 讚专讘谞谉

Rava said: From where do I say this halakha? I learned it from the incident where buyers gave Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef money to purchase salt from him. Ultimately the price of salt increased, and Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef sought to renege on the deal. He came before Rabbi Yo岣nan to ask his opinion. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Go and give them the salt, and if not, accept upon yourself: He Who exacted payment. And if you say we merely inform him of this punishment, is Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef one who must be informed? He knows the halakha. The Gemara rejects this proof: Rather, what is the alternative, that we curse him? Would Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef come to accept upon himself a curse of the Sages?

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 注专讘讜谉 讛讜讗 讚讬讛讘讬 诇讬讛 讛讜讗 住讘专 讻谞讙讚讜 讛讜讗 拽讜谞讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻谞讙讚 讻讜诇讜 讛讜讗 拽讜谞讛

Rather, the details of the incident were different. It is a down payment that buyers gave Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef. The money was paid merely to bolster the commitment to complete the transaction. Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef held that the down payment effects acquisition of salt commensurate with its value, and therefore he wanted to give them only that portion of the salt. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: The down payment effects acquisition of salt commensurate with the entire amount of the transaction.

讗转诪专 注专讘讜谉 专讘 讗讜诪专 讻谞讙讚讜 讛讜讗 拽讜谞讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻谞讙讚 讻讜诇讜 讛讜讗 拽讜谞讛

It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to a down payment. Rav says: A down payment effects acquisition of merchandise commensurate with its value. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It effects acquisition of merchandise commensurate with the entire amount of the transaction.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛谞讜转谉 注专讘讜谉 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讗诐 讗谞讬 讞讜讝专 讘讬 注专讘讜谞讬 诪讞讜诇 诇讱 讜讛诇讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讗诐 讗谞讬 讗讞讝讜专 讘讬 讗讻驻讜诇 诇讱 注专讘讜谞讱 谞转拽讬讬诪讜 讛转谞讗讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗住诪讻转讗 拽谞讬讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to one who gives a down payment to another, and says to him: If I renege, my down payment is forfeited to you, and the other person says to him: If I renege, I will double your down payment for you, the conditions are in effect; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yosei conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says: A transaction with inconclusive consent [asmakhta] effects acquisition. Even though it is a commitment that he undertook based on his certainty that he would never be forced to fulfill the condition, it is considered a full-fledged commitment.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讚讬讜 砖讬拽谞讛 讻谞讙讚 注专讘讜谞讜 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 注专讘讜谞讬 讬拽讜谉 讗讘诇 诪讻专 诇讜 讘讬转 讗讜 砖讚讛 讘讗诇祝 讝讜讝 讜驻专注 诇讜 诪讛诐 讞诪砖 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 拽谞讛 讜诪讞讝讬专 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讗专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 讻诪讛 砖谞讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讚住转诪讗 拽谞讬 诇讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says: It is sufficient that the down payment effects acquisition of merchandise commensurate with the amount of his down payment. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement said? It is when the buyer said to the seller: My down payment will effect acquisition of the merchandise. But if one sold another a house or a field for one thousand dinars, and the buyer paid him five hundred dinars of that sum, he has acquired the entire house, and he returns the rest of the money to the seller even after several years have passed. The Gemara asks: What, is it not that the same is true with regard to movable property as well, and in a case where the agreement is unspecified, the buyer acquires the entire item, not merely commensurate with the down payment?

诇讗 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讚住转诪讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 拽专拽注 讚讘讻住驻讗 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诪诪砖 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讜诇讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬 讚诇讗 拽谞讬 讗诇讗 诇拽讘讜诇讬 诪讬 砖驻专注 诇讗 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬讛

The Gemara rejects that comparison: No, with regard to movable property in a case where the agreement is unspecified, the buyer does not acquire the entire item. The Gemara asks: And in what way is movable property different from land? The Gemara explains: In the case of land, which with the payment of money one genuinely acquires it in a legal sense, the buyer acquires the entire tract of land with a down payment. In the case of movable property, which with the payment of money one acquires it only in the sense that if he reneges he will have to receive the curse: He Who exacted payment, the buyer does not acquire the entire item with a down payment.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 注诇 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讜谞讻谞住讛 讛砖诪讬讟讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讜讛 讗诇讗 驻诇讙 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讚讘专讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪砖讻讜谉 讻谞讙讚 讛诇讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诪砖诪讟

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this amoraic dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yo岣nan is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who lends money to another on the basis of collateral, and the Sabbatical Year commenced, even if the collateral is worth only half the sum of the loan, the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate the loan; this is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: If the value of the collateral was commensurate with the sum of his loan, the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate the loan, but if it was not commensurate with the sum of his loan, the Sabbatical Year abrogates the loan.

诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讚拽讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻谞讙讚讜 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 住讘专 诇讛讱 驻诇讙讗 谞诪讬 诪砖诪讟

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the statement: The Sabbatical Year does not abrogate the loan, that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is saying? If we say it means that the Sabbatical Year does not cancel that part of the loan commensurate with the collateral, but it does cancel the rest, this indicates by inference that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the Sabbatical Year also abrogates that half as well. That is difficult, as is there not collateral commensurate with that half?

  • 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 48

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 48

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讟诇讬转 拽讜谞讛 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 讜讗讬谉 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 拽讜谞讛 讟诇讬转 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讻讱 讛诇讻讛 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 诪讬 砖驻专注 诪讗谞砖讬 讚讜专 讛诪讘讜诇 讜诪讗谞砖讬 讚讜专 讛驻诇讙讛 讜诪讗谞砖讬 住讚讜诐 讜注诪讜专讛 讜诪诪爪专讬诐 讘讬诐 讛讜讗 注转讬讚 诇讬驻专注 诪诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜诪讚 讘讚讬讘讜专讜

Rabbi Shimon says: Even though the Sages said that when one party takes possession of a garment, the other party acquires a gold dinar, but when one party takes possession of a gold dinar, the other party does not acquire a garment, in any case, that is what the halakha would be. But the Sages said with regard to one who reneges on a transaction where one party pulled the gold dinar into his possession: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the people of the generation of the dispersion, and from the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and from the Egyptians in the Red Sea, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement.

讜讛谞讜砖讗 讜谞讜转谉 讘讚讘专讬诐 诇讗 拽谞讛 讜讛讞讜讝专 讘讜 讗讬谉 专讜讞 讞讻诪讬诐 谞讜讞讛 讛讬诪谞讜

The baraita concludes: And one who negotiates, where the negotiation culminates with a statement committing himself to acquire the item, did not acquire the item without a formal act of acquisition. But with regard to one who reneges on his commitment, the Sages are displeased with him.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讗谞讜 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讗诇讗 讗讬谉 专讜讞 讞讻诪讬诐 谞讜讞讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讚讘专讬诐 讜讗讬讻讗 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 诪注讜转 拽讗讬 讘讗讘诇 讚讘专讬诐 讜诇讬讻讗 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 诪注讜转 诇讗 拽讗讬 讘讗讘诇

And Rava says: With regard to one who reneges on his commitment, we have only the statement that the Sages are displeased with him, but not that he is subject to a curse. The Gemara explains: If there is a statement of commitment and there is the payment of money accompanying it, he stands subject to the curse: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment. If there is a statement of commitment and there is no payment of money accompanying it, he does not stand subject to the curse: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment.

讗诪专 专讘讗 拽专讗 讜诪转谞讬转讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 拽专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻讞砖 讘注诪讬转讜 讘驻拽讚讜谉 讗讜 讘转砖讜诪转 讬讚 讗讜 讘讙讝诇 讗讜 注砖拽 讗转 注诪讬转讜 转砖讜诪转 讬讚 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讬讞讚 诇讜 讻诇讬 诇讛诇讜讗转讜 注砖拽 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讬讞讚 诇讜 讻诇讬 诇注砖拽讜

Rava says: A verse and a baraita support the opinion of Reish Lakish that money does not effect acquisition of movable property by Torah law. A verse, as it is written: 鈥淎nd deal falsely with his colleague in a matter of deposit, or of pledge, or of robbery, or oppressed his colleague鈥 (Leviticus 5:21). The verse is referring to cases similar to a deposit where there is denial of an item and not merely a debt. With regard to the term 鈥減ledge,鈥 Rav 岣sda says: This is referring to a case where the debtor designated a vessel as collateral for his loan and then denies his debt. With regard to the term 鈥渙ppressed,鈥 Rav 岣sda says: This is referring to a case where the employer designated a vessel for him to guarantee payment of his wages and withheld payment, resulting in his oppression.

讜讻讬 讗讛讚专讬讛 拽专讗 讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讛 讻讬 讬讞讟讗 讜讗砖诐 讜讛砖讬讘 讗转 讛讙讝诇讛 讗砖专 讙讝诇 讗讜 讗转 讛注砖拽 讗砖专 注砖拽 讗讜 讗转 讛驻拽讚讜谉 讗砖专 讛驻拽讚 讗转讜 讜讗讬诇讜 转砖讜诪转 讬讚 诇讗 讗讛讚专讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讞住专讗 诪砖讬讻讛

And when the verse repeats three of these cases after stating that each individual admitted that he lied and is liable to return the item that he misappropriated, it is written: 鈥淎nd then it shall be, if he has sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took by robbery, or the thing that he has gotten by oppression, or the deposit that was deposited with him鈥 (Leviticus 5:23), while the verse does not repeat the term 鈥減ledge.鈥 What is the reason that the verse omits that case? Is it not because it lacks pulling by the lender? Since the lender did not pull the item designated as collateral for the loan, he did not acquire the item and is not liable to bring an offering for taking a false oath if he fails to pay, as he denied owing an abstract debt, not an actual item. Apparently, there is no full-fledged acquisition without pulling the item into one鈥檚 possession.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讗讬诪讗 诪注讜砖拽 讛讜讗 讚讛讚专 拽专讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟诇讜 诪诪谞讜 讜讞讝专讜 讜讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇讜

Rav Pappa said to Rava: Say that it suffices that the verse repeated the case of oppression. In that case, there is also no denial of an actual item, merely of an obligation to pay one鈥檚 worker. The halakha would be the same in the case of a pledge, i.e., of a loan where the lender designated an item although there was no pulling. The Gemara rejects that contention: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the workers took the item for their payment from the employer, and then deposited that item with him, and the employer than denied having received that deposit. Accordingly, he is denying owing an actual item, not an abstract debt.

讛讬讬谞讜 驻拽讚讜谉 转专讬 讙讜谞讬 驻拽讚讜谉

The Gemara challenges this explanation: That is precisely the case of a deposit that is already mentioned in the verse. What novel element is introduced by this case? The Gemara explains: There are two types of deposit: A standard deposit and the case where one deposits with a bailee an item that had previously belonged to the bailee.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转砖讜诪转 讬讚 谞诪讬 诇讬讛讚专讬讛 讜诇讜拽诪讬讛 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟诇讜 讛讬诪谞讜 讜讞讝专 讜讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇讜 讗讬 讗讛讚专讬讛 拽专讗 诇讗 转讬讜讘转讗 讜诇讗 住讬讬注转讗 讛砖转讗 讚诇讗 讗讛讚专讬讛 拽专讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: If so, and that is the explanation of the verse, let the verse repeat the case of a pledge as well, and interpret it in a case where the lender took the item from him by pulling it into his possession, and then deposited that item with the debtor. The Gemara responds: If the verse had repeated the case of a pledge it would be neither a refutation of nor a support for the opinion of Reish Lakish, as the cases could be explained otherwise. Now that the verse does not repeat the case of a pledge, it supports his opinion that one acquires movable property only by means of pulling it into his possession.

讜转砖讜诪转 讬讚 诇讗 讗讛讚专讬讛 拽专讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪谞讬谉 诇讬转谉 讗转 讛讗诪讜专 诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗讜 诪讻诇 讗砖专 讬砖讘注 注诇讬讜 诇砖拽专 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇专讘讜转 转砖讜诪转 讬讚 诇讛讬砖讘讜谉 讘讛讚讬讗 诪讬讛讗 诇讗 讗讛讚专讬讛 拽专讗

The Gemara asks: And does the verse not repeat the case of a pledge? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon said: From where is it derived to apply that which is stated above, in the first verse cited from Leviticus, to the verse stated below, i.e., the second verse cited from Leviticus? It is derived as it is written: 鈥淥r anything about which he has taken a false oath鈥 (Leviticus 5:24). And Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: This clause serves to include the case of a pledge in the requirement of return, teaching that even in the case where the debtor designated an item as collateral for a loan, the lender is obligated to return the item although there was no pulling. The Gemara rejects that contention: In any event, the verse did not repeat the case of a pledge explicitly, and one derives support for the opinion of Reish Lakish from that omission.

诪转谞讬转讗 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 谞转谞讛 诇讘诇谉 诪注诇 讜讗诪专 专讘 讚讜拽讗 讘诇谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讞住专讗 诪砖讬讻讛 讗讘诇 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬转讗 讚诪讞住专讗 诪砖讬讻讛 诇讗 诪注诇 注讚 讚诪砖讬讱

From where do we derive support for the opinion of Reish Lakish from a baraita? It is as it is taught in a baraita: If one had consecrated money and gave it to a bathhouse attendant [leballan] as payment for use of the bath, he is liable for misuse of consecrated property as soon as he pays him, even before he uses the bathhouse. And Rav says: One can infer that it is specifically with regard to one giving the consecrated money to a bathhouse attendant that he is liable immediately, as in that case there is no lack of pulling, since he is paying for usage of the bathhouse, not for an item. But one can infer that in cases involving other matters, where the one giving the consecrated money is acquiring an item and there is a lack of pulling, he is liable for misuse only once he pulls the item he is purchasing. Apparently, by Torah law, it is only by means of pulling an item into his possession, not through payment of money, that one acquires an item.

讜讛转谞讬讗 谞转谞讛 诇住驻专 诪注诇 讜住驻专 讛讗 讘注讬 诇诪诪砖讱 转住驻讜专转 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘住驻专 谞讻专讬 讚诇讗讜 讘专 诪砖讬讻讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If one had consecrated money and gave it to a barber, he is liable for misuse of consecrated property immediately, as soon as he gives him the money, and in the case of a barber, doesn鈥檛 he need to pull the haircut utensils in order for their transaction to be finalized? The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a gentile barber, who is not subject to the requirement of pulling, which applies only to Jews, as it is written: 鈥淎nd if you sell to your colleague something that is sold.鈥 Everyone agrees that a transaction with gentiles is finalized with the payment of money.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 谞转谞讛 诇住驻专 讗讜 诇住驻谉 讗讜 诇讻诇 讘注诇讬 讗讜诪谞讜转 诇讗 诪注诇 注讚 讚诪砖讱 拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讗谉 讘住驻专 谞讻专讬 讻讗谉 讘住驻专 讬砖专讗诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: If one had consecrated money and gave it to a barber, or to a sailor, or to any craftsmen, he is liable for misuse of consecrated property only once he pulls the item belonging to the worker. The Gemara asks: These two baraitot are difficult, as they contradict each other. The first baraita states that if one had consecrated money and he gave it to a barber, he is liable for misuse of consecrated property as soon as he gives the money. The second baraita states that he is liable for misuse of consecrated property only once he pulls the item. Rather, must one not conclude from it that here, the halakha in the first baraita is with regard to one who gives consecrated money to a gentile barber, who is liable when he gives the money to the barber, and there, the halakha in the second baraita is with regard to one who gives consecrated money to a Jewish barber, who is liable only once he pulls the item? The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the case.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讘专 转讜专讛 诪注讜转 拽讜谞讜转 讜讘讚拽讛 诇讜讬 讘诪转谞讬转讬讛 讜讗砖讻讞 谞转谞讛 诇住讬讟讜谉 诪注诇

The Gemara comments: And so says Rav Na岣an, in agreement with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: By Torah law, the giving of money effects acquisition of movable property. The Gemara adds: And Levi examined his compendium of baraitot, and he discovered this baraita: If one had a consecrated ma鈥檃 and he gave it to a wholesaler [siton] as the first payment for a large quantity of produce, he is liable for misuse of consecrated property. This baraita describes a situation where the buyer did not pull the produce, yet he is liable for misuse. Apparently, by Torah law the giving of money effects acquisition.

讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讱 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗

But this baraita is difficult according to Reish Lakish. The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish could have said to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, not that of the Rabbis.

讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 诪讬 砖驻专注 讜讻讜壮 讗讬转诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗讜讚讜注讬 诪讜讚注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讬诇讟 诇讬讬讟讬谞谉 诇讬讛

搂 The mishna teaches with regard to one who reneges on a transaction after the money was paid: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the generation of the dispersion, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement. It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute. Abaye said that we inform one who seeks to renege on a transaction: Be aware that this is the punishment of one who does not stand by his statement. Rava said that we curse him with that statement.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗讜讚讜注讬 诪讜讚注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞砖讬讗 讘注诪讱 诇讗 转讗专 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讬诇讟 诇讬讬讟讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘注诪讱 讘注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 注诪讱

The Gemara elaborates: Abaye said that we inform him, as it is written: 鈥淣or curse a ruler among your people鈥 (Exodus 22:27), from which it is derived that it is prohibited to curse a ruler or any other member of the Jewish people. Rava said that we curse him, and the prohibition against cursing is not a concern, as it is written: 鈥淎mong your people,鈥 from which it is derived that the prohibition applies only with regard to one who performs an action befitting your people, not one who reneges on a transaction after the money is paid.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讬讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讗诪诇讞讗 诇住讜祝 讗讬讬拽专 诪诇讞讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讛讘 诇讛讜 讜讗讬 诇讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讱 诪讬 砖驻专注 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讜讚讜注讬 诪讜讚注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讘专 讗讜讚讜注讬 讛讜讗 讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诪讬诇讟 诇讬讬讟讬谞谉 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗转讬 诇拽讘讜诇讬 注诇讬讛 诇讟讜转讗 讚专讘谞谉

Rava said: From where do I say this halakha? I learned it from the incident where buyers gave Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef money to purchase salt from him. Ultimately the price of salt increased, and Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef sought to renege on the deal. He came before Rabbi Yo岣nan to ask his opinion. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Go and give them the salt, and if not, accept upon yourself: He Who exacted payment. And if you say we merely inform him of this punishment, is Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef one who must be informed? He knows the halakha. The Gemara rejects this proof: Rather, what is the alternative, that we curse him? Would Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef come to accept upon himself a curse of the Sages?

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 注专讘讜谉 讛讜讗 讚讬讛讘讬 诇讬讛 讛讜讗 住讘专 讻谞讙讚讜 讛讜讗 拽讜谞讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻谞讙讚 讻讜诇讜 讛讜讗 拽讜谞讛

Rather, the details of the incident were different. It is a down payment that buyers gave Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef. The money was paid merely to bolster the commitment to complete the transaction. Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef held that the down payment effects acquisition of salt commensurate with its value, and therefore he wanted to give them only that portion of the salt. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: The down payment effects acquisition of salt commensurate with the entire amount of the transaction.

讗转诪专 注专讘讜谉 专讘 讗讜诪专 讻谞讙讚讜 讛讜讗 拽讜谞讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻谞讙讚 讻讜诇讜 讛讜讗 拽讜谞讛

It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to a down payment. Rav says: A down payment effects acquisition of merchandise commensurate with its value. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It effects acquisition of merchandise commensurate with the entire amount of the transaction.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛谞讜转谉 注专讘讜谉 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讗诐 讗谞讬 讞讜讝专 讘讬 注专讘讜谞讬 诪讞讜诇 诇讱 讜讛诇讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讗诐 讗谞讬 讗讞讝讜专 讘讬 讗讻驻讜诇 诇讱 注专讘讜谞讱 谞转拽讬讬诪讜 讛转谞讗讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗住诪讻转讗 拽谞讬讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to one who gives a down payment to another, and says to him: If I renege, my down payment is forfeited to you, and the other person says to him: If I renege, I will double your down payment for you, the conditions are in effect; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yosei conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says: A transaction with inconclusive consent [asmakhta] effects acquisition. Even though it is a commitment that he undertook based on his certainty that he would never be forced to fulfill the condition, it is considered a full-fledged commitment.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讚讬讜 砖讬拽谞讛 讻谞讙讚 注专讘讜谞讜 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 注专讘讜谞讬 讬拽讜谉 讗讘诇 诪讻专 诇讜 讘讬转 讗讜 砖讚讛 讘讗诇祝 讝讜讝 讜驻专注 诇讜 诪讛诐 讞诪砖 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 拽谞讛 讜诪讞讝讬专 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讗专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 讻诪讛 砖谞讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讚住转诪讗 拽谞讬 诇讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says: It is sufficient that the down payment effects acquisition of merchandise commensurate with the amount of his down payment. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement said? It is when the buyer said to the seller: My down payment will effect acquisition of the merchandise. But if one sold another a house or a field for one thousand dinars, and the buyer paid him five hundred dinars of that sum, he has acquired the entire house, and he returns the rest of the money to the seller even after several years have passed. The Gemara asks: What, is it not that the same is true with regard to movable property as well, and in a case where the agreement is unspecified, the buyer acquires the entire item, not merely commensurate with the down payment?

诇讗 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讚住转诪讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 拽专拽注 讚讘讻住驻讗 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诪诪砖 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讜诇讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬 讚诇讗 拽谞讬 讗诇讗 诇拽讘讜诇讬 诪讬 砖驻专注 诇讗 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬讛

The Gemara rejects that comparison: No, with regard to movable property in a case where the agreement is unspecified, the buyer does not acquire the entire item. The Gemara asks: And in what way is movable property different from land? The Gemara explains: In the case of land, which with the payment of money one genuinely acquires it in a legal sense, the buyer acquires the entire tract of land with a down payment. In the case of movable property, which with the payment of money one acquires it only in the sense that if he reneges he will have to receive the curse: He Who exacted payment, the buyer does not acquire the entire item with a down payment.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 注诇 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讜谞讻谞住讛 讛砖诪讬讟讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讜讛 讗诇讗 驻诇讙 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讚讘专讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪砖讻讜谉 讻谞讙讚 讛诇讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诪砖诪讟

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this amoraic dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yo岣nan is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who lends money to another on the basis of collateral, and the Sabbatical Year commenced, even if the collateral is worth only half the sum of the loan, the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate the loan; this is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: If the value of the collateral was commensurate with the sum of his loan, the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate the loan, but if it was not commensurate with the sum of his loan, the Sabbatical Year abrogates the loan.

诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讚拽讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻谞讙讚讜 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 住讘专 诇讛讱 驻诇讙讗 谞诪讬 诪砖诪讟

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the statement: The Sabbatical Year does not abrogate the loan, that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is saying? If we say it means that the Sabbatical Year does not cancel that part of the loan commensurate with the collateral, but it does cancel the rest, this indicates by inference that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the Sabbatical Year also abrogates that half as well. That is difficult, as is there not collateral commensurate with that half?

Scroll To Top