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

Daf Yomi

April 23, 2024 | 讟状讜 讘谞讬住谉 转砖驻状讚

  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Bava Metzia 55

If one misuses consecrated property unknowingly, one must repay the value and add one-fifth (chomesh). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi held that the additional one-fifth payment is not added if one is redeeming a secondary hekdesh, an item that was sanctified from an item that was already sanctified (via hatpasa). The Gemara questions a statement made in a braita that was brought to support Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and resolves it. Another braita is brought as support for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. The Mishna lists the minimum amount of money for ona鈥檃h and partial admission (modeh b鈥檓iktzat). It also lists five laws for which the minimum amount is a pruta. Levi has a different list of the five laws and the Gemara discusses why each list differs from the other. The Mishna lists 5 cases where one needs to add one-fifth. One of the items is d鈥檓ai 鈥 a case where there is reason to think that ma鈥檃srot (tithes) may not have been taken and the rabbis required one to separate the tithes just in case. Rabbi Elazar questions why the Mishna lists that one would add one-fifth if a non-kohen ate truma taken from d鈥檓ai, which is only truma by rabbinic law. Why would it be treated as stringently as a Torah obligation? They answer that the Mishna is according to Rabbi Meir鈥檚 approach that the rabbis make their decrees as strong as the Torah as is proven from a case of divorce law where Rabbi Meir is stringent. However, they raise a difficulty with saying that this is Rabbi Meir鈥檚 position.

讘讗诪爪注 讛拽讚砖 诇讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讘住讜祝 讛拽讚砖


but it is not subject to an intermediate stage of consecration resulting from redemption? Ravina said to him: It is due to the fact that it is not subject to ultimate consecration. A non-kosher animal does not ultimately remain consecrated, as it is used neither as an offering nor in the upkeep of the Temple. Instead, it is redeemed and its value is consecrated.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚讬驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讘讗诪爪注 讛拽讚砖 诪讬讛讗 讗讬转讗 讜诇讜住讬祝 谞诪讬 讞讜诪砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 诪讛 住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 讗祝 讗诪爪注 讛拽讚砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖


Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: It is subject, at least, to an intermediate stage of consecration; and in that case, let one add one-fifth as well. Ravina said to him: Its legal status is like that of ultimate consecration: Just as one does not add one-fifth with regard to a non-kosher animal in ultimate consecration, as that category does not exist in a non-kosher animal, so too, one does not add one-fifth in a case of intermediate consecration.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚诪讚诪讬转 诇讬讛 诇住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 谞讚诪讬讬讛 诇转讞讬诇转 讛拽讚砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪住转讘专讗 诇住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讚诪讜讬讬 砖讻谉 谞转驻住 诪谞转驻住 讗讚专讘讛 诇转讞讬诇转 讛拽讚砖 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讚诪讜讬讬 砖讻谉 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讗讞专讬讜 拽讚讜砖讛 诪讚讘专 砖讬砖 讗讞专讬讜 拽讚讜砖讛


Rav Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: What did you see that led you to liken the intermediate stage of consecration to ultimate consecration? Let us liken it to initial consecration. Ravina said to him: It stands to reason that he should liken it to ultimate consecration, as he thereby derives the halakha of an item consecrated by association with the sanctity of an item consecrated by association. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, he should have likened it to initial consecration, as he thereby derives the halakha of an item after which there is another stage of sanctity, the intermediate stage of consecration, from an item after which there is another stage of sanctity.


讻讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛注诇讛 注讜诇讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讟诪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛


The Gemara answers: It is as Rava says: 鈥淭he burnt-offering鈥 (Leviticus 6:2), employing the definite article, indicates that the reference is to the first burnt-offering. So too, when it is written: The non-kosher animal, the reference is to the initial consecration of the non-kosher animal, not the intermediate stage of consecration.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 驻专讛 讝讜 转讞转 驻专讛 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 讟诇讬转 讝讜 转讞转 讟诇讬转 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖讜 驻讚讜讬 讜讬讚 讛拽讚砖 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛


The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: If one said that this cow is in place of that cow, which belongs to the Temple treasury, or this garment is in place of that garment, which belongs to the Temple treasury, his consecrated property is redeemed, and the treasurer of consecrated property is at an advantage. If the replacement item is equal to or more valuable than the original item, it belongs to the treasurer, and if it is less valuable, the one who consecrated it must pay the difference.


驻专讛 讝讜 讘讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 转讞转 驻专讛 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 讟诇讬转 讝讜 讘讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 转讞转 讟诇讬转 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖讜 驻讚讜讬 注诇 讛拽讚砖 专讗砖讜谉 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 注诇 讛拽讚砖 砖谞讬 讗讬谉 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖


If he said: This cow valued at five sela is in place of this cow, which belongs to the Temple treasury, or: This garment valued at five sela is instead of this garment, which belongs to the Temple treasury, his consecrated property is redeemed. Even if the second consecrated item is more valuable, it is not considered a consecration done in error. He will have to pay the difference. He adds one-fifth when redeeming the item that was the initial consecration, but when redeeming the item for which the initial consecration was redeemed, the second consecration, he does not add one-fifth.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜谞讗讛 讗专讘注讛 讻住祝 讜讛讟注谞讛 砖转讬 讻住祝 讜讛讛讜讚讗讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛


MISHNA: The measure of exploitation is four silver ma鈥檃 from the twenty-four silver ma鈥檃 of a sela. And the smallest monetary claim in court for which a plaintiff can obligate a respondent to take an oath is two silver ma鈥檃. And the smallest monetary admission for which that respondent takes the oath is an admission that one owes at least the value of one peruta.


讞诪砖 驻专讜讟讜转 讛谉 讛讛讜讚讗讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜讛讗砖讛 诪转拽讚砖转 讘砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜讛谞讛谞讛 讘砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪谉 讛讛拽讚砖 诪注诇 讜讛诪讜爪讗 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讜讛讙讜讝诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜谞砖讘注 诇讜 讬讜诇讬讻谞讜 讗讞专讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讚讬


On a related note, the tanna adds that there are five halakhic situations involving perutot: The admission to part of a claim must be that one owes at least the value of one peruta, and a woman is betrothed with the value of one peruta. And one who derives benefit of the value of one peruta from consecrated property has misused consecrated property and is liable to bring an offering, and one who finds an item that has the value of one peruta is obligated to proclaim that he found it. And with regard to one who robs from another an item that has the value of one peruta and took an oath to him that he robbed nothing, when he repents and seeks to return the stolen item he must take it and follow its owner even to Media. In that case, he may not return the item by means of a messenger; he must give it directly to its owner.


讙诪壮 转谞讬谞讗 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讛讗讜谞讗讛 讗专讘注讛 讻住祝 诪注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讻住祝 诇住诇注 砖转讜转 诇诪拽讞 讛讟注谞讛 砖转讬 讻住祝 讜讛讛讜讚讗讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: We already learned this on another occasion in an earlier mishna (49b): The measure of exploitation for which one can claim that he was exploited is four silver ma鈥檃 from the twenty-four silver ma鈥檃 in a sela, which is one-sixth of the transaction. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna to mention two halakhot: The smallest monetary claim in court for which a plaintiff can obligate a respondent to take an oath is two silver ma鈥檃, and the smallest monetary admission for which that respondent takes the oath is an admission that one owes at least the value of one peruta. Therefore, the tanna cited the halakha of exploitation as well.


讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 砖讘讜注转 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讛讟注谞讛 砖转讬 讻住祝 讜讛讛讜讚讗讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 住讬驻讗 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讚拽转谞讬 讞诪砖 驻专讜讟讜转 讛谉


The Gemara asks: That too we already learned in a mishna (Shevuot 38b): The oath for admission to part of a claim imposed by the judges is in a case where the claim is two silver ma鈥檃, and the admission is the value of one peruta. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna to teach the latter clause of the mishna, as it teaches: There are five halakhic situations involving perutot, which is not taught elsewhere.


讞诪砖 驻专讜讟讜转 讛谉 讻讜壮 讜诇讬转谞讬 谞诪讬 讛讗讜谞讗讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讗讬谉 讗讜谞讗讛 诇驻专讜讟讜转


搂 The mishna teaches: There are five halakhic situations involving perutot. The Gemara asks: And let the tanna also teach that the measure of exploitation is one peruta. Rav Kahana said: That is to say that there is no exploitation concerning perutot. Any disparity between value and price that is less than the value of the smallest silver coin, an issar, which is worth eight perutot, is not considered exploitation.


讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 讬砖 讗讜谞讗讛 诇驻专讜讟讜转 讜讻谉 转谞讬 诇讜讬 讘诪转谞讬转讬讛 讞诪砖 驻专讜讟讜转 讛谉 讛讗讜谞讗讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜讛讛讜讚讗讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜拽讚讜砖讬 讗砖讛 讘驻专讜讟讛 讜讙讝诇 讘驻专讜讟讛 讜讬砖讬讘转 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讘驻专讜讟讛


And Levi says: There is exploitation even for perutot. And likewise, Levi taught in his version of the Mishna, which parallels the Mishna redacted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that there are five halakhic situations involving perutot: The measure of exploitation is one peruta, the admission is the value of one peruta, and the betrothal of a woman is with one peruta, and the halakha of one who takes an oath denying a robbery applies in the case where he denies having robbed another of at least one peruta, and the convening of judges to adjudicate a case of monetary law is in the case where the claim is at least one peruta.


讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讬砖讬讘转 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 转谞讗 诇讬讛 讙讝诇


The Gemara asks: And with regard to the tanna of our mishna, what is the reason he does not teach the case of the convening of judges in his list of cases involving perutot? The Gemara answers: He taught the case of robbery, which includes all monetary claims one has against another.


讜诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬 讙讝诇 讜拽转谞讬 讗讘讬讚讛 讛谞讱 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讙讝诇 讛讙讜讝诇 诪讞讘讬专讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜谞砖讘注 诇讜 讬讜诇讬讻谞讜 讗讞专讬讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讚讬 讗讘讬讚讛 讛诪讜爪讗 讗讘讬讚讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讝诇


The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the tanna teach the case of robbery and teach the case of lost property? Apparently, he lists monetary cases that are included under the rubric of robbery. The Gemara answers: With regard to these two cases, it was necessary for the tanna to teach them separately, as there is a novel element in each. The novel element in the case of robbery is not only that a robbery of one peruta is considered robbery, but also in the case of one who robs an item from another worth at least one peruta and then took an oath to him that he robbed nothing, he must carry the stolen item and follow its owner even to Media. The novel element in the case of lost property is that one who finds lost property the value of at least one peruta is obligated to proclaim that he found it, even though the lost article depreciated and is no longer worth one peruta.


讜诇讜讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 转谞讬 讗讘讬讚讛 讘驻专讜讟讛 转谞讗 诇讬讛 讙讝诇


The Gemara asks: And as for Levi, what is the reason he does not teach that one is obligated to proclaim that he found lost property only if it is worth at least one peruta? The Gemara answers: He taught the case of robbery, which includes all monetary claims one has against another.


讜诪讬 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讙讝诇 讜拽转谞讬 讬砖讬讘转 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讬砖讬讘转 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讘讬转 讚讬谉 谞讝拽拽讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛


The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 he teach robbery and also teach the convening of judges? Apparently, he lists monetary cases that are included under the rubric of robbery. The Gemara explains: With regard to the convening of judges it was necessary for the tanna to specify the halakha to exclude the opinion of Rav Ketina, as Rav Ketina says: The court attends to monetary claims of even less than the value of one peruta. Anyone wronged by another is entitled to have his case adjudicated in court.


讜诇讜讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讛拽讚砖 讘讞讜诇讬谉 拽诪讬讬专讬 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 拽诪讬讬专讬


The Gemara asks: And as for Levi, what is the reason he does not teach the peruta of misuse of consecrated property? The Gemara answers: He is speaking with regard to non-sacred property; he is not speaking with regard to consecrated property.


讗诇讗 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讚拽讗 诪讬讬专讬 讘拽讚砖讬诐 谞转谞讬 诪注砖专 讘驻专讜讟讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讞讜诪砖讜 驻专讜讟讛 讜诇讬转谞讬 讞讜诪砖 诪注砖专 讘驻专讜讟讛 讘拽专谞讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬 讘讞讜诪砖 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬


The Gemara asks: But in the case of the tanna of our mishna, who is speaking with regard to consecrated property, let him teach the halakha that second tithe may be redeemed only if the produce is worth at least one peruta. The Gemara answers: This tanna holds in accordance with the one who says: Second tithe is redeemed only if its one-fifth, which one adds when redeeming his own produce, is worth at least one peruta. In other words, second tithe is redeemed only if it is worth at least four perutot. The Gemara asks: And let him teach that second tithe is redeemed only if its one-fifth, which one adds when redeeming his own produce, is worth at least one peruta. The Gemara responds: The tanna is speaking with regard to the principal; the tanna is not speaking with regard to the one-fifth.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讘讬转 讚讬谉 谞讝拽拽讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讜讗转 讗砖专 讞讟讗 诪谉 讛拽讚砖 讬砖诇诐


搂 With regard to the matter itself raised in the previous discussion, the Gemara elaborates. Rav Ketina says: The court attends to monetary claims of even less than the value of one peruta. Rava raises an objection from a baraita. It is written: 鈥淎nd he shall make restitution for that which he has done amiss in the sacred matter鈥 (Leviticus 5:16).


诇专讘讜转 驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诇讛讬砖讘讜谉 诇拽讚砖 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讛讚讬讜讟 诇讗


This serves to include misuse of consecrated property less than the value of one peruta in the halakha of restitution to the Temple treasury. The Gemara infers: To the Temple treasury, yes, one must return that which he took; but to an ordinary person [hedyot], no, one need not pay restitution for theft of less than one peruta.


讗诇讗 讗讬 讗转诪专 讛讻讬 讗转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讗诐 讛讜讝拽拽讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讙讜诪专讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 转讞讬诇转 讛讚讬谉 讘注讬谞谉 驻专讜讟讛 讙诪专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 驻专讜讟讛


Rather, if Rav Ketina鈥檚 ruling was stated, this is how it was stated: Rav Ketina says: If the court attends to a monetary claim of the value of one peruta, the judges conclude adjudicating and issue a ruling even if the item in question depreciated to less than the value of one peruta. For the beginning of the legal proceedings, we require a claim worth one peruta, whereas for the verdict, we do not require a claim worth one peruta.


诪转谞讬壮 讞诪砖讛 讞讜诪砖讬谉 讛谉 讗诇讜 讛谉 讛讗讜讻诇 转专讜诪讛 讜转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 砖诇 讚诪讗讬 讜讛讞诇讛 讜讛讘讻讜专讬诐 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 讜讛驻讜讚讛 谞讟注 专讘注讬 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖诇讜 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 讛驻讜讚讛 讗转 讛拽讚砖讜 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 讛谞讛谞讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪谉 讛讛拽讚砖 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 讜讛讙讜讝诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜谞砖讘注 诇讜 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖


MISHNA: In this mishna, as in the previous one, the tanna enumerates several halakhot that share a common element. There are five halakhic situations where one-fifth is added to the value of the principal, and these are they: A non-priest who eats either teruma, or teruma of the tithe, which the Levite separates from the first tithe and gives to a priest, or teruma of the tithe of demai, or 岣lla, or first fruits; in each of these cases, he adds one-fifth when paying restitution to the priest who owned the produce. And one who redeems his own fruit of a fourth-year sapling or second-tithe produce adds one-fifth. One who redeems his own consecrated property adds one-fifth. One who derives benefit worth one peruta from consecrated property adds one-fifth. And one who robs the value of one peruta from another and takes a false oath in response to his claim adds one-fifth when paying restitution.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 砖诇 讚诪讗讬 讜讻讬 注砖讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讞讬讝讜拽 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讻砖诇 转讜专讛


GEMARA: Rava says: Rabbi Elazar found the halakha in the mishna with regard to teruma of the tithe of demai to be difficult. He asked: And since the obligation to tithe demai is by rabbinic law, did the Sages reinforce their pronouncements and render them parallel to Torah law by requiring the addition of one-fifth when paying restitution?


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 注砖讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讞讬讝讜拽 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讻砖诇 转讜专讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 谞转谞讜 诇讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讻讬爪讚 讬注砖讛 讬讟诇谞讜 诪诪谞讛 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬转谞谞讜 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讗诪专 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐


Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: The Sages reinforced their pronouncements and rendered them parallel to Torah law, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas, if he gave it to the woman but did not say to her: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, as is the requirement by rabbinic ordinance, one who marries that woman must divorce her, and any offspring born of that marriage is a mamzer; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Although he is in violation of the ordinance, the offspring is not a mamzer. How then should the agent proceed? He should take the bill of divorce from her and give it to her again, this time in the presence of two witnesses, and say to her: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.


讜诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讗讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻诇 讛诪砖谞讛 诪诪讟讘注 砖讟讘注讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专


The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Meir, although the bill of divorce was otherwise valid, merely due to the fact that he did not say to her: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, must he divorce her and the offspring is a mamzer? The Gemara answers: Yes, as Rabbi Meir conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rav Hamnuna says in the name of Ulla that Rabbi Meir would say: In the case of anyone who gives a bill of divorce that deviates from the formula coined by the Sages with regard to bills of divorce, one who then marries the divorced woman on the basis of that bill of divorce must divorce her, and the offspring is a mamzer. Concerning teruma of the tithe of demai as well, Rabbi Meir reinforced the pronouncements of the Sages and rendered them parallel to Torah law.


诪转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 诪讞诇诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻住祝 注诇 讻住祝 谞讞讜砖转 注诇 谞讞讜砖转 讻住祝 注诇 谞讞讜砖转 讜谞讞讜砖转 注诇 讛驻讬专讜转 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬驻讚讛 讗转 讛驻讬专讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬注诇讜 驻讬专讜转 讜讬讗讻诇讜 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐


Rav Sheshet raises an objection to this principle from a mishna (Demai 1:2), which teaches: One may desacralize silver coins of second tithe of demai upon other silver coins, and copper coins upon copper coins, and silver coins upon copper coins, and copper coins upon produce, and he may then redeem that produce with money; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: That produce that redeemed the copper coins must be taken up and eaten in Jerusalem. It may not be redeemed again.


讜诪讬 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉 讻住祝 注诇 谞讞讜砖转 讜讛讗 转谞谉 住诇注 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞转注专讘讜 诪讘讬讗 讘住诇注 诪注讜转 讜讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖谞讛 住诇注 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诪讞讜诇诇转 注诇 诪注讜转 讛诇诇讜 讜讘讜专专 讗转 讛讬驻讛 砖讘讛谉 讜诪讞诇诇讜 注诇讬讛


Rav Sheshet continues: And can one desacralize silver coins with copper coins? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Ma鈥檃ser Sheni 2:6): In the case of a silver sela of second tithe and a sela of non-sacred property that were intermingled, one brings copper ma鈥檃 equaling the value of a sela and says: Wherever there is a sela of second tithe among these two coins, it is redeemed upon these copper ma鈥檃, which assume the sanctity of second tithe. And he selects the better-quality sela among the two and redeems the copper coins upon that sela. The result is that the better-quality sela is second tithe, while the other sela and the copper coins are non-sacred.


  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

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 55

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 55

讘讗诪爪注 讛拽讚砖 诇讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讘住讜祝 讛拽讚砖


but it is not subject to an intermediate stage of consecration resulting from redemption? Ravina said to him: It is due to the fact that it is not subject to ultimate consecration. A non-kosher animal does not ultimately remain consecrated, as it is used neither as an offering nor in the upkeep of the Temple. Instead, it is redeemed and its value is consecrated.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚讬驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讘讗诪爪注 讛拽讚砖 诪讬讛讗 讗讬转讗 讜诇讜住讬祝 谞诪讬 讞讜诪砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 诪讛 住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 讗祝 讗诪爪注 讛拽讚砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖


Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: It is subject, at least, to an intermediate stage of consecration; and in that case, let one add one-fifth as well. Ravina said to him: Its legal status is like that of ultimate consecration: Just as one does not add one-fifth with regard to a non-kosher animal in ultimate consecration, as that category does not exist in a non-kosher animal, so too, one does not add one-fifth in a case of intermediate consecration.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚诪讚诪讬转 诇讬讛 诇住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 谞讚诪讬讬讛 诇转讞讬诇转 讛拽讚砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪住转讘专讗 诇住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讚诪讜讬讬 砖讻谉 谞转驻住 诪谞转驻住 讗讚专讘讛 诇转讞讬诇转 讛拽讚砖 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讚诪讜讬讬 砖讻谉 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讗讞专讬讜 拽讚讜砖讛 诪讚讘专 砖讬砖 讗讞专讬讜 拽讚讜砖讛


Rav Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: What did you see that led you to liken the intermediate stage of consecration to ultimate consecration? Let us liken it to initial consecration. Ravina said to him: It stands to reason that he should liken it to ultimate consecration, as he thereby derives the halakha of an item consecrated by association with the sanctity of an item consecrated by association. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, he should have likened it to initial consecration, as he thereby derives the halakha of an item after which there is another stage of sanctity, the intermediate stage of consecration, from an item after which there is another stage of sanctity.


讻讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛注诇讛 注讜诇讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讟诪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛


The Gemara answers: It is as Rava says: 鈥淭he burnt-offering鈥 (Leviticus 6:2), employing the definite article, indicates that the reference is to the first burnt-offering. So too, when it is written: The non-kosher animal, the reference is to the initial consecration of the non-kosher animal, not the intermediate stage of consecration.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 驻专讛 讝讜 转讞转 驻专讛 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 讟诇讬转 讝讜 转讞转 讟诇讬转 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖讜 驻讚讜讬 讜讬讚 讛拽讚砖 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛


The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: If one said that this cow is in place of that cow, which belongs to the Temple treasury, or this garment is in place of that garment, which belongs to the Temple treasury, his consecrated property is redeemed, and the treasurer of consecrated property is at an advantage. If the replacement item is equal to or more valuable than the original item, it belongs to the treasurer, and if it is less valuable, the one who consecrated it must pay the difference.


驻专讛 讝讜 讘讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 转讞转 驻专讛 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 讟诇讬转 讝讜 讘讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 转讞转 讟诇讬转 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖讜 驻讚讜讬 注诇 讛拽讚砖 专讗砖讜谉 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 注诇 讛拽讚砖 砖谞讬 讗讬谉 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖


If he said: This cow valued at five sela is in place of this cow, which belongs to the Temple treasury, or: This garment valued at five sela is instead of this garment, which belongs to the Temple treasury, his consecrated property is redeemed. Even if the second consecrated item is more valuable, it is not considered a consecration done in error. He will have to pay the difference. He adds one-fifth when redeeming the item that was the initial consecration, but when redeeming the item for which the initial consecration was redeemed, the second consecration, he does not add one-fifth.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜谞讗讛 讗专讘注讛 讻住祝 讜讛讟注谞讛 砖转讬 讻住祝 讜讛讛讜讚讗讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛


MISHNA: The measure of exploitation is four silver ma鈥檃 from the twenty-four silver ma鈥檃 of a sela. And the smallest monetary claim in court for which a plaintiff can obligate a respondent to take an oath is two silver ma鈥檃. And the smallest monetary admission for which that respondent takes the oath is an admission that one owes at least the value of one peruta.


讞诪砖 驻专讜讟讜转 讛谉 讛讛讜讚讗讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜讛讗砖讛 诪转拽讚砖转 讘砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜讛谞讛谞讛 讘砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪谉 讛讛拽讚砖 诪注诇 讜讛诪讜爪讗 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讜讛讙讜讝诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜谞砖讘注 诇讜 讬讜诇讬讻谞讜 讗讞专讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讚讬


On a related note, the tanna adds that there are five halakhic situations involving perutot: The admission to part of a claim must be that one owes at least the value of one peruta, and a woman is betrothed with the value of one peruta. And one who derives benefit of the value of one peruta from consecrated property has misused consecrated property and is liable to bring an offering, and one who finds an item that has the value of one peruta is obligated to proclaim that he found it. And with regard to one who robs from another an item that has the value of one peruta and took an oath to him that he robbed nothing, when he repents and seeks to return the stolen item he must take it and follow its owner even to Media. In that case, he may not return the item by means of a messenger; he must give it directly to its owner.


讙诪壮 转谞讬谞讗 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讛讗讜谞讗讛 讗专讘注讛 讻住祝 诪注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讻住祝 诇住诇注 砖转讜转 诇诪拽讞 讛讟注谞讛 砖转讬 讻住祝 讜讛讛讜讚讗讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: We already learned this on another occasion in an earlier mishna (49b): The measure of exploitation for which one can claim that he was exploited is four silver ma鈥檃 from the twenty-four silver ma鈥檃 in a sela, which is one-sixth of the transaction. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna to mention two halakhot: The smallest monetary claim in court for which a plaintiff can obligate a respondent to take an oath is two silver ma鈥檃, and the smallest monetary admission for which that respondent takes the oath is an admission that one owes at least the value of one peruta. Therefore, the tanna cited the halakha of exploitation as well.


讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 砖讘讜注转 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讛讟注谞讛 砖转讬 讻住祝 讜讛讛讜讚讗讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 住讬驻讗 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讚拽转谞讬 讞诪砖 驻专讜讟讜转 讛谉


The Gemara asks: That too we already learned in a mishna (Shevuot 38b): The oath for admission to part of a claim imposed by the judges is in a case where the claim is two silver ma鈥檃, and the admission is the value of one peruta. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna to teach the latter clause of the mishna, as it teaches: There are five halakhic situations involving perutot, which is not taught elsewhere.


讞诪砖 驻专讜讟讜转 讛谉 讻讜壮 讜诇讬转谞讬 谞诪讬 讛讗讜谞讗讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讗讬谉 讗讜谞讗讛 诇驻专讜讟讜转


搂 The mishna teaches: There are five halakhic situations involving perutot. The Gemara asks: And let the tanna also teach that the measure of exploitation is one peruta. Rav Kahana said: That is to say that there is no exploitation concerning perutot. Any disparity between value and price that is less than the value of the smallest silver coin, an issar, which is worth eight perutot, is not considered exploitation.


讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 讬砖 讗讜谞讗讛 诇驻专讜讟讜转 讜讻谉 转谞讬 诇讜讬 讘诪转谞讬转讬讛 讞诪砖 驻专讜讟讜转 讛谉 讛讗讜谞讗讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜讛讛讜讚讗讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜拽讚讜砖讬 讗砖讛 讘驻专讜讟讛 讜讙讝诇 讘驻专讜讟讛 讜讬砖讬讘转 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讘驻专讜讟讛


And Levi says: There is exploitation even for perutot. And likewise, Levi taught in his version of the Mishna, which parallels the Mishna redacted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that there are five halakhic situations involving perutot: The measure of exploitation is one peruta, the admission is the value of one peruta, and the betrothal of a woman is with one peruta, and the halakha of one who takes an oath denying a robbery applies in the case where he denies having robbed another of at least one peruta, and the convening of judges to adjudicate a case of monetary law is in the case where the claim is at least one peruta.


讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讬砖讬讘转 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 转谞讗 诇讬讛 讙讝诇


The Gemara asks: And with regard to the tanna of our mishna, what is the reason he does not teach the case of the convening of judges in his list of cases involving perutot? The Gemara answers: He taught the case of robbery, which includes all monetary claims one has against another.


讜诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬 讙讝诇 讜拽转谞讬 讗讘讬讚讛 讛谞讱 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讙讝诇 讛讙讜讝诇 诪讞讘讬专讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜谞砖讘注 诇讜 讬讜诇讬讻谞讜 讗讞专讬讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讚讬 讗讘讬讚讛 讛诪讜爪讗 讗讘讬讚讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讝诇


The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the tanna teach the case of robbery and teach the case of lost property? Apparently, he lists monetary cases that are included under the rubric of robbery. The Gemara answers: With regard to these two cases, it was necessary for the tanna to teach them separately, as there is a novel element in each. The novel element in the case of robbery is not only that a robbery of one peruta is considered robbery, but also in the case of one who robs an item from another worth at least one peruta and then took an oath to him that he robbed nothing, he must carry the stolen item and follow its owner even to Media. The novel element in the case of lost property is that one who finds lost property the value of at least one peruta is obligated to proclaim that he found it, even though the lost article depreciated and is no longer worth one peruta.


讜诇讜讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 转谞讬 讗讘讬讚讛 讘驻专讜讟讛 转谞讗 诇讬讛 讙讝诇


The Gemara asks: And as for Levi, what is the reason he does not teach that one is obligated to proclaim that he found lost property only if it is worth at least one peruta? The Gemara answers: He taught the case of robbery, which includes all monetary claims one has against another.


讜诪讬 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讙讝诇 讜拽转谞讬 讬砖讬讘转 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讬砖讬讘转 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讘讬转 讚讬谉 谞讝拽拽讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛


The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 he teach robbery and also teach the convening of judges? Apparently, he lists monetary cases that are included under the rubric of robbery. The Gemara explains: With regard to the convening of judges it was necessary for the tanna to specify the halakha to exclude the opinion of Rav Ketina, as Rav Ketina says: The court attends to monetary claims of even less than the value of one peruta. Anyone wronged by another is entitled to have his case adjudicated in court.


讜诇讜讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讛拽讚砖 讘讞讜诇讬谉 拽诪讬讬专讬 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 拽诪讬讬专讬


The Gemara asks: And as for Levi, what is the reason he does not teach the peruta of misuse of consecrated property? The Gemara answers: He is speaking with regard to non-sacred property; he is not speaking with regard to consecrated property.


讗诇讗 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讚拽讗 诪讬讬专讬 讘拽讚砖讬诐 谞转谞讬 诪注砖专 讘驻专讜讟讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讞讜诪砖讜 驻专讜讟讛 讜诇讬转谞讬 讞讜诪砖 诪注砖专 讘驻专讜讟讛 讘拽专谞讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬 讘讞讜诪砖 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬


The Gemara asks: But in the case of the tanna of our mishna, who is speaking with regard to consecrated property, let him teach the halakha that second tithe may be redeemed only if the produce is worth at least one peruta. The Gemara answers: This tanna holds in accordance with the one who says: Second tithe is redeemed only if its one-fifth, which one adds when redeeming his own produce, is worth at least one peruta. In other words, second tithe is redeemed only if it is worth at least four perutot. The Gemara asks: And let him teach that second tithe is redeemed only if its one-fifth, which one adds when redeeming his own produce, is worth at least one peruta. The Gemara responds: The tanna is speaking with regard to the principal; the tanna is not speaking with regard to the one-fifth.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讘讬转 讚讬谉 谞讝拽拽讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讜讗转 讗砖专 讞讟讗 诪谉 讛拽讚砖 讬砖诇诐


搂 With regard to the matter itself raised in the previous discussion, the Gemara elaborates. Rav Ketina says: The court attends to monetary claims of even less than the value of one peruta. Rava raises an objection from a baraita. It is written: 鈥淎nd he shall make restitution for that which he has done amiss in the sacred matter鈥 (Leviticus 5:16).


诇专讘讜转 驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诇讛讬砖讘讜谉 诇拽讚砖 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讛讚讬讜讟 诇讗


This serves to include misuse of consecrated property less than the value of one peruta in the halakha of restitution to the Temple treasury. The Gemara infers: To the Temple treasury, yes, one must return that which he took; but to an ordinary person [hedyot], no, one need not pay restitution for theft of less than one peruta.


讗诇讗 讗讬 讗转诪专 讛讻讬 讗转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讗诐 讛讜讝拽拽讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讙讜诪专讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 转讞讬诇转 讛讚讬谉 讘注讬谞谉 驻专讜讟讛 讙诪专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 驻专讜讟讛


Rather, if Rav Ketina鈥檚 ruling was stated, this is how it was stated: Rav Ketina says: If the court attends to a monetary claim of the value of one peruta, the judges conclude adjudicating and issue a ruling even if the item in question depreciated to less than the value of one peruta. For the beginning of the legal proceedings, we require a claim worth one peruta, whereas for the verdict, we do not require a claim worth one peruta.


诪转谞讬壮 讞诪砖讛 讞讜诪砖讬谉 讛谉 讗诇讜 讛谉 讛讗讜讻诇 转专讜诪讛 讜转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 砖诇 讚诪讗讬 讜讛讞诇讛 讜讛讘讻讜专讬诐 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 讜讛驻讜讚讛 谞讟注 专讘注讬 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖诇讜 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 讛驻讜讚讛 讗转 讛拽讚砖讜 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 讛谞讛谞讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪谉 讛讛拽讚砖 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 讜讛讙讜讝诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜谞砖讘注 诇讜 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖


MISHNA: In this mishna, as in the previous one, the tanna enumerates several halakhot that share a common element. There are five halakhic situations where one-fifth is added to the value of the principal, and these are they: A non-priest who eats either teruma, or teruma of the tithe, which the Levite separates from the first tithe and gives to a priest, or teruma of the tithe of demai, or 岣lla, or first fruits; in each of these cases, he adds one-fifth when paying restitution to the priest who owned the produce. And one who redeems his own fruit of a fourth-year sapling or second-tithe produce adds one-fifth. One who redeems his own consecrated property adds one-fifth. One who derives benefit worth one peruta from consecrated property adds one-fifth. And one who robs the value of one peruta from another and takes a false oath in response to his claim adds one-fifth when paying restitution.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 砖诇 讚诪讗讬 讜讻讬 注砖讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讞讬讝讜拽 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讻砖诇 转讜专讛


GEMARA: Rava says: Rabbi Elazar found the halakha in the mishna with regard to teruma of the tithe of demai to be difficult. He asked: And since the obligation to tithe demai is by rabbinic law, did the Sages reinforce their pronouncements and render them parallel to Torah law by requiring the addition of one-fifth when paying restitution?


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 注砖讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讞讬讝讜拽 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讻砖诇 转讜专讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 谞转谞讜 诇讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讻讬爪讚 讬注砖讛 讬讟诇谞讜 诪诪谞讛 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬转谞谞讜 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讗诪专 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐


Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: The Sages reinforced their pronouncements and rendered them parallel to Torah law, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas, if he gave it to the woman but did not say to her: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, as is the requirement by rabbinic ordinance, one who marries that woman must divorce her, and any offspring born of that marriage is a mamzer; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Although he is in violation of the ordinance, the offspring is not a mamzer. How then should the agent proceed? He should take the bill of divorce from her and give it to her again, this time in the presence of two witnesses, and say to her: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.


讜诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讗讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻诇 讛诪砖谞讛 诪诪讟讘注 砖讟讘注讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专


The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Meir, although the bill of divorce was otherwise valid, merely due to the fact that he did not say to her: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, must he divorce her and the offspring is a mamzer? The Gemara answers: Yes, as Rabbi Meir conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rav Hamnuna says in the name of Ulla that Rabbi Meir would say: In the case of anyone who gives a bill of divorce that deviates from the formula coined by the Sages with regard to bills of divorce, one who then marries the divorced woman on the basis of that bill of divorce must divorce her, and the offspring is a mamzer. Concerning teruma of the tithe of demai as well, Rabbi Meir reinforced the pronouncements of the Sages and rendered them parallel to Torah law.


诪转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 诪讞诇诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻住祝 注诇 讻住祝 谞讞讜砖转 注诇 谞讞讜砖转 讻住祝 注诇 谞讞讜砖转 讜谞讞讜砖转 注诇 讛驻讬专讜转 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬驻讚讛 讗转 讛驻讬专讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬注诇讜 驻讬专讜转 讜讬讗讻诇讜 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐


Rav Sheshet raises an objection to this principle from a mishna (Demai 1:2), which teaches: One may desacralize silver coins of second tithe of demai upon other silver coins, and copper coins upon copper coins, and silver coins upon copper coins, and copper coins upon produce, and he may then redeem that produce with money; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: That produce that redeemed the copper coins must be taken up and eaten in Jerusalem. It may not be redeemed again.


讜诪讬 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉 讻住祝 注诇 谞讞讜砖转 讜讛讗 转谞谉 住诇注 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞转注专讘讜 诪讘讬讗 讘住诇注 诪注讜转 讜讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖谞讛 住诇注 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诪讞讜诇诇转 注诇 诪注讜转 讛诇诇讜 讜讘讜专专 讗转 讛讬驻讛 砖讘讛谉 讜诪讞诇诇讜 注诇讬讛


Rav Sheshet continues: And can one desacralize silver coins with copper coins? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Ma鈥檃ser Sheni 2:6): In the case of a silver sela of second tithe and a sela of non-sacred property that were intermingled, one brings copper ma鈥檃 equaling the value of a sela and says: Wherever there is a sela of second tithe among these two coins, it is redeemed upon these copper ma鈥檃, which assume the sanctity of second tithe. And he selects the better-quality sela among the two and redeems the copper coins upon that sela. The result is that the better-quality sela is second tithe, while the other sela and the copper coins are non-sacred.


Scroll To Top