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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 21, 2016 | 讻壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Metzia 56

The Rabbis debate whether or not Rabbi Meir holds that the rabbis made their laws stringent like the Torah laws. 聽Various sources are brought to prove or disprove. 聽Abaye questions many of the stages of the debate claiming that there should be levels of rabbinic laws – ones that are prone to death by the court, death by the heavens, a lo taase and therefore the proofs and disproofs are comparing things that should not be compared. 聽The mishna cites certain things that the general laws of exploitation do not apply to – land, slaves, documents and hekdesh. 聽Also other laws like double payment and laws of shomrim don’t apply to those same categories. 聽There are some distinctions made by other tannaim and a few more added to the list. 聽The gemara shows the derivation of the exemption to the laws of聽exploitation.
Study Guide Bava Metzia 56


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪驻谞讬 砖讗诪专讜 诪讞诇诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻住祝 注诇 谞讞砖转 诪讚讜讞拽 诇讗 砖讬拽讬讬诐 讻谉 讗诇讗 砖讞讜讝专 讜诪讞诇诇谉 注诇 讛讻住祝 拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 诪讞诇诇讬谉 诪讚讜讞拽 诪讚讜讞拽 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 诪讚讜讞拽 诇讗

The reason one must employ this procedure is due to the fact that the Sages said: One desacralizes second-tithe silver coins upon copper coins under duress. And it is not that he will maintain them in that form; rather, it is that he again desacralizes them upon silver coins. In any event, the tanna teaches that one desacralizes second-tithe coins in this manner under duress, from which it may be inferred: Under duress, yes; not under duress, no. This is the halakha with regard to redemption of second-tithe coins by Torah law. By contrast, in the case of demai, which is by rabbinic law, Rabbi Meir permits desacralizing it in this manner ab initio. Apparently, Rabbi Meir is more lenient with regard to matters of rabbinic law than he is with regard to matters of Torah law.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讬拽诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘驻讚讬讜谞讜 诪讞诪讬专 讛讜讗 讘讗讻讬诇转讜 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诇诪讻讜专 讚诪讗讬 讗诇讗 诇住讬讟讜谉 讘诇讘讚 讜讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 爪专讬讱 诇注砖专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Rav Yosef said: Although Rabbi Meir is lenient with regard to redemption of second-tithe demai, he is stringent with regard to its consumption. This is as it is taught in a baraita: The Sages permitted only a wholesaler to sell demai. Since a wholesaler acquires grain from numerous sources and sells large quantities, he would suffer significant loss if he were required to separate tithes each time. But in the case of a proprietor who purchased produce from an am ha鈥檃retz, whether he purchased large quantities to sell in bulk or whether he purchased small quantities to sell little by little, he must tithe the produce; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 讛住讬讟讜谉 讜讗讞讚 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪讜讻专 讜砖讜诇讞 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜 讘诪转谞讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖

The baraita continues: And the Rabbis say: Both a wholesaler and a proprietor who sells in bulk may sell demai, or send it to another, or give it to him as a gift, and they need not be concerned. The one who receives the produce separates the tithes and consumes the remaining produce. In this baraita, Rabbi Meir was stringent with regard to the concern that someone will consume demai without the tithes being separated.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬谞讗 讛诇讜拽讞 诪谉 讛谞讞转讜诐 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛讞诪讛 注诇 讛爪讜谞谞转 讜诪谉 讛爪讜谞谞转 注诇 讛讞诪讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讚驻讜住讬诐 讛专讘讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Ravina raises an objection from a mishna (Demai 5:3): One who purchases bread from a baker who is unreliable with regard to tithes [am ha鈥檃retz] may tithe from warm bread for, i.e., to exempt, cold bread, and from cold bread for warm bread, and one may do so even if the bread is in different shapes from many molds; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪谉 讛爪讜谞谞转 注诇 讛讞诪讛 讻讚专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 诪谞讬谉 诇转讜专诐 诪谉 讛专注讛 注诇 讛讬驻讛 砖转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 转砖讗讜 注诇讬讜 讞讟讗 讘讛专讬诪讻诐 讗转 讞诇讘讜 诪诪谞讜 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 拽讚砖 谞砖讬讗转 讞讟讗 诇诪讛 诪讻讗谉 诇转讜专诐 诪谉 讛专注讛 注诇 讛讬驻讛 砖转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

Granted, one may tithe from cold bread for warm bread, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elai, as Rabbi Elai says: From where is it derived with regard to one who separates teruma from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce that his teruma is teruma? It is as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing that you have set apart from it the best thereof鈥 (Numbers 18:32). The Torah warns the Levites not to separate teruma from low-quality produce. The question arises: If when one separates lower-quality produce, that produce is not sacred, why would one think that he bears sin? He did nothing. From here it is derived that although the Levite acted improperly, in the case of one who separates teruma from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce, his teruma is teruma.

讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讚驻讜住讬诐 讛专讘讛 诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻专讜砖讬 诪谉 讛讞讬讜讘 注诇 讛驻讟讜专 讜诪谉 讛驻讟讜专 注诇 讛讞讬讜讘

Rather, with regard to the halakha that one may tithe even if the bread is in different shapes from many molds, let Rabbi Meir be concerned lest the buyer come to tithe from the loaves that one is obligated to tithe for the loaves that one is exempt from tithing, or from the exempt for the obligated. Since these loaves are all demai, it is possible that the loaves shaped in one mold were baked from produce that was tithed and the loaves shaped in another mold were baked from produce that was not tithed. Apparently, Rabbi Meir rules leniently in cases of rabbinic law, e.g., demai.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖驻讬专 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖驻讬专 拽讗 诪砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讚拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讬转讛 讚讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讜诪砖谞讬 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚讞诪讬专讗

The Gemara returns to discuss the difficulties raised above. Abaye said: The problem raised by Rabbi Elazar was legitimately difficult for him, and Shmuel did not legitimately respond to his difficulty by stating that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. The reason the response is insufficient is that it was the case in the mishna of teruma of the tithe, which is punishable with death at the hand of Heaven, that was difficult for Rabbi Elazar, who was questioning whether the Sages reinforced their pronouncements concerning such a prohibition and rendered them parallel to Torah law; and Shmuel responded to him by citing Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion concerning a bill of divorce, which involves court-imposed capital punishment. Perhaps the case involving court-imposed capital punishment is different, as it is more stringent, and Rabbi Meir renders rabbinic law parallel to Torah law only in such a case.

讜专讘 砖砖转 诇讗 砖驻讬专 拽讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讬讛 讚拽讗诪专讬 讗讬谞讛讜 诪讬转讛 讜诪讜转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗讜 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讗讻诇 讘砖注专讬讱 讜诇诪讗讬 讚诪讜转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 专讘 讬讜住祝 砖驻讬专 拽讗 诪砖谞讬 诇讬讛

Abaye continued: And Rav Sheshet does not legitimately raise an objection, as Rabbi Elazar and Shmuel are speaking about cases punishable by death, and Rav Sheshet raised his objection from a case involving a mere prohibition, as it is written with regard to second tithe: 鈥淵ou may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17). And to that which Rav Sheshet raised as an objection, Rav Yosef legitimately respond to his difficulty.

讗诇讗 专讘讬谞讗 注讚 讚诪讜转讬讘 诪谞讞转讜诐 诇住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诪驻诇讟专 讚转谞谉 讛诇讜拽讞 诪谉 讛驻诇讟专 诪注砖专 诪谉 讻诇 讚驻讜住 讜讚驻讜住 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

But as for Ravina, the question arises: Rather than raising an objection from this case of a baker, from which proof is cited that Rabbi Meir does not draw a parallel between rabbinic law and Torah law, let him cite support for the assessment of the opinion of Rabbi Meir from the case of a bread merchant [mipalter], as we learned in a mishna (Demai 5:4): One who purchases bread from a merchant tithes separately from the bread of each and every mold; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. In this case, Rabbi Meir is stringent with regard to demai.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 驻诇讟专 诪转专讬 转诇转讗 讙讘专讗 讝讘讬谉 谞讞转讜诐 谞诪讬 诪讞讚 讙讘专讗 讛讜讗 讝讘讬谉

Rather, what have you to say in explaining why Ravina did not cite a proof from this mishna? It is because a merchant purchases his supply from two or three people. Therefore, Rabbi Meir holds that one must be concerned that perhaps one of the suppliers separated tithes and another did not, so the customer must separate tithes from the bread of each and every mold. But if that is the case, Ravina should not cite a proof from the case of the baker, as well; as the baker discussed in the mishna typically purchases his stock of grain from only one person. Therefore, in that case there is no concern that perhaps the customer will tithe from the loaves that he is exempt from tithing for the loaves that he is obligated to tithe.

专讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖驻讬专 拽讗 诪砖谞讬 诇讬讛 砖诐 诪讬转讛 讘注讜诇诐

Rava said: Shmuel responds well to that which was difficult to Rabbi Elazar, as the category of death in the world is one. Therefore, it is appropriate to cite proof from the case of court-imposed capital punishment to the case of death at the hand of Heaven.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讜谞讗讛 讛注讘讚讬诐 讜讛砖讟专讜转 讜讛拽专拽注讜转 讜讛讛拽讚砖讜转 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜诇讗 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讗讬谞讜 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专

MISHNA: These are matters that are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation even if the disparity between the value and the payment is one-sixth or greater: Slaves, and documents, and land, and consecrated property. In addition, if they are stolen, these items are subject neither to payment of double the principal for theft nor to payment of four or five times the principal, if the thief slaughtered or sold a stolen sheep or cow, respectively. An unpaid bailee does not take an oath and a paid bailee does not pay if these items were stolen or lost. Rabbi Shimon says:

拽讚砖讬诐 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讜谞讗讛 讜砖讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讜谞讗讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪讜讻专 住驻专 转讜专讛 讘讛诪讛 讜诪专讙诇讬转 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讜谞讗讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讗转 讗诇讜

With regard to sacrificial animals for which one bears responsibility to replace them, they are subject to the halakhot of exploitation, as this responsibility indicates a certain aspect of ownership. And those for which one does not bear responsibility to replace them, they are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even in the case of one who sells a Torah scroll, an animal, or a pearl, these items are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation, as they have no fixed price. The Rabbis said to him: The early Sages stated that only these items listed above are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation.

讙诪壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讻讬 转诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专 诇注诪讬转讱 讗讜 拽谞讛 诪讬讚 注诪讬转讱 讚讘专 讛谞拽谞讛 诪讬讚 诇讬讚 讬爪讗讜 拽专拽注讜转 砖讗讬谞谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬诐 讬爪讗讜 注讘讚讬诐 砖讛讜拽砖讜 诇拽专拽注讜转 讬爪讗讜 砖讟专讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻讬 转诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专 砖讙讜驻讜 诪讻讜专 讜讙讜驻讜 拽谞讜讬 讬爪讗讜 砖讟专讜转 砖讗讬谉 讙讜驻谉 诪讻讜专 讜讗讬谉 讙讜驻谉 拽谞讜讬 讜讗讬谞谉 注讜诪讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇专讗讬讛 砖讘讛诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught: It is written: 鈥淎nd if you sell to your colleague an item that is sold, or acquire from your colleague鈥檚 hand, one shall not exploit his brother鈥 (Leviticus 25:14). This is referring to an item acquired from hand to hand. Land is excluded, as it is not movable. Slaves are excluded, as they are juxtaposed to land in several sources, and therefore their legal status is like that of land in certain respects. Documents are excluded, as it is written: 鈥淎nd if you sell to your colleague an item that is sold,鈥 indicating an item that is itself sold and itself acquired. Documents are excluded, as they are not sold themselves and they are not acquired themselves. They have no intrinsic value, and they exist only for the proof therein.

诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讛诪讜讻专 砖讟专讜转讬讜 诇讘砖诐 讬砖 诇讛诐 讗讜谞讗讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗讜谞讗讛 诇驻专讜讟讜转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讬砖 讗讜谞讗讛 诇驻专讜讟讜转 讛拽讚砖讜转 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讞讬讜 讗讞讬讜 讜诇讗 讛拽讚砖

From here the Sages said: In the case of one who sells his documents that are no longer in use to a perfumer for use in packaging his wares, they are subject to the halakhot of exploitation because he is selling the paper itself. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? In that case, one sold paper, and it is no different from any other movable property. The Gemara answers: This serves to exclude the opinion of Rav Kahana, who says: There is no exploitation for cases involving perutot, as paper is sold for mere perutot. The Sages therefore teach us: There is exploitation for cases involving perutot. Consecrated property is excluded, as the verse states: 鈥淥ne shall not exploit his brother鈥 (Leviticus 25:14), indicating that these halakhot apply only to transactions involving 鈥渉is brother,鈥 but not to transactions involving consecrated property.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讛 讘专 诪诪诇 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讬讚讜 讬讚讜 诪诪砖 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬拽讞 讗转 讻诇 讗专爪讜 诪讬讚讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讻诇 讗专注讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讛讜讛 谞拽讬讟 诇讛 讗诇讗 诪专砖讜转讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪专砖讜转讜

Rabba bar Memel objects to this: Is that to say that anywhere that it is written 鈥渉is hand,鈥 the reference is to his actual hand, and not merely to his possession, in its metaphorical sense? If that is so, that which is written: 鈥淎nd taken all his land from his hand鈥 (Numbers 21:26), would you also explain here that he was holding all his land in his hand? Rather, clearly, 鈥渇rom his hand鈥 means from his possession. Here too, 鈥渇rom your colleague鈥檚 hand鈥 in the case of exploitation means from his possession.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讬讚讜 诇讗讜 讬讚讜 诪诪砖 讛讜讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诐 讛诪爪讗 转诪爪讗 讘讬讚讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讬讚讜 讙讙讜 讞爪讬专讜 讜拽专驻讬驻讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诐 讛诪爪讗 转诪爪讗 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that anywhere that it is written 鈥渉is hand鈥 the reference is not to his actual hand? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: 鈥淚f the theft is found in his hand鈥 (Exodus 22:3): I have derived from here only his hand; from where do I derive that the halakha is the same if the stolen item is found on his roof, in his courtyard, or in his enclosure? The verse states: 鈥淚f the theft is found [himmatze timmatze]鈥; the use of the double verb teaches that the halakha applies in any case where the stolen item is in his possession.

讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗诐 讛诪爪讗 转诪爪讗 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讘 讬讚讜 讬讚讜 诪诪砖 讛讜讗 讜转讜 转谞讬讗 讜谞转谉 讘讬讚讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讬讚讛 讙讙讛 讞爪讬专讛 讜拽专驻讬驻讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜谞转谉 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜谞转谉 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讘 讬讚讜 讬讚讜 诪诪砖

The Gemara infers: The halakha applies if the stolen item is found in his possession, and this includes any place in his possession. The reason is that the Merciful One writes: 鈥淚f the theft is found [himmatze timmatze].鈥 If that were not so, I would say that wherever He writes 鈥渉is hand,鈥 the reference is to his actual hand. And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita that it is written with regard to a bill of divorce: 鈥淎nd place it in her hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1). I have derived only her hand; from where do I derive that the halakha is the same if he places the bill of divorce on her roof, in her courtyard, or in her enclosure? The verse states: And place, in any case that he places it in her possession. Here too, the Gemara infers: The reason that any place in her possession is included is that the Merciful One writes 鈥渁nd place.鈥 If that were not so, I would say that wherever He writes 鈥渉is hand,鈥 the reference is to his actual hand.

讗诇讗 讻诇 讬讚讜 讬讚讜 诪诪砖 讛讜讗 讜砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讻讬 讗诇讗 讘专砖讜转讜

Rather, the Gemara rejects Rabba bar Memel鈥檚 objection and concludes: Every mention of the term 鈥渉is hand鈥 in the Torah is a reference to his actual hand. And it is different there, in the verse: 鈥淎nd taken all his land from his hand鈥 (Numbers 21:26), where it cannot be said that the reference is to his actual hand. Rather, it means there: In his possession.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 砖讻讬专讜转 讬砖 诇讜 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗讜谞讗讛 诪诪讻专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 砖讻讬专讜转 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 讻转讬讘 诪诪讻专 诇注讜诇诐 诪诪讻专 住转诪讗 讻转讬讘 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讬讜诪讬讛 诪讻讬专讛 讛讬讗

Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma with regard to rental: Is it subject to the halakhot of exploitation, or is it not subject to the halakhot of exploitation? The Gemara elaborates: Is it an item that is sold about which the Merciful One speaks, but not a rental; or perhaps there is no difference? Abaye said to him: Is it written: And if you sell an item that is sold forever? What is written is simply: 鈥淎nd if you sell an item that is sold,鈥 and indeed for its day the rental is considered a sale. The legal status of a rental is that of a sale for a limited period. Consequently, it is subject to the halakhot of exploitation.

讘注讬 专讘讗 讞讟讬谉 讜讝专注谉 讘拽专拽注 诪讛讜 讬砖 诇讛诐 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讜谞讗讛 讻诪讗谉 讚砖讚讬讬谉 讘讻讚讗 讚诪讬讬谉 讜讬砖 诇讛诐 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘讟诇讬谞讛讜 注诇 讙讘 讗专注讗

Rava raises a dilemma: In a case involving wheat kernels, and one sowed them in the ground, what is the halakha? Are they subject to the halakhot of exploitation, or are they not subject to the halakhot of exploitation? The Gemara elaborates: Is their legal status like that of kernels cast into a jug, and they are subject to the halakhot of exploitation, as they remain movable property? Or, perhaps he subordinated them to the ground, and like land they are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 砖讚讗讬 讘讛 砖讬转讗 讜讗转讜 住讛讚讬 讜讗诪专讬 讚诇讗 砖讚讗 讘讛 讗诇讗 讞诪砖讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讘诪讚讛 讜砖讘诪砖拽诇 讜砖讘诪谞讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讞讜转 诪讻讚讬 讗讜谞讗讛 讞讜讝专

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If we say that the hired laborer said: I sowed six kav of grain in the field, and witnesses came and said that he sowed only five kav in it, but doesn鈥檛 Rava himself say: With regard to any item that is otherwise subject to the halakhot of exploitation, and it is sold by measure, or by weight, or by number, even if the disparity was less than the measure of exploitation in the transaction, the transaction is reversed. A disparity of one-sixth between the value of an item and its price constitutes exploitation only in cases where there is room for error in assessing the value of an item. In a case where the sale item is easily quantifiable, any deviation from the designated quantity results in a nullification of the transaction, even if the wheat kernels are subordinate to the ground.

讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 砖讚讗讬 讘讛 讻讚讗讘注讬 诇讛 讜讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讚讗 讘讛 讻讚讗讘注讬 诇讛 讬砖 诇讛诐 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讜谞讗讛 讻诪讗谉 讚砖讚讬 讘讻讚讗 讚诪讬讬谉 讜讬砖 诇讛诐 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘讟诇讬谞讛讜 讗讙讘 讗专注讗

Rather, it is a case where the hired laborer said: I cast kernels in the field as required, without quantifying the measure of the kernels that he cast, and it was discovered that he did not cast kernels in the field as required. Are they subject to the halakhot of exploitation or are they not subject to the halakhot of exploitation? Is the legal status of these kernels like that of kernels cast into a jug, and they are subject to the halakhot of exploitation? Or, perhaps the laborer subordinated them to the ground?

谞砖讘注讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗讜 讗讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讻诪讗谉 讚砖讚讬讬谉 讘讻讚讗 讚诪讬讬谉 讜谞砖讘注讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘讟诇讬谞讛讜 讗讙讘 讗专注讗 讜讗讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 注诇讬讛谉

Rava raises an additional dilemma: If the laborer admitted to part of the claim, does he take an oath with regard to the kernels or does he not take an oath with regard to the kernels? Is their legal status like that of kernels cast into a jug, and one takes an oath with regard to them? Or, perhaps he subordinated them to the ground, and one does not take an oath with regard to them, as the halakha is that one does not take an oath about a claim involving land.

注讜诪专 诪转讬专谉 讗讜 讗讬谉 注讜诪专 诪转讬专谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗砖专讜砖 转谞讬谞讗 讗讬 讚诇讗 讗砖专讜砖 转谞讬谞讗 讚转谞谉 讗诐 讛砖专讬砖讜 拽讜讚诐 诇注讜诪专 注讜诪专 诪转讬专谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗住讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬讘讗 注讜诪专 讛讘讗

Rava raises an additional dilemma: Does the sacrifice of the omer offering permit one to eat the produce grown from these kernels, or does the sacrifice of the omer offering not permit one to eat the produce? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If it is a case where the kernels took root, we already learned that halakha. If it is a case where the kernels did not yet take root, we already learned that halakha also. As we learned in a mishna (Mena岣t 70a): If crops took root before the sacrifice of the omer offering, the omer offering renders it permitted to eat them. And if not, if they took root only after the sacrifice of the omer offering, it is prohibited to eat them until the time for the sacrifice of the next omer offering will arrive.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讞爪讚讬谞讛讜 讜讝专注讬谞讛讜 拽讜讚诐 诇注讜诪专 讜讗转讗 诇讬讛 注讜诪专 讜讞诇讬祝 注讬诇讜讬讬讛讜 讜诇讗 讗砖专讜砖 拽讜讚诐 诇注讜诪专

No, Rava鈥檚 dilemma is not superfluous, as it is necessary to raise it in a case where one reaped grain and sowed its kernels prior to the time of the omer offering, and the time of the omer offering arrived and passed while they were in the ground, and the kernels did not take root before the sacrifice of the omer offering.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 56

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 56

诪驻谞讬 砖讗诪专讜 诪讞诇诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻住祝 注诇 谞讞砖转 诪讚讜讞拽 诇讗 砖讬拽讬讬诐 讻谉 讗诇讗 砖讞讜讝专 讜诪讞诇诇谉 注诇 讛讻住祝 拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 诪讞诇诇讬谉 诪讚讜讞拽 诪讚讜讞拽 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 诪讚讜讞拽 诇讗

The reason one must employ this procedure is due to the fact that the Sages said: One desacralizes second-tithe silver coins upon copper coins under duress. And it is not that he will maintain them in that form; rather, it is that he again desacralizes them upon silver coins. In any event, the tanna teaches that one desacralizes second-tithe coins in this manner under duress, from which it may be inferred: Under duress, yes; not under duress, no. This is the halakha with regard to redemption of second-tithe coins by Torah law. By contrast, in the case of demai, which is by rabbinic law, Rabbi Meir permits desacralizing it in this manner ab initio. Apparently, Rabbi Meir is more lenient with regard to matters of rabbinic law than he is with regard to matters of Torah law.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讬拽诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘驻讚讬讜谞讜 诪讞诪讬专 讛讜讗 讘讗讻讬诇转讜 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诇诪讻讜专 讚诪讗讬 讗诇讗 诇住讬讟讜谉 讘诇讘讚 讜讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 爪专讬讱 诇注砖专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Rav Yosef said: Although Rabbi Meir is lenient with regard to redemption of second-tithe demai, he is stringent with regard to its consumption. This is as it is taught in a baraita: The Sages permitted only a wholesaler to sell demai. Since a wholesaler acquires grain from numerous sources and sells large quantities, he would suffer significant loss if he were required to separate tithes each time. But in the case of a proprietor who purchased produce from an am ha鈥檃retz, whether he purchased large quantities to sell in bulk or whether he purchased small quantities to sell little by little, he must tithe the produce; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 讛住讬讟讜谉 讜讗讞讚 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪讜讻专 讜砖讜诇讞 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜 讘诪转谞讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖

The baraita continues: And the Rabbis say: Both a wholesaler and a proprietor who sells in bulk may sell demai, or send it to another, or give it to him as a gift, and they need not be concerned. The one who receives the produce separates the tithes and consumes the remaining produce. In this baraita, Rabbi Meir was stringent with regard to the concern that someone will consume demai without the tithes being separated.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬谞讗 讛诇讜拽讞 诪谉 讛谞讞转讜诐 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛讞诪讛 注诇 讛爪讜谞谞转 讜诪谉 讛爪讜谞谞转 注诇 讛讞诪讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讚驻讜住讬诐 讛专讘讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Ravina raises an objection from a mishna (Demai 5:3): One who purchases bread from a baker who is unreliable with regard to tithes [am ha鈥檃retz] may tithe from warm bread for, i.e., to exempt, cold bread, and from cold bread for warm bread, and one may do so even if the bread is in different shapes from many molds; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪谉 讛爪讜谞谞转 注诇 讛讞诪讛 讻讚专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 诪谞讬谉 诇转讜专诐 诪谉 讛专注讛 注诇 讛讬驻讛 砖转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 转砖讗讜 注诇讬讜 讞讟讗 讘讛专讬诪讻诐 讗转 讞诇讘讜 诪诪谞讜 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 拽讚砖 谞砖讬讗转 讞讟讗 诇诪讛 诪讻讗谉 诇转讜专诐 诪谉 讛专注讛 注诇 讛讬驻讛 砖转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

Granted, one may tithe from cold bread for warm bread, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elai, as Rabbi Elai says: From where is it derived with regard to one who separates teruma from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce that his teruma is teruma? It is as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing that you have set apart from it the best thereof鈥 (Numbers 18:32). The Torah warns the Levites not to separate teruma from low-quality produce. The question arises: If when one separates lower-quality produce, that produce is not sacred, why would one think that he bears sin? He did nothing. From here it is derived that although the Levite acted improperly, in the case of one who separates teruma from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce, his teruma is teruma.

讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讚驻讜住讬诐 讛专讘讛 诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻专讜砖讬 诪谉 讛讞讬讜讘 注诇 讛驻讟讜专 讜诪谉 讛驻讟讜专 注诇 讛讞讬讜讘

Rather, with regard to the halakha that one may tithe even if the bread is in different shapes from many molds, let Rabbi Meir be concerned lest the buyer come to tithe from the loaves that one is obligated to tithe for the loaves that one is exempt from tithing, or from the exempt for the obligated. Since these loaves are all demai, it is possible that the loaves shaped in one mold were baked from produce that was tithed and the loaves shaped in another mold were baked from produce that was not tithed. Apparently, Rabbi Meir rules leniently in cases of rabbinic law, e.g., demai.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖驻讬专 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖驻讬专 拽讗 诪砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讚拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讬转讛 讚讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讜诪砖谞讬 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚讞诪讬专讗

The Gemara returns to discuss the difficulties raised above. Abaye said: The problem raised by Rabbi Elazar was legitimately difficult for him, and Shmuel did not legitimately respond to his difficulty by stating that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. The reason the response is insufficient is that it was the case in the mishna of teruma of the tithe, which is punishable with death at the hand of Heaven, that was difficult for Rabbi Elazar, who was questioning whether the Sages reinforced their pronouncements concerning such a prohibition and rendered them parallel to Torah law; and Shmuel responded to him by citing Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion concerning a bill of divorce, which involves court-imposed capital punishment. Perhaps the case involving court-imposed capital punishment is different, as it is more stringent, and Rabbi Meir renders rabbinic law parallel to Torah law only in such a case.

讜专讘 砖砖转 诇讗 砖驻讬专 拽讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讬讛 讚拽讗诪专讬 讗讬谞讛讜 诪讬转讛 讜诪讜转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗讜 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讗讻诇 讘砖注专讬讱 讜诇诪讗讬 讚诪讜转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 专讘 讬讜住祝 砖驻讬专 拽讗 诪砖谞讬 诇讬讛

Abaye continued: And Rav Sheshet does not legitimately raise an objection, as Rabbi Elazar and Shmuel are speaking about cases punishable by death, and Rav Sheshet raised his objection from a case involving a mere prohibition, as it is written with regard to second tithe: 鈥淵ou may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17). And to that which Rav Sheshet raised as an objection, Rav Yosef legitimately respond to his difficulty.

讗诇讗 专讘讬谞讗 注讚 讚诪讜转讬讘 诪谞讞转讜诐 诇住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诪驻诇讟专 讚转谞谉 讛诇讜拽讞 诪谉 讛驻诇讟专 诪注砖专 诪谉 讻诇 讚驻讜住 讜讚驻讜住 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

But as for Ravina, the question arises: Rather than raising an objection from this case of a baker, from which proof is cited that Rabbi Meir does not draw a parallel between rabbinic law and Torah law, let him cite support for the assessment of the opinion of Rabbi Meir from the case of a bread merchant [mipalter], as we learned in a mishna (Demai 5:4): One who purchases bread from a merchant tithes separately from the bread of each and every mold; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. In this case, Rabbi Meir is stringent with regard to demai.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 驻诇讟专 诪转专讬 转诇转讗 讙讘专讗 讝讘讬谉 谞讞转讜诐 谞诪讬 诪讞讚 讙讘专讗 讛讜讗 讝讘讬谉

Rather, what have you to say in explaining why Ravina did not cite a proof from this mishna? It is because a merchant purchases his supply from two or three people. Therefore, Rabbi Meir holds that one must be concerned that perhaps one of the suppliers separated tithes and another did not, so the customer must separate tithes from the bread of each and every mold. But if that is the case, Ravina should not cite a proof from the case of the baker, as well; as the baker discussed in the mishna typically purchases his stock of grain from only one person. Therefore, in that case there is no concern that perhaps the customer will tithe from the loaves that he is exempt from tithing for the loaves that he is obligated to tithe.

专讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖驻讬专 拽讗 诪砖谞讬 诇讬讛 砖诐 诪讬转讛 讘注讜诇诐

Rava said: Shmuel responds well to that which was difficult to Rabbi Elazar, as the category of death in the world is one. Therefore, it is appropriate to cite proof from the case of court-imposed capital punishment to the case of death at the hand of Heaven.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讜谞讗讛 讛注讘讚讬诐 讜讛砖讟专讜转 讜讛拽专拽注讜转 讜讛讛拽讚砖讜转 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜诇讗 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讗讬谞讜 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专

MISHNA: These are matters that are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation even if the disparity between the value and the payment is one-sixth or greater: Slaves, and documents, and land, and consecrated property. In addition, if they are stolen, these items are subject neither to payment of double the principal for theft nor to payment of four or five times the principal, if the thief slaughtered or sold a stolen sheep or cow, respectively. An unpaid bailee does not take an oath and a paid bailee does not pay if these items were stolen or lost. Rabbi Shimon says:

拽讚砖讬诐 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讜谞讗讛 讜砖讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讜谞讗讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪讜讻专 住驻专 转讜专讛 讘讛诪讛 讜诪专讙诇讬转 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讜谞讗讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讗转 讗诇讜

With regard to sacrificial animals for which one bears responsibility to replace them, they are subject to the halakhot of exploitation, as this responsibility indicates a certain aspect of ownership. And those for which one does not bear responsibility to replace them, they are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even in the case of one who sells a Torah scroll, an animal, or a pearl, these items are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation, as they have no fixed price. The Rabbis said to him: The early Sages stated that only these items listed above are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation.

讙诪壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讻讬 转诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专 诇注诪讬转讱 讗讜 拽谞讛 诪讬讚 注诪讬转讱 讚讘专 讛谞拽谞讛 诪讬讚 诇讬讚 讬爪讗讜 拽专拽注讜转 砖讗讬谞谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬诐 讬爪讗讜 注讘讚讬诐 砖讛讜拽砖讜 诇拽专拽注讜转 讬爪讗讜 砖讟专讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻讬 转诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专 砖讙讜驻讜 诪讻讜专 讜讙讜驻讜 拽谞讜讬 讬爪讗讜 砖讟专讜转 砖讗讬谉 讙讜驻谉 诪讻讜专 讜讗讬谉 讙讜驻谉 拽谞讜讬 讜讗讬谞谉 注讜诪讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇专讗讬讛 砖讘讛诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught: It is written: 鈥淎nd if you sell to your colleague an item that is sold, or acquire from your colleague鈥檚 hand, one shall not exploit his brother鈥 (Leviticus 25:14). This is referring to an item acquired from hand to hand. Land is excluded, as it is not movable. Slaves are excluded, as they are juxtaposed to land in several sources, and therefore their legal status is like that of land in certain respects. Documents are excluded, as it is written: 鈥淎nd if you sell to your colleague an item that is sold,鈥 indicating an item that is itself sold and itself acquired. Documents are excluded, as they are not sold themselves and they are not acquired themselves. They have no intrinsic value, and they exist only for the proof therein.

诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讛诪讜讻专 砖讟专讜转讬讜 诇讘砖诐 讬砖 诇讛诐 讗讜谞讗讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗讜谞讗讛 诇驻专讜讟讜转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讬砖 讗讜谞讗讛 诇驻专讜讟讜转 讛拽讚砖讜转 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讞讬讜 讗讞讬讜 讜诇讗 讛拽讚砖

From here the Sages said: In the case of one who sells his documents that are no longer in use to a perfumer for use in packaging his wares, they are subject to the halakhot of exploitation because he is selling the paper itself. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? In that case, one sold paper, and it is no different from any other movable property. The Gemara answers: This serves to exclude the opinion of Rav Kahana, who says: There is no exploitation for cases involving perutot, as paper is sold for mere perutot. The Sages therefore teach us: There is exploitation for cases involving perutot. Consecrated property is excluded, as the verse states: 鈥淥ne shall not exploit his brother鈥 (Leviticus 25:14), indicating that these halakhot apply only to transactions involving 鈥渉is brother,鈥 but not to transactions involving consecrated property.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讛 讘专 诪诪诇 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讬讚讜 讬讚讜 诪诪砖 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬拽讞 讗转 讻诇 讗专爪讜 诪讬讚讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讻诇 讗专注讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讛讜讛 谞拽讬讟 诇讛 讗诇讗 诪专砖讜转讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪专砖讜转讜

Rabba bar Memel objects to this: Is that to say that anywhere that it is written 鈥渉is hand,鈥 the reference is to his actual hand, and not merely to his possession, in its metaphorical sense? If that is so, that which is written: 鈥淎nd taken all his land from his hand鈥 (Numbers 21:26), would you also explain here that he was holding all his land in his hand? Rather, clearly, 鈥渇rom his hand鈥 means from his possession. Here too, 鈥渇rom your colleague鈥檚 hand鈥 in the case of exploitation means from his possession.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讬讚讜 诇讗讜 讬讚讜 诪诪砖 讛讜讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诐 讛诪爪讗 转诪爪讗 讘讬讚讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讬讚讜 讙讙讜 讞爪讬专讜 讜拽专驻讬驻讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诐 讛诪爪讗 转诪爪讗 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that anywhere that it is written 鈥渉is hand鈥 the reference is not to his actual hand? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: 鈥淚f the theft is found in his hand鈥 (Exodus 22:3): I have derived from here only his hand; from where do I derive that the halakha is the same if the stolen item is found on his roof, in his courtyard, or in his enclosure? The verse states: 鈥淚f the theft is found [himmatze timmatze]鈥; the use of the double verb teaches that the halakha applies in any case where the stolen item is in his possession.

讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗诐 讛诪爪讗 转诪爪讗 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讘 讬讚讜 讬讚讜 诪诪砖 讛讜讗 讜转讜 转谞讬讗 讜谞转谉 讘讬讚讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讬讚讛 讙讙讛 讞爪讬专讛 讜拽专驻讬驻讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜谞转谉 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜谞转谉 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讘 讬讚讜 讬讚讜 诪诪砖

The Gemara infers: The halakha applies if the stolen item is found in his possession, and this includes any place in his possession. The reason is that the Merciful One writes: 鈥淚f the theft is found [himmatze timmatze].鈥 If that were not so, I would say that wherever He writes 鈥渉is hand,鈥 the reference is to his actual hand. And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita that it is written with regard to a bill of divorce: 鈥淎nd place it in her hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1). I have derived only her hand; from where do I derive that the halakha is the same if he places the bill of divorce on her roof, in her courtyard, or in her enclosure? The verse states: And place, in any case that he places it in her possession. Here too, the Gemara infers: The reason that any place in her possession is included is that the Merciful One writes 鈥渁nd place.鈥 If that were not so, I would say that wherever He writes 鈥渉is hand,鈥 the reference is to his actual hand.

讗诇讗 讻诇 讬讚讜 讬讚讜 诪诪砖 讛讜讗 讜砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讻讬 讗诇讗 讘专砖讜转讜

Rather, the Gemara rejects Rabba bar Memel鈥檚 objection and concludes: Every mention of the term 鈥渉is hand鈥 in the Torah is a reference to his actual hand. And it is different there, in the verse: 鈥淎nd taken all his land from his hand鈥 (Numbers 21:26), where it cannot be said that the reference is to his actual hand. Rather, it means there: In his possession.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 砖讻讬专讜转 讬砖 诇讜 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗讜谞讗讛 诪诪讻专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 砖讻讬专讜转 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 讻转讬讘 诪诪讻专 诇注讜诇诐 诪诪讻专 住转诪讗 讻转讬讘 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讬讜诪讬讛 诪讻讬专讛 讛讬讗

Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma with regard to rental: Is it subject to the halakhot of exploitation, or is it not subject to the halakhot of exploitation? The Gemara elaborates: Is it an item that is sold about which the Merciful One speaks, but not a rental; or perhaps there is no difference? Abaye said to him: Is it written: And if you sell an item that is sold forever? What is written is simply: 鈥淎nd if you sell an item that is sold,鈥 and indeed for its day the rental is considered a sale. The legal status of a rental is that of a sale for a limited period. Consequently, it is subject to the halakhot of exploitation.

讘注讬 专讘讗 讞讟讬谉 讜讝专注谉 讘拽专拽注 诪讛讜 讬砖 诇讛诐 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讜谞讗讛 讻诪讗谉 讚砖讚讬讬谉 讘讻讚讗 讚诪讬讬谉 讜讬砖 诇讛诐 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘讟诇讬谞讛讜 注诇 讙讘 讗专注讗

Rava raises a dilemma: In a case involving wheat kernels, and one sowed them in the ground, what is the halakha? Are they subject to the halakhot of exploitation, or are they not subject to the halakhot of exploitation? The Gemara elaborates: Is their legal status like that of kernels cast into a jug, and they are subject to the halakhot of exploitation, as they remain movable property? Or, perhaps he subordinated them to the ground, and like land they are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 砖讚讗讬 讘讛 砖讬转讗 讜讗转讜 住讛讚讬 讜讗诪专讬 讚诇讗 砖讚讗 讘讛 讗诇讗 讞诪砖讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讘诪讚讛 讜砖讘诪砖拽诇 讜砖讘诪谞讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讞讜转 诪讻讚讬 讗讜谞讗讛 讞讜讝专

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If we say that the hired laborer said: I sowed six kav of grain in the field, and witnesses came and said that he sowed only five kav in it, but doesn鈥檛 Rava himself say: With regard to any item that is otherwise subject to the halakhot of exploitation, and it is sold by measure, or by weight, or by number, even if the disparity was less than the measure of exploitation in the transaction, the transaction is reversed. A disparity of one-sixth between the value of an item and its price constitutes exploitation only in cases where there is room for error in assessing the value of an item. In a case where the sale item is easily quantifiable, any deviation from the designated quantity results in a nullification of the transaction, even if the wheat kernels are subordinate to the ground.

讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 砖讚讗讬 讘讛 讻讚讗讘注讬 诇讛 讜讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讚讗 讘讛 讻讚讗讘注讬 诇讛 讬砖 诇讛诐 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讜谞讗讛 讻诪讗谉 讚砖讚讬 讘讻讚讗 讚诪讬讬谉 讜讬砖 诇讛诐 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘讟诇讬谞讛讜 讗讙讘 讗专注讗

Rather, it is a case where the hired laborer said: I cast kernels in the field as required, without quantifying the measure of the kernels that he cast, and it was discovered that he did not cast kernels in the field as required. Are they subject to the halakhot of exploitation or are they not subject to the halakhot of exploitation? Is the legal status of these kernels like that of kernels cast into a jug, and they are subject to the halakhot of exploitation? Or, perhaps the laborer subordinated them to the ground?

谞砖讘注讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗讜 讗讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讻诪讗谉 讚砖讚讬讬谉 讘讻讚讗 讚诪讬讬谉 讜谞砖讘注讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘讟诇讬谞讛讜 讗讙讘 讗专注讗 讜讗讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 注诇讬讛谉

Rava raises an additional dilemma: If the laborer admitted to part of the claim, does he take an oath with regard to the kernels or does he not take an oath with regard to the kernels? Is their legal status like that of kernels cast into a jug, and one takes an oath with regard to them? Or, perhaps he subordinated them to the ground, and one does not take an oath with regard to them, as the halakha is that one does not take an oath about a claim involving land.

注讜诪专 诪转讬专谉 讗讜 讗讬谉 注讜诪专 诪转讬专谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗砖专讜砖 转谞讬谞讗 讗讬 讚诇讗 讗砖专讜砖 转谞讬谞讗 讚转谞谉 讗诐 讛砖专讬砖讜 拽讜讚诐 诇注讜诪专 注讜诪专 诪转讬专谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗住讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬讘讗 注讜诪专 讛讘讗

Rava raises an additional dilemma: Does the sacrifice of the omer offering permit one to eat the produce grown from these kernels, or does the sacrifice of the omer offering not permit one to eat the produce? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If it is a case where the kernels took root, we already learned that halakha. If it is a case where the kernels did not yet take root, we already learned that halakha also. As we learned in a mishna (Mena岣t 70a): If crops took root before the sacrifice of the omer offering, the omer offering renders it permitted to eat them. And if not, if they took root only after the sacrifice of the omer offering, it is prohibited to eat them until the time for the sacrifice of the next omer offering will arrive.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讞爪讚讬谞讛讜 讜讝专注讬谞讛讜 拽讜讚诐 诇注讜诪专 讜讗转讗 诇讬讛 注讜诪专 讜讞诇讬祝 注讬诇讜讬讬讛讜 讜诇讗 讗砖专讜砖 拽讜讚诐 诇注讜诪专

No, Rava鈥檚 dilemma is not superfluous, as it is necessary to raise it in a case where one reaped grain and sowed its kernels prior to the time of the omer offering, and the time of the omer offering arrived and passed while they were in the ground, and the kernels did not take root before the sacrifice of the omer offering.

Scroll To Top