Although certain categories are exempt from exploitation laws, does this exemption extend to cases where one party exploits another at a higher rate (bitul mekach)? Rabbi Yona and Rabbi Yirmia each offer different answers in the name of Rabbi Yochanan. A challenge is posed to Rabbi Yirmia’s position based on another statement attributed to Rabbi Yochanan. Several proposed explanations are offered to reconcile this discrepancy. Additionally, the derivations for the exclusion of these categories in other Mishnaic laws, such as double payment and laws governing the responsibilities of shomrim, are explored.
Bava Metzia
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’Yehuda Tzvi.
רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על־כלנה
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
Bava Metzia
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’Yehuda Tzvi.
רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על־כלנה
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
Bava Metzia 57
מַהוּ לְמִינְקַט וּמֵיכַל מִינַּיְיהוּ: כְּמַאן דְּשַׁדְיָין בְּכַדָּא דָּמֵי, וּשְׁרִינְהוּ עוֹמֶר, אוֹ דִלְמָא בַּטְּלִינְהוּ אַגַּב אַרְעָא? תֵּיקוּ.
This is Rava’s dilemma: What is the halakha? Is it permitted for one to take some of the kernels and eat from them? Is their legal status like that of kernels cast into a jug, and the sacrifice of the omer offering rendered their consumption permitted? Or perhaps he subordinated them to the ground, and their legal status is that of seeds that did not take root, and they are therefore forbidden. The Gemara concludes: The dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
אָמַר רָבָא: אָמַר רַב חַסָּא, בָּעֵי רַבִּי אַמֵּי: אוֹנָאָה אֵין לָהֶם, בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח יֵשׁ לָהֶם אוֹ אֵין לָהֶן? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲדַר אָמַר רַב חַסָּא, פָּשֵׁיט רַבִּי אַמֵּי: אוֹנָאָה אֵין לָהֶם, בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח יֵשׁ לָהֶם. רַבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר אַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת, רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר אַקַּרְקָעוֹת, וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרוּ: אוֹנָאָה אֵין לָהֶם, בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח יֵשׁ לָהֶן.
§ Rava said that Rav Ḥasa said that Rabbi Ami raises a dilemma with regard to those matters that are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation: Is the halakha that they are not subject to exploitation where the disparity in the price is one-sixth, but they are subject to nullification of the transaction when it is greater than that? Or, perhaps they are not subject to nullification of the transaction either. Rav Naḥman said: Rav Ḥasa then said that Rabbi Ami resolved this dilemma and said: They are not subject to exploitation; they are subject to nullification of the transaction. Rabbi Yona said: This ruling applies to consecrated property. Rabbi Yirmeya said: It applies to land. And both of them said it in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: They are not subject to exploitation; they are subject to nullification of the transaction.
מַאן דְּאָמַר אַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַקַּרְקָעוֹת. מַאן דְּאָמַר אַקַּרְקָעוֹת, אֲבָל אַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת לָא. כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֶקְדֵּשׁ שָׁוֶה מָנֶה שֶׁחִילְּלוֹ עַל שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – מְחוּלָּל.
The Gemara comments: The one who states that this ruling applies to consecrated property, all the more so does it apply to land. The one who states that this ruling applies to land states it only with regard to land, but it does not apply to consecrated property, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: Consecrated property worth one hundred dinars that one desacralized upon a coin worth one peruta, is desacralized. Since consecrated property is not subject to the halakhot of exploitation at all, it is desacralized upon coins worth any sum.
תְּנַן הָתָם: אִם הָיָה קוֹדֶשׁ בַּעַל מוּם, יָצָא לְחוּלִּין, וְצָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דָּמִים. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יָצָא לְחוּלִּין – דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, וְצָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דָּמִים – מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אַף צָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דָּמִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה.
We learned in a mishna there (Temura 26b): If the consecrated animal was blemished and another was substituted for it, the blemished animal leaves its consecrated state and assumes non-sacred status, and one is required to calculate the difference in monetary value between the two animals and pay it to the Temple treasury. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It leaves its consecrated state and assumes non-sacred status by Torah law, and one is required to calculate the difference in monetary value and pay it to the Temple treasury by rabbinic law. And Reish Lakish says: Even the halakha that one is required to calculate the difference in monetary value and pay it to the Temple treasury is by Torah law.
בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בִּכְדֵי אוֹנָאָה, בְּהָא לֵימָא רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: צָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דָּמִים דְּבַר תּוֹרָה? וְהָתְנַן: אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אוֹנָאָה: הַקַּרְקָעוֹת, וְהָעֲבָדִים, וְהַשְּׁטָרוֹת, וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת!
The Gemara asks: With what are we dealing? If we say that the difference between the value of the substitute animal and the value of the consecrated animal was the measure of exploitation, does Reish Lakish say in that case: He is required to calculate the difference in monetary value and pay it to the Temple treasury by Torah law? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: These are matters that are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation: Land, slaves, documents, and consecrated property?
אֶלָּא בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח, בְּהָא לֵימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן צָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דָּמִים מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָה אַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת, וְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר אַקַּרְקָעוֹת, וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרִי: אוֹנָאָה אֵין לָהֶם, בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח יֵשׁ לָהֶם! לְעוֹלָם בְּבִיטּוּל מִקָּח, וְאֵיפוֹךְ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, וּדְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ – לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.
Rather, the difference was the measure of nullification of the transaction. In that case, would Rabbi Yoḥanan say: He is required to calculate the difference in monetary value and pay it to the Temple treasury by rabbinic law? But didn’t Rabbi Yona say that this ruling applies to consecrated property, and didn’t Rabbi Yirmeya say it applies to land, and both of them say in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: They are not subject to exploitation; they are subject to nullification of the transaction? The Gemara answers: Actually, the difference was the measure of nullification of the transaction. And reverse attribution of the opinions, so that the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan will be attributed to Reish Lakish, and the opinion of Reish Lakish will be attributed to Rabbi Yoḥanan.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? בְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֶקְדֵּשׁ שָׁוֶה מָנֶה שֶׁחִילְּלוֹ עַל שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – מְחוּלָּל. מָר אִית לֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, וּמָר לֵית לֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל.
The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree? They disagree with regard to the halakha of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: Consecrated property worth one hundred dinars that one desacralized upon a coin worth one peruta is desacralized. One Sage, Reish Lakish, accepts the opinion of Shmuel, and therefore the consecrated article is desacralized by Torah law and the requirement to calculate and pay the difference is by rabbinic law. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, does not accept the opinion of Shmuel, and he therefore holds that the requirement to calculate and pay the difference is by Torah law.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר שֶׁחִילְּלוֹ – אִין, לְכַתְּחִילָּה – לָא. וּמָר סָבַר: אֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה.
If you wish, say instead that everyone accepts the opinion of Shmuel, and here they disagree about this: One Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that yes, consecrated property worth one hundred dinars that one desacralized upon a coin worth one peruta is desacralized after the fact, but ab initio, no, one may not do so. Therefore, one must nevertheless pay the difference to the Temple treasury by Torah law. And one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that the opinion of Shmuel applies even ab initio. Therefore, the requirement to pay the difference to the Temple treasury is by rabbinic law.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם בִּכְדֵי אוֹנָאָה, וְלָא תֵּיפוֹךְ, וּבִדְרַב חִסְדָּא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּאָמַר: מַאי אֵין לָהֶם אוֹנָאָה? אֵינָן בְּתוֹרַת אוֹנָאָה,
If you wish, say instead: Actually, the difference between the actual value of the animal and the amount used to desacralize it was within the measure of exploitation, and do not reverse attribution of the opinions of Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan. And they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, who said: What is the meaning of: They are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation? It means that they are not subject to the principle of exploitation at all. Rather, a more stringent standard applies,
דַּאֲפִילּוּ פָּחוֹת מִכְּדֵי אוֹנָאָה חוֹזֵר.
in that even if the difference in price is less than the measure of exploitation, the exploited party may renege on the transaction. Rabbi Yoḥanan does not accept the opinion of Rav Ḥisda and Reish Lakish does.
מֵיתִיבִי: רִבִּית וְאוֹנָאָה לַהֶדְיוֹט, וְאֵין רִבִּית וְאוֹנָאָה לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ! מִי אַלִּימָא מִמַּתְנִיתִין דְּאוֹקֵימְנָא בְּתוֹרַת אוֹנָאָה? הָכִי נָמֵי: רִבִּית וְדִין אוֹנָאָה לַהֶדְיוֹט, וְאֵין רִבִּית וְדִין אוֹנָאָה לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ.
The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Ḥisda’s opinion from a baraita: Dealings with a layman are subject to the halakhot of interest and exploitation, but dealings with consecrated property are not subject to the halakhot of interest and exploitation. The Gemara answers: Is the objection from the baraita stronger than that from the mishna, which was defused when we established it to be referring to the principle of exploitation, i.e., that the principle that up to one-sixth is not considered exploitation does not apply to consecrated property? So too the baraita should be understood: The halakhot of interest and the principle of exploitation apply to dealings with a layman, but the halakhot of interest and the principle of exploitation do not apply to dealings involving consecrated property.
אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: זֶה חוֹמֶר בַּהֶדְיוֹט מִבַּהֶקְדֵּשׁ? אַרִבִּית! לִיתְנֵי נָמֵי: זֶה חוֹמֶר בַּהֶקְדֵּשׁ מִבַּהֶדְיוֹט, אַאוֹנָאָה!
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, is that consistent with that which is taught in the latter clause of that baraita: This is the stringency with regard to the layman, in contrast to the halakha with regard to consecrated property? According to this explanation, the halakha with regard to consecrated property is more stringent than the halakha with regard to a layman. The Gemara answers: This stringency is only in the case of interest, as it is permitted to collect interest from consecrated property. The Gemara asks: If so, let the tanna also teach: This is the stringency with regard to consecrated property, in contrast to the halakha with regard to the layman in the case of exploitation.
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? בִּשְׁלָמָא, זֶה חוֹמֶר בַּהֶדְיוֹט מִבַּהֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְתוּ לָא. אֶלָּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ, זֶה חוֹמֶר וְתוּ לָא?
The Gemara rejects this question: How can these cases be compared? Granted, the mishna states: This is the stringency with regard to the layman, in contrast to the halakha with regard to consecrated property, and nothing further, i.e., there are no other cases where the halakha is more stringent for the layman than it is for consecrated property. But with regard to consecrated property, can one say: This is the stringency, and nothing further, there are no other stringencies? There are many halakhot in which consecrated property is treated more stringently than non-sacred property.
רִבִּית דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּאוֹזְפֵיהּ גִּזְבָּר מֵאָה בְּמֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים – וַהֲלֹא מָעַל הַגִּזְבָּר, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁמָּעַל הַגִּזְבָּר, יָצְאוּ מְעוֹתָיו לְחוּלִּין, וְהָווּ לְהוּ דְּהֶדְיוֹט!
§ The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of interest in cases of consecrated property? If we say that the Temple treasurer lent one hundred consecrated dinars in exchange for repayment of one hundred and twenty dinars, didn’t the treasurer thereby misuse consecrated property? And once the treasurer misused the money by giving it to a layman, his money immediately leaves its consecrated state and assumes non-sacred status. And it is then money of a layman, and the halakhot of interest apply to it.
אָמַר רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו לְסַפֵּק סְלָתוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע, וְעָמְדוּ מִשָּׁלֹשׁ. כִּדְתַנְיָא: הַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לְסַפֵּק סְלָתוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע וְעָמְדוּ מִשָּׁלֹשׁ – מְסַפֵּק מֵאַרְבַּע; מִשָּׁלֹשׁ וְעָמְדוּ מֵאַרְבַּע – מְסַפֵּק מֵאַרְבַּע, שֶׁיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה.
Rav Hoshaya said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where one accepts upon himself to supply fine flour to the Temple at the price of four se’a for a sela, and the market price rose and stood at three se’a for a sela, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who accepts upon himself to supply fine flour at four se’a for a sela, and their market price stood at three se’a for a sela, he is required to fulfill his commitment and supply fine flour at four se’a for a sela. If one committed to supply fine flour at three se’a for a sela, and their market price decreased until it stood at four se’a for a sela, he must supply fine flour at four se’a for a sela. This is a form of interest, as the result is that the Temple treasury is at an advantage. Although an arrangement of that kind is prohibited in transactions involving laymen, in dealings of the Temple treasury it is permitted.
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: הָכָא בְּאַבְנֵי בִנְיָן הַמְּסוּרוֹת לְגִזְבָּר עָסְקִינַן, כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בּוֹנִין בַּחוֹל, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַקְדִּישִׁין.
Rav Pappa said that there is a less complicated case of interest involving consecrated property: Here we are dealing with building stones that are entrusted to the Temple treasurer, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: One builds the structures in the Temple with non-sacred materials to avoid misuse of consecrated property during construction, and one consecrates those materials thereafter. The treasurer has provisional possession of property that will ultimately belong to the Temple treasury. The stones are non-sacred and can be loaned to others, but nevertheless they are not subject to the halakhot of interest.
אֵין בָּהֶן תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְכוּ׳. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עַל כׇּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע״ – כְּלָל, ״עַל שׁוֹר עַל חֲמוֹר עַל שֶׂה עַל שַׂלְמָה״ – פְּרָט, ״עַל כׇּל אֲבֵדָה אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל.
§ The mishna teaches: Slaves, documents, land, and consecrated property are not subject to the halakhot of payment of double the principal. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse that discusses double payment: “For any matter of trespass, whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garment, or for any manner of lost thing about which one shall say: This is it, the claims of both of them shall come before the judges, the one whom the judges convict shall pay double to the other” (Exodus 22:8). “For any matter of trespass” is a generalization; “whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garment” is a detail. And when the verse states: “Or for any manner of lost thing,” it then generalizes again.
כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט; מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן.
Consequently, this verse contains a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, and one of the thirteen rules of exegesis states that in such a case you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Therefore, just as each of the items mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as an item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value, so too double payment is practiced with regard to any item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value.
יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת, שֶׁאֵינָן מִטַּלְטְלִין. יָצְאוּ עֲבָדִים, שֶׁהוּקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת. יָצְאוּ שְׁטָרוֹת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּטַּלְטְלִין, אֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן. הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת – אָמַר קְרָא: ״רֵעֵהוּ״ – רֵעֵהוּ וְלֹא הֶקְדֵּשׁ.
Land is excluded, as it is not movable property. Canaanite slaves are excluded, as they are compared to land in many areas of halakha. Financial documents are excluded, as, although they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary value. The value of the material on which the document is written is negligible; documents are valuable only because they serve as proof for monetary claims. Finally, consecrated property is excluded because it is written in the verse that the one found liable shall pay double to the other, i.e., to another person, but not to the Temple treasury.
וְלֹא תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה וְכוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא? תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא תַּשְׁלוּמֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה וְאַרְבָּעָה.
The mishna teaches: Nor payment of four and five times the principal, as these payments to do not apply to consecrated animals. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this exclusion? The Gemara explains: The Merciful One states a payment of four or five times the principal, but not payment of three and four times the principal. It has already been established that there is no double payment in the cases in the mishna. The fourfold or fivefold payment in the case of the slaughter or sale of a stolen sheep or cow comprises the principal, the double payment, and then an additional two or three times the principle, respectively. Consequently, once the double payment is subtracted, the total paid would be three or four times the principal, and the verse makes no allowance for such a payment.
שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְכוּ׳. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ״ – כְּלָל, ״כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵּלִים״ – פְּרָט, ״וְגֻנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל.
The mishna teaches: An unpaid bailee does not take an oath if these items were stolen or lost. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse that discusses an unpaid bailee: “When a man delivers to his neighbor money or vessels to safeguard, and it is stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief is found, he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, then the master of the house shall approach the judge” (Exodus 22:6–7). “When a man delivers to his neighbor” is a generalization; “money or vessels” is a detail. And when the verse states: “And it is stolen out of the man’s house,” it then generalizes again.
כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן.
Consequently, this verse contains a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, and one of the thirteen rules of exegesis states that in such a case you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Therefore, just as each of the items mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as an item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value, so too double payment is practiced with regard to any item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value.
יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת, שֶׁאֵינָן מִטַּלְטְלִין. יָצְאוּ עֲבָדִים, שֶׁהוּקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת. יָצְאוּ שְׁטָרוֹת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּטַּלְטְלִין, אֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן. הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת – אָמַר קְרָא: ״רֵעֵהוּ״ – רֵעֵהוּ, וְלֹא שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ.
Land is excluded, as it is not movable property. Canaanite slaves are excluded, as they are compared to land in many areas of halakha. Financial documents are excluded, as, although they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary value. The value of the material on which the document is written is negligible; documents are valuable only because they serve as proof for monetary claims. Finally, consecrated property is excluded because it is written in the verse that the one found liable shall pay double to the other, i.e., to another person, but not to the Temple treasury.
נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם וְכוּ׳. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ״ – כְּלָל, ״חֲמוֹר אוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה״ – פָּרַט, ״וְכׇל בְּהֵמָה לִשְׁמוֹר״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל.
The mishna continues: A paid bailee does not pay if these items were stolen or lost. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse that discusses a paid bailee: “When a man delivers to his neighbor a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast to safeguard, and it dies, or is hurt, or is driven away, no man seeing it, the oath of the Lord shall be between them both…but if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner” (Exodus 22:9–11). “When a man delivers to his neighbor” is a generalization; “a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep” is a detail. And when the verse states: “Or any beast to safeguard,” it then generalizes again.
כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן.
Consequently, this verse contains a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, and one of the thirteen rules of exegesis states that in such a case you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Therefore, just as each of the items mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as an item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value, so too double payment is practiced with regard to any item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value.
יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת, שֶׁאֵינָן מִטַּלְטְלִין. יָצְאוּ עֲבָדִים, שֶׁהוּקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת. יָצְאוּ שְׁטָרוֹת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּטַּלְטְלִין, אֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן. הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת – אָמַר קְרָא: ״רֵעֵהוּ״ – רֵעֵהוּ, וְלֹא שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ.
Land is excluded, as it is not movable property. Canaanite slaves are excluded, as they are compared to land in many areas of halakha. Financial documents are excluded, as, although they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary value. The value of the material on which the document is written is negligible; documents are valuable only because they serve as proof for monetary claims. Finally, consecrated property is excluded because it is written in the verse that the one found liable shall pay double to the other, i.e., to another person, but not to the Temple treasury.
שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְכוּ׳. וּרְמִינְהוּ, בְּנֵי הָעִיר שֶׁשָּׁלְחוּ אֶת שִׁקְלֵיהֶן וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדוּ,
§ After determining the source of the halakhot in the mishna, the Gemara analyzes those halakhot. The mishna teaches: An unpaid bailee does not take an oath if these items were stolen or lost. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna. Half-shekels were donated by the people during the month of Adar and placed in a special chamber in the Temple, from where, as needed, some of the shekels were taken for use in purchasing public offerings in the coming months. This was done in order to give all of the Jewish people a share in those public offerings. Additionally, from the moment that the money is taken from there, both those shekels that arrived at the Temple and those that did not yet arrive become Temple property. The mishna teaches (Shekalim 5a): With regard to residents of the city who sent their shekels to the Temple, and the coins were stolen from the agent or were lost en route, the halakha depends on the circumstances.
אִם מִשֶּׁנִּתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה –
If this occurred after the contributions of the chamber had already been collected from the chamber,
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I saw an elderly man at the shul kiddush in early March 2020, celebrating the siyyum of masechet brachot which he had been learning with a young yeshiva student. I thought, if he can do it, I can do it! I began to learn masechet Shabbat the next day, Making up masechet brachot myself, which I had missed. I haven’t missed a day since, thanks to the ease of listening to Hadran’s podcast!
Judith Shapiro
Minnesota, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Yafit Fishbach
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Susan Handelman
Jerusalem, Israel
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Shira Krebs
Minnesota, United States
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Bet Shemesh, Israel
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Elisheva Brauner
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi because my sister, Ruth Leah Kahan, attended Michelle’s class in person and suggested I listen remotely. She always sat near Michelle and spoke up during class so that I could hear her voice. Our mom had just died unexpectedly and it made me feel connected to hear Ruth Leah’s voice, and now to know we are both listening to the same thing daily, continents apart.
Jessica Shklar
Philadelphia, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Jill Felder
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, Israel
A friend mentioned that she was starting Daf Yomi in January 2020. I had heard of it and thought, why not? I decided to try it – go day by day and not think about the seven plus year commitment. Fast forward today, over two years in and I can’t imagine my life without Daf Yomi. It’s part of my morning ritual. If I have a busy day ahead of me I set my alarm to get up early to finish the day’s daf
Debbie Fitzerman
Ontario, Canada
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Joséphine Altzman
Teaneck, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker
Modi’in, Israel
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Karena Perry
Los Angeles, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Rookie Billet
Jerusalem, Israel
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Gila Loike
Ashdod, Israel
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Laura Major
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Leah Herzog
Givat Zev, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
I graduated college in December 2019 and received a set of shas as a present from my husband. With my long time dream of learning daf yomi, I had no idea that a new cycle was beginning just one month later, in January 2020. I have been learning the daf ever since with Michelle Farber… Through grad school, my first job, my first baby, and all the other incredible journeys over the past few years!
Sigal Spitzer Flamholz
Bronx, United States
Bava Metzia 57
מַהוּ לְמִינְקַט וּמֵיכַל מִינַּיְיהוּ: כְּמַאן דְּשַׁדְיָין בְּכַדָּא דָּמֵי, וּשְׁרִינְהוּ עוֹמֶר, אוֹ דִלְמָא בַּטְּלִינְהוּ אַגַּב אַרְעָא? תֵּיקוּ.
This is Rava’s dilemma: What is the halakha? Is it permitted for one to take some of the kernels and eat from them? Is their legal status like that of kernels cast into a jug, and the sacrifice of the omer offering rendered their consumption permitted? Or perhaps he subordinated them to the ground, and their legal status is that of seeds that did not take root, and they are therefore forbidden. The Gemara concludes: The dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
אָמַר רָבָא: אָמַר רַב חַסָּא, בָּעֵי רַבִּי אַמֵּי: אוֹנָאָה אֵין לָהֶם, בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח יֵשׁ לָהֶם אוֹ אֵין לָהֶן? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲדַר אָמַר רַב חַסָּא, פָּשֵׁיט רַבִּי אַמֵּי: אוֹנָאָה אֵין לָהֶם, בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח יֵשׁ לָהֶם. רַבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר אַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת, רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר אַקַּרְקָעוֹת, וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרוּ: אוֹנָאָה אֵין לָהֶם, בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח יֵשׁ לָהֶן.
§ Rava said that Rav Ḥasa said that Rabbi Ami raises a dilemma with regard to those matters that are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation: Is the halakha that they are not subject to exploitation where the disparity in the price is one-sixth, but they are subject to nullification of the transaction when it is greater than that? Or, perhaps they are not subject to nullification of the transaction either. Rav Naḥman said: Rav Ḥasa then said that Rabbi Ami resolved this dilemma and said: They are not subject to exploitation; they are subject to nullification of the transaction. Rabbi Yona said: This ruling applies to consecrated property. Rabbi Yirmeya said: It applies to land. And both of them said it in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: They are not subject to exploitation; they are subject to nullification of the transaction.
מַאן דְּאָמַר אַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַקַּרְקָעוֹת. מַאן דְּאָמַר אַקַּרְקָעוֹת, אֲבָל אַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת לָא. כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֶקְדֵּשׁ שָׁוֶה מָנֶה שֶׁחִילְּלוֹ עַל שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – מְחוּלָּל.
The Gemara comments: The one who states that this ruling applies to consecrated property, all the more so does it apply to land. The one who states that this ruling applies to land states it only with regard to land, but it does not apply to consecrated property, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: Consecrated property worth one hundred dinars that one desacralized upon a coin worth one peruta, is desacralized. Since consecrated property is not subject to the halakhot of exploitation at all, it is desacralized upon coins worth any sum.
תְּנַן הָתָם: אִם הָיָה קוֹדֶשׁ בַּעַל מוּם, יָצָא לְחוּלִּין, וְצָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דָּמִים. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יָצָא לְחוּלִּין – דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, וְצָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דָּמִים – מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אַף צָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דָּמִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה.
We learned in a mishna there (Temura 26b): If the consecrated animal was blemished and another was substituted for it, the blemished animal leaves its consecrated state and assumes non-sacred status, and one is required to calculate the difference in monetary value between the two animals and pay it to the Temple treasury. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It leaves its consecrated state and assumes non-sacred status by Torah law, and one is required to calculate the difference in monetary value and pay it to the Temple treasury by rabbinic law. And Reish Lakish says: Even the halakha that one is required to calculate the difference in monetary value and pay it to the Temple treasury is by Torah law.
בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בִּכְדֵי אוֹנָאָה, בְּהָא לֵימָא רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: צָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דָּמִים דְּבַר תּוֹרָה? וְהָתְנַן: אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אוֹנָאָה: הַקַּרְקָעוֹת, וְהָעֲבָדִים, וְהַשְּׁטָרוֹת, וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת!
The Gemara asks: With what are we dealing? If we say that the difference between the value of the substitute animal and the value of the consecrated animal was the measure of exploitation, does Reish Lakish say in that case: He is required to calculate the difference in monetary value and pay it to the Temple treasury by Torah law? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: These are matters that are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation: Land, slaves, documents, and consecrated property?
אֶלָּא בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח, בְּהָא לֵימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן צָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דָּמִים מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָה אַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת, וְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר אַקַּרְקָעוֹת, וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרִי: אוֹנָאָה אֵין לָהֶם, בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח יֵשׁ לָהֶם! לְעוֹלָם בְּבִיטּוּל מִקָּח, וְאֵיפוֹךְ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, וּדְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ – לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.
Rather, the difference was the measure of nullification of the transaction. In that case, would Rabbi Yoḥanan say: He is required to calculate the difference in monetary value and pay it to the Temple treasury by rabbinic law? But didn’t Rabbi Yona say that this ruling applies to consecrated property, and didn’t Rabbi Yirmeya say it applies to land, and both of them say in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: They are not subject to exploitation; they are subject to nullification of the transaction? The Gemara answers: Actually, the difference was the measure of nullification of the transaction. And reverse attribution of the opinions, so that the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan will be attributed to Reish Lakish, and the opinion of Reish Lakish will be attributed to Rabbi Yoḥanan.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? בְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֶקְדֵּשׁ שָׁוֶה מָנֶה שֶׁחִילְּלוֹ עַל שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – מְחוּלָּל. מָר אִית לֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, וּמָר לֵית לֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל.
The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree? They disagree with regard to the halakha of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: Consecrated property worth one hundred dinars that one desacralized upon a coin worth one peruta is desacralized. One Sage, Reish Lakish, accepts the opinion of Shmuel, and therefore the consecrated article is desacralized by Torah law and the requirement to calculate and pay the difference is by rabbinic law. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, does not accept the opinion of Shmuel, and he therefore holds that the requirement to calculate and pay the difference is by Torah law.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר שֶׁחִילְּלוֹ – אִין, לְכַתְּחִילָּה – לָא. וּמָר סָבַר: אֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה.
If you wish, say instead that everyone accepts the opinion of Shmuel, and here they disagree about this: One Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that yes, consecrated property worth one hundred dinars that one desacralized upon a coin worth one peruta is desacralized after the fact, but ab initio, no, one may not do so. Therefore, one must nevertheless pay the difference to the Temple treasury by Torah law. And one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that the opinion of Shmuel applies even ab initio. Therefore, the requirement to pay the difference to the Temple treasury is by rabbinic law.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם בִּכְדֵי אוֹנָאָה, וְלָא תֵּיפוֹךְ, וּבִדְרַב חִסְדָּא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּאָמַר: מַאי אֵין לָהֶם אוֹנָאָה? אֵינָן בְּתוֹרַת אוֹנָאָה,
If you wish, say instead: Actually, the difference between the actual value of the animal and the amount used to desacralize it was within the measure of exploitation, and do not reverse attribution of the opinions of Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan. And they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, who said: What is the meaning of: They are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation? It means that they are not subject to the principle of exploitation at all. Rather, a more stringent standard applies,
דַּאֲפִילּוּ פָּחוֹת מִכְּדֵי אוֹנָאָה חוֹזֵר.
in that even if the difference in price is less than the measure of exploitation, the exploited party may renege on the transaction. Rabbi Yoḥanan does not accept the opinion of Rav Ḥisda and Reish Lakish does.
מֵיתִיבִי: רִבִּית וְאוֹנָאָה לַהֶדְיוֹט, וְאֵין רִבִּית וְאוֹנָאָה לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ! מִי אַלִּימָא מִמַּתְנִיתִין דְּאוֹקֵימְנָא בְּתוֹרַת אוֹנָאָה? הָכִי נָמֵי: רִבִּית וְדִין אוֹנָאָה לַהֶדְיוֹט, וְאֵין רִבִּית וְדִין אוֹנָאָה לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ.
The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Ḥisda’s opinion from a baraita: Dealings with a layman are subject to the halakhot of interest and exploitation, but dealings with consecrated property are not subject to the halakhot of interest and exploitation. The Gemara answers: Is the objection from the baraita stronger than that from the mishna, which was defused when we established it to be referring to the principle of exploitation, i.e., that the principle that up to one-sixth is not considered exploitation does not apply to consecrated property? So too the baraita should be understood: The halakhot of interest and the principle of exploitation apply to dealings with a layman, but the halakhot of interest and the principle of exploitation do not apply to dealings involving consecrated property.
אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: זֶה חוֹמֶר בַּהֶדְיוֹט מִבַּהֶקְדֵּשׁ? אַרִבִּית! לִיתְנֵי נָמֵי: זֶה חוֹמֶר בַּהֶקְדֵּשׁ מִבַּהֶדְיוֹט, אַאוֹנָאָה!
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, is that consistent with that which is taught in the latter clause of that baraita: This is the stringency with regard to the layman, in contrast to the halakha with regard to consecrated property? According to this explanation, the halakha with regard to consecrated property is more stringent than the halakha with regard to a layman. The Gemara answers: This stringency is only in the case of interest, as it is permitted to collect interest from consecrated property. The Gemara asks: If so, let the tanna also teach: This is the stringency with regard to consecrated property, in contrast to the halakha with regard to the layman in the case of exploitation.
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? בִּשְׁלָמָא, זֶה חוֹמֶר בַּהֶדְיוֹט מִבַּהֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְתוּ לָא. אֶלָּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ, זֶה חוֹמֶר וְתוּ לָא?
The Gemara rejects this question: How can these cases be compared? Granted, the mishna states: This is the stringency with regard to the layman, in contrast to the halakha with regard to consecrated property, and nothing further, i.e., there are no other cases where the halakha is more stringent for the layman than it is for consecrated property. But with regard to consecrated property, can one say: This is the stringency, and nothing further, there are no other stringencies? There are many halakhot in which consecrated property is treated more stringently than non-sacred property.
רִבִּית דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּאוֹזְפֵיהּ גִּזְבָּר מֵאָה בְּמֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים – וַהֲלֹא מָעַל הַגִּזְבָּר, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁמָּעַל הַגִּזְבָּר, יָצְאוּ מְעוֹתָיו לְחוּלִּין, וְהָווּ לְהוּ דְּהֶדְיוֹט!
§ The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of interest in cases of consecrated property? If we say that the Temple treasurer lent one hundred consecrated dinars in exchange for repayment of one hundred and twenty dinars, didn’t the treasurer thereby misuse consecrated property? And once the treasurer misused the money by giving it to a layman, his money immediately leaves its consecrated state and assumes non-sacred status. And it is then money of a layman, and the halakhot of interest apply to it.
אָמַר רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו לְסַפֵּק סְלָתוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע, וְעָמְדוּ מִשָּׁלֹשׁ. כִּדְתַנְיָא: הַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לְסַפֵּק סְלָתוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע וְעָמְדוּ מִשָּׁלֹשׁ – מְסַפֵּק מֵאַרְבַּע; מִשָּׁלֹשׁ וְעָמְדוּ מֵאַרְבַּע – מְסַפֵּק מֵאַרְבַּע, שֶׁיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה.
Rav Hoshaya said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where one accepts upon himself to supply fine flour to the Temple at the price of four se’a for a sela, and the market price rose and stood at three se’a for a sela, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who accepts upon himself to supply fine flour at four se’a for a sela, and their market price stood at three se’a for a sela, he is required to fulfill his commitment and supply fine flour at four se’a for a sela. If one committed to supply fine flour at three se’a for a sela, and their market price decreased until it stood at four se’a for a sela, he must supply fine flour at four se’a for a sela. This is a form of interest, as the result is that the Temple treasury is at an advantage. Although an arrangement of that kind is prohibited in transactions involving laymen, in dealings of the Temple treasury it is permitted.
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: הָכָא בְּאַבְנֵי בִנְיָן הַמְּסוּרוֹת לְגִזְבָּר עָסְקִינַן, כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בּוֹנִין בַּחוֹל, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַקְדִּישִׁין.
Rav Pappa said that there is a less complicated case of interest involving consecrated property: Here we are dealing with building stones that are entrusted to the Temple treasurer, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: One builds the structures in the Temple with non-sacred materials to avoid misuse of consecrated property during construction, and one consecrates those materials thereafter. The treasurer has provisional possession of property that will ultimately belong to the Temple treasury. The stones are non-sacred and can be loaned to others, but nevertheless they are not subject to the halakhot of interest.
אֵין בָּהֶן תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְכוּ׳. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עַל כׇּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע״ – כְּלָל, ״עַל שׁוֹר עַל חֲמוֹר עַל שֶׂה עַל שַׂלְמָה״ – פְּרָט, ״עַל כׇּל אֲבֵדָה אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל.
§ The mishna teaches: Slaves, documents, land, and consecrated property are not subject to the halakhot of payment of double the principal. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse that discusses double payment: “For any matter of trespass, whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garment, or for any manner of lost thing about which one shall say: This is it, the claims of both of them shall come before the judges, the one whom the judges convict shall pay double to the other” (Exodus 22:8). “For any matter of trespass” is a generalization; “whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garment” is a detail. And when the verse states: “Or for any manner of lost thing,” it then generalizes again.
כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט; מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן.
Consequently, this verse contains a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, and one of the thirteen rules of exegesis states that in such a case you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Therefore, just as each of the items mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as an item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value, so too double payment is practiced with regard to any item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value.
יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת, שֶׁאֵינָן מִטַּלְטְלִין. יָצְאוּ עֲבָדִים, שֶׁהוּקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת. יָצְאוּ שְׁטָרוֹת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּטַּלְטְלִין, אֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן. הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת – אָמַר קְרָא: ״רֵעֵהוּ״ – רֵעֵהוּ וְלֹא הֶקְדֵּשׁ.
Land is excluded, as it is not movable property. Canaanite slaves are excluded, as they are compared to land in many areas of halakha. Financial documents are excluded, as, although they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary value. The value of the material on which the document is written is negligible; documents are valuable only because they serve as proof for monetary claims. Finally, consecrated property is excluded because it is written in the verse that the one found liable shall pay double to the other, i.e., to another person, but not to the Temple treasury.
וְלֹא תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה וְכוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא? תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא תַּשְׁלוּמֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה וְאַרְבָּעָה.
The mishna teaches: Nor payment of four and five times the principal, as these payments to do not apply to consecrated animals. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this exclusion? The Gemara explains: The Merciful One states a payment of four or five times the principal, but not payment of three and four times the principal. It has already been established that there is no double payment in the cases in the mishna. The fourfold or fivefold payment in the case of the slaughter or sale of a stolen sheep or cow comprises the principal, the double payment, and then an additional two or three times the principle, respectively. Consequently, once the double payment is subtracted, the total paid would be three or four times the principal, and the verse makes no allowance for such a payment.
שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְכוּ׳. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ״ – כְּלָל, ״כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵּלִים״ – פְּרָט, ״וְגֻנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל.
The mishna teaches: An unpaid bailee does not take an oath if these items were stolen or lost. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse that discusses an unpaid bailee: “When a man delivers to his neighbor money or vessels to safeguard, and it is stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief is found, he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, then the master of the house shall approach the judge” (Exodus 22:6–7). “When a man delivers to his neighbor” is a generalization; “money or vessels” is a detail. And when the verse states: “And it is stolen out of the man’s house,” it then generalizes again.
כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן.
Consequently, this verse contains a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, and one of the thirteen rules of exegesis states that in such a case you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Therefore, just as each of the items mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as an item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value, so too double payment is practiced with regard to any item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value.
יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת, שֶׁאֵינָן מִטַּלְטְלִין. יָצְאוּ עֲבָדִים, שֶׁהוּקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת. יָצְאוּ שְׁטָרוֹת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּטַּלְטְלִין, אֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן. הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת – אָמַר קְרָא: ״רֵעֵהוּ״ – רֵעֵהוּ, וְלֹא שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ.
Land is excluded, as it is not movable property. Canaanite slaves are excluded, as they are compared to land in many areas of halakha. Financial documents are excluded, as, although they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary value. The value of the material on which the document is written is negligible; documents are valuable only because they serve as proof for monetary claims. Finally, consecrated property is excluded because it is written in the verse that the one found liable shall pay double to the other, i.e., to another person, but not to the Temple treasury.
נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם וְכוּ׳. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ״ – כְּלָל, ״חֲמוֹר אוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה״ – פָּרַט, ״וְכׇל בְּהֵמָה לִשְׁמוֹר״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל.
The mishna continues: A paid bailee does not pay if these items were stolen or lost. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse that discusses a paid bailee: “When a man delivers to his neighbor a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast to safeguard, and it dies, or is hurt, or is driven away, no man seeing it, the oath of the Lord shall be between them both…but if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner” (Exodus 22:9–11). “When a man delivers to his neighbor” is a generalization; “a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep” is a detail. And when the verse states: “Or any beast to safeguard,” it then generalizes again.
כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן.
Consequently, this verse contains a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, and one of the thirteen rules of exegesis states that in such a case you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Therefore, just as each of the items mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as an item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value, so too double payment is practiced with regard to any item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value.
יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת, שֶׁאֵינָן מִטַּלְטְלִין. יָצְאוּ עֲבָדִים, שֶׁהוּקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת. יָצְאוּ שְׁטָרוֹת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּטַּלְטְלִין, אֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן. הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת – אָמַר קְרָא: ״רֵעֵהוּ״ – רֵעֵהוּ, וְלֹא שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ.
Land is excluded, as it is not movable property. Canaanite slaves are excluded, as they are compared to land in many areas of halakha. Financial documents are excluded, as, although they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary value. The value of the material on which the document is written is negligible; documents are valuable only because they serve as proof for monetary claims. Finally, consecrated property is excluded because it is written in the verse that the one found liable shall pay double to the other, i.e., to another person, but not to the Temple treasury.
שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְכוּ׳. וּרְמִינְהוּ, בְּנֵי הָעִיר שֶׁשָּׁלְחוּ אֶת שִׁקְלֵיהֶן וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדוּ,
§ After determining the source of the halakhot in the mishna, the Gemara analyzes those halakhot. The mishna teaches: An unpaid bailee does not take an oath if these items were stolen or lost. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna. Half-shekels were donated by the people during the month of Adar and placed in a special chamber in the Temple, from where, as needed, some of the shekels were taken for use in purchasing public offerings in the coming months. This was done in order to give all of the Jewish people a share in those public offerings. Additionally, from the moment that the money is taken from there, both those shekels that arrived at the Temple and those that did not yet arrive become Temple property. The mishna teaches (Shekalim 5a): With regard to residents of the city who sent their shekels to the Temple, and the coins were stolen from the agent or were lost en route, the halakha depends on the circumstances.
אִם מִשֶּׁנִּתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה –
If this occurred after the contributions of the chamber had already been collected from the chamber,
Follow
