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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 22, 2016 | ื›ืดื ื‘ืžืจื—ืฉื•ืŸ ืชืฉืขืดื–

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

Bava Metzia 57

While the various categories are excluded from laws of exploitation, does this mean that it is only at the halachic level of explioitation (1/6) or would it also apply if one exploited another to a higher degree (bitul mekach – where we generally say the sale is cancelled)? ย Various answers are given. ย One of the answers passed down in the name of Rabbi Yochanan seems to contradict soemthing he holds elsewhere. ย Various answers are provided. ย Derivations for the exclusions of these categories in the other laws in the mishna (double payment, laws of shomrim) are brought.

ืžื”ื• ืœืžื™ื ืงื˜ ื•ืžื™ื›ืœ ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืฉื“ื™ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ื“ื ื“ืžื™ ื•ืฉืจื™ื ื”ื• ืขื•ืžืจ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื‘ื˜ืœื™ื ื”ื• ืื’ื‘ ืืจืขื ืชื™ืงื•

This is Ravaโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ืื•ื ืื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ื‘ื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ื™ืฉ ืœื”ื ืื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื ืคืฉื™ื˜ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ืื•ื ืื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ื‘ื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ื™ืฉ ืœื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ื” ืืžืจ ืื”ืงื“ืฉื•ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืืžืจ ืืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื•ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจื• ืื•ื ืื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ื‘ื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ื™ืฉ ืœื”ืŸ

ยง Rava said that Rav แธคasa 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 Naแธฅman said: Rav แธคasa 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 Yoแธฅanan: They are not subject to exploitation; they are subject to nullification of the transaction.

ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื”ืงื“ืฉื•ืช ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ืืงืจืงืขื•ืช ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืืงืจืงืขื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ืื”ืงื“ืฉื•ืช ืœื ื›ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื•ื” ืžื ื” ืฉื—ื™ืœืœื• ืขืœ ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืžื—ื•ืœืœ

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.

ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ืื ื”ื™ื” ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื ื™ืฆื ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืœื• ื“ืžื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื™ืฆื ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืชื•ืจื” ื•ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืœื• ื“ืžื™ื ืžื“ื‘ืจื™ื”ื ื•ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืืฃ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืœื• ื“ืžื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืชื•ืจื”

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 Yoแธฅanan 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.

ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืื•ื ืื” ื‘ื”ื ืœื™ืžื ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืœื• ื“ืžื™ื ื“ื‘ืจ ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ืืœื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืื•ื ืื” ื”ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื•ื”ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื•ื”ืฉื˜ืจื•ืช ื•ื”ื”ืงื“ืฉื•ืช

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 didnโ€™t we learn in the mishna: These are matters that are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation: Land, slaves, documents, and consecrated property?

ืืœื ื‘ื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ื‘ื”ื ืœื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืœื• ื“ืžื™ื ืžื“ื‘ืจื™ื”ื ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ื” ืื”ืงื“ืฉื•ืช ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืืžืจ ืืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื•ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจื™ ืื•ื ืื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ื‘ื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ื™ืฉ ืœื”ื ืœืขื•ืœื ื‘ื‘ื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ื•ืื™ืคื•ืš ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื•ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ

Rather, the difference was the measure of nullification of the transaction. In that case, would Rabbi Yoแธฅanan say: He is required to calculate the difference in monetary value and pay it to the Temple treasury by rabbinic law? But didnโ€™t Rabbi Yona say that this ruling applies to consecrated property, and didnโ€™t Rabbi Yirmeya say it applies to land, and both of them say in the name of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: 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 Yoแธฅanan will be attributed to Reish Lakish, and the opinion of Reish Lakish will be attributed to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan.

ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื‘ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื•ื” ืžื ื” ืฉื—ื™ืœืœื• ืขืœ ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืžื—ื•ืœืœ ืžืจ ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ืžืจ ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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 Yoแธฅanan, does not accept the opinion of Shmuel, and he therefore holds that the requirement to calculate and pay the difference is by Torah law.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืื™ืช ืœื”ื• ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ื”ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืฉื—ื™ืœืœื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื›ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืœื ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืœื›ืชื—ืœื”

If you wish, say instead that everyone accepts the opinion of Shmuel, and here they disagree about this: One Sage, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, 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.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืœืขื•ืœื ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืื•ื ืื” ื•ืœื ืชื™ืคื•ืš ื•ื‘ื“ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืื™ ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืื•ื ืื” ืื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืชื•ืจืช ืื•ื ืื”

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 Yoแธฅanan. And they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rav แธคisda, 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,

ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ืคื—ื•ืช ืžื›ื“ื™ ืื•ื ืื” ื—ื•ื–ืจ

in that even if the difference in price is less than the measure of exploitation, the exploited party may renege on the transaction. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan does not accept the opinion of Rav แธคisda and Reish Lakish does.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ืช ื•ืื•ื ืื” ืœื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ืช ื•ืื•ื ืื” ืœื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžื™ ืืœื™ืžื ืžืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืื•ืงื™ืžื ื ื‘ืชื•ืจืช ืื•ื ืื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืจื‘ื™ืช ื•ื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ื ืื” ืœื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ืช ื•ื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ื ืื” ืœื”ืงื“ืฉ

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav แธคisdaโ€™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.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื–ื” ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืžื‘ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืืจื‘ื™ืช ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื ืžื™ ื–ื” ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžื‘ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืืื•ื ืื”

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.

ื”ื›ื™ ื”ืฉืชื ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื–ื” ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืžื‘ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ืชื• ืœื ืืœื ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื–ื” ื—ื•ืžืจ ื•ืชื• ืœื

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.

ืจื‘ื™ืช ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ืื•ื–ืคื™ื” ื’ื–ื‘ืจ ืžืื” ื‘ืžืื” ื•ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื”ืœื ืžืขืœ ื”ื’ื–ื‘ืจ ื•ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืžืขืœ ื”ื’ื–ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆืื• ืžืขื•ืชื™ื• ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื•ื• ืœื”ื• ื“ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜

ยง 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, didnโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืงื™ื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืœืกืคืง ืกืœืชื•ืช ืžืืจื‘ืข ื•ืขืžื“ื• ืžืฉืœืฉ ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืžืงื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืœืกืคืง ืกืœืชื•ืช ืžืืจื‘ืข ื•ืขืžื“ื• ืžืฉืœืฉ ืžืกืคืง ืžืืจื‘ืข ืžืฉืœืฉ ื•ืขืžื“ื• ืžืืจื‘ืข ืžืกืคืง ืžืืจื‘ืข ืฉื™ื“ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืขืœ ื”ืขืœื™ื•ื ื”

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 seโ€™a for a sela, and the market price rose and stood at three seโ€™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 seโ€™a for a sela, and their market price stood at three seโ€™a for a sela, he is required to fulfill his commitment and supply fine flour at four seโ€™a for a sela. If one committed to supply fine flour at three seโ€™a for a sela, and their market price decreased until it stood at four seโ€™a for a sela, he must supply fine flour at four seโ€™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.

ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื ื™ืŸ ื”ืžืกื•ืจื•ืช ืœื’ื–ื‘ืจ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ื•ื ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืœ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืžืงื“ื™ืฉื™ืŸ

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 mis-use 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.

ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ืคืฉืข ื›ืœืœ ืขืœ ืฉื•ืจ ืขืœ ื—ืžื•ืจ ืขืœ ืฉื” ืขืœ ืฉืœืžื” ืคืจื˜ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื‘ื“ื” ืืฉืจ ื™ืืžืจ ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื›ืœืœ

ยง 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: โ€œFor 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 otherโ€ (Exodus 22:8). โ€œFor any matter of trespassโ€ is a generalization; โ€œwhether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garmentโ€ is a detail. And when the verse states: โ€œOr for any manner of lost thing,โ€ it then generalizes again.

ื›ืœืœ ื•ืคืจื˜ ื•ื›ืœืœ ืื™ ืืชื” ื“ืŸ ืืœื ื›ืขื™ืŸ ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžื” ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœ ื•ื’ื•ืคื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœ ื•ื’ื•ืคื• ืžืžื•ืŸ

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.

ื™ืฆืื• ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ ื™ืฆืื• ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ืฉื”ื•ืงืฉื• ืœืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื™ืฆืื• ืฉื˜ืจื•ืช ืฉืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื’ื•ืคืŸ ืžืžื•ืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉื•ืช ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืจืขื”ื• ืจืขื”ื• ื•ืœื ื”ืงื“ืฉ

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.

ื•ืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืฉืœืฉื” ื•ืืจื‘ืขื”

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.

ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื ืื™ื ื• ื ืฉื‘ืข ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ื™ ื™ืชืŸ ืื™ืฉ ืืœ ืจืขื”ื• ื›ืœืœ ื›ืกืฃ ืื• ื›ืœื™ื ืคืจื˜ ื•ื’ื ื‘ ืžื‘ื™ืช ื”ืื™ืฉ ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื›ืœืœ

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: โ€œWhen a man delivers to his neighbor money or vessels to safeguard, and it is stolen out of the manโ€™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 judgeโ€ (Exodus 22:6โ€“7). โ€œWhen a man delivers to his neighborโ€ is a generalization; โ€œmoney or vesselsโ€ is a detail. And when the verse states: โ€œAnd it is stolen out of the manโ€™s house,โ€ it then generalizes again.

ื›ืœืœ ื•ืคืจื˜ ื•ื›ืœืœ ืื™ ืืชื” ื“ืŸ ืืœื ื›ืขื™ืŸ ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžื” ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœ ื•ื’ื•ืคื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœ ื•ื’ื•ืคื• ืžืžื•ืŸ

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.

ื™ืฆืื• ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ ื™ืฆืื• ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ืฉื”ื•ืงืฉื• ืœืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื™ืฆืื• ืฉื˜ืจื•ืช ืฉืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื’ื•ืคืŸ ืžืžื•ืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉื•ืช ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืจืขื”ื• ืจืขื”ื• ื•ืœื ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ

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.

ื ื•ืฉื ืฉื›ืจ ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ื™ ื™ืชืŸ ืื™ืฉ ืืœ ืจืขื”ื• ื›ืœืœ ื—ืžื•ืจ ืื• ืฉื•ืจ ืื• ืฉื” ืคืจื˜ ื•ื›ืœ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœืฉืžื•ืจ ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื›ืœืœ

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: โ€œWhen 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 bothโ€ฆbut if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its ownerโ€ (Exodus 22:9โ€“11). โ€œWhen a man delivers to his neighborโ€ is a generalization; โ€œa donkey, or an ox, or a sheepโ€ is a detail. And when the verse states: โ€œOr any beast to safeguard,โ€ it then generalizes again.

ื›ืœืœ ื•ืคืจื˜ ื•ื›ืœืœ ืื™ ืืชื” ื“ืŸ ืืœื ื›ืขื™ืŸ ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžื” ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœ ื•ื’ื•ืคื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœ ื•ื’ื•ืคื• ืžืžื•ืŸ

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.

ื™ืฆืื• ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ ื™ืฆืื• ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ืฉื”ื•ืงืฉื• ืœืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื™ืฆืื• ืฉื˜ืจื•ืช ืฉืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื’ื•ืคืŸ ืžืžื•ืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉื•ืช ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืจืขื”ื• ืจืขื”ื• ื•ืœื ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ

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.

ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื ืื™ื ื• ื ืฉื‘ืข ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื• ื‘ื ื™ ื”ืขื™ืจ ืฉืฉืœื—ื• ืืช ืฉืงืœื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื ื’ื ื‘ื• ืื• ืฉืื‘ื“ื•

ยง 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.

ืื ืžืฉื ืชืจืžื” ื”ืชืจื•ืžื”

If this occurred after the contributions of the chamber had already been collected from the chamber,

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Bava Metzia 57

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 57

ืžื”ื• ืœืžื™ื ืงื˜ ื•ืžื™ื›ืœ ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืฉื“ื™ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ื“ื ื“ืžื™ ื•ืฉืจื™ื ื”ื• ืขื•ืžืจ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื‘ื˜ืœื™ื ื”ื• ืื’ื‘ ืืจืขื ืชื™ืงื•

This is Ravaโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ืื•ื ืื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ื‘ื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ื™ืฉ ืœื”ื ืื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื ืคืฉื™ื˜ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ืื•ื ืื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ื‘ื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ื™ืฉ ืœื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ื” ืืžืจ ืื”ืงื“ืฉื•ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืืžืจ ืืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื•ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจื• ืื•ื ืื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ื‘ื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ื™ืฉ ืœื”ืŸ

ยง Rava said that Rav แธคasa 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 Naแธฅman said: Rav แธคasa 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 Yoแธฅanan: They are not subject to exploitation; they are subject to nullification of the transaction.

ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื”ืงื“ืฉื•ืช ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ืืงืจืงืขื•ืช ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืืงืจืงืขื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ืื”ืงื“ืฉื•ืช ืœื ื›ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื•ื” ืžื ื” ืฉื—ื™ืœืœื• ืขืœ ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืžื—ื•ืœืœ

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.

ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ืื ื”ื™ื” ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื ื™ืฆื ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืœื• ื“ืžื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื™ืฆื ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืชื•ืจื” ื•ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืœื• ื“ืžื™ื ืžื“ื‘ืจื™ื”ื ื•ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืืฃ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืœื• ื“ืžื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืชื•ืจื”

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 Yoแธฅanan 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.

ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืื•ื ืื” ื‘ื”ื ืœื™ืžื ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืœื• ื“ืžื™ื ื“ื‘ืจ ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ืืœื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืื•ื ืื” ื”ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื•ื”ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื•ื”ืฉื˜ืจื•ืช ื•ื”ื”ืงื“ืฉื•ืช

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 didnโ€™t we learn in the mishna: These are matters that are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation: Land, slaves, documents, and consecrated property?

ืืœื ื‘ื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ื‘ื”ื ืœื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืœื• ื“ืžื™ื ืžื“ื‘ืจื™ื”ื ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ื” ืื”ืงื“ืฉื•ืช ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืืžืจ ืืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื•ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจื™ ืื•ื ืื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ื‘ื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ื™ืฉ ืœื”ื ืœืขื•ืœื ื‘ื‘ื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ื•ืื™ืคื•ืš ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื•ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ

Rather, the difference was the measure of nullification of the transaction. In that case, would Rabbi Yoแธฅanan say: He is required to calculate the difference in monetary value and pay it to the Temple treasury by rabbinic law? But didnโ€™t Rabbi Yona say that this ruling applies to consecrated property, and didnโ€™t Rabbi Yirmeya say it applies to land, and both of them say in the name of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: 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 Yoแธฅanan will be attributed to Reish Lakish, and the opinion of Reish Lakish will be attributed to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan.

ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื‘ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื•ื” ืžื ื” ืฉื—ื™ืœืœื• ืขืœ ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืžื—ื•ืœืœ ืžืจ ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ืžืจ ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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 Yoแธฅanan, does not accept the opinion of Shmuel, and he therefore holds that the requirement to calculate and pay the difference is by Torah law.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืื™ืช ืœื”ื• ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ื”ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืฉื—ื™ืœืœื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื›ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืœื ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืœื›ืชื—ืœื”

If you wish, say instead that everyone accepts the opinion of Shmuel, and here they disagree about this: One Sage, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, 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.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืœืขื•ืœื ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืื•ื ืื” ื•ืœื ืชื™ืคื•ืš ื•ื‘ื“ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืื™ ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืื•ื ืื” ืื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืชื•ืจืช ืื•ื ืื”

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 Yoแธฅanan. And they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rav แธคisda, 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,

ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ืคื—ื•ืช ืžื›ื“ื™ ืื•ื ืื” ื—ื•ื–ืจ

in that even if the difference in price is less than the measure of exploitation, the exploited party may renege on the transaction. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan does not accept the opinion of Rav แธคisda and Reish Lakish does.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ืช ื•ืื•ื ืื” ืœื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ืช ื•ืื•ื ืื” ืœื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžื™ ืืœื™ืžื ืžืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืื•ืงื™ืžื ื ื‘ืชื•ืจืช ืื•ื ืื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืจื‘ื™ืช ื•ื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ื ืื” ืœื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ืช ื•ื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ื ืื” ืœื”ืงื“ืฉ

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav แธคisdaโ€™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.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื–ื” ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืžื‘ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืืจื‘ื™ืช ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื ืžื™ ื–ื” ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžื‘ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืืื•ื ืื”

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.

ื”ื›ื™ ื”ืฉืชื ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื–ื” ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืžื‘ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ืชื• ืœื ืืœื ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื–ื” ื—ื•ืžืจ ื•ืชื• ืœื

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.

ืจื‘ื™ืช ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ืื•ื–ืคื™ื” ื’ื–ื‘ืจ ืžืื” ื‘ืžืื” ื•ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื”ืœื ืžืขืœ ื”ื’ื–ื‘ืจ ื•ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืžืขืœ ื”ื’ื–ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆืื• ืžืขื•ืชื™ื• ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื•ื• ืœื”ื• ื“ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜

ยง 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, didnโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืงื™ื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืœืกืคืง ืกืœืชื•ืช ืžืืจื‘ืข ื•ืขืžื“ื• ืžืฉืœืฉ ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืžืงื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืœืกืคืง ืกืœืชื•ืช ืžืืจื‘ืข ื•ืขืžื“ื• ืžืฉืœืฉ ืžืกืคืง ืžืืจื‘ืข ืžืฉืœืฉ ื•ืขืžื“ื• ืžืืจื‘ืข ืžืกืคืง ืžืืจื‘ืข ืฉื™ื“ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืขืœ ื”ืขืœื™ื•ื ื”

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 seโ€™a for a sela, and the market price rose and stood at three seโ€™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 seโ€™a for a sela, and their market price stood at three seโ€™a for a sela, he is required to fulfill his commitment and supply fine flour at four seโ€™a for a sela. If one committed to supply fine flour at three seโ€™a for a sela, and their market price decreased until it stood at four seโ€™a for a sela, he must supply fine flour at four seโ€™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.

ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื ื™ืŸ ื”ืžืกื•ืจื•ืช ืœื’ื–ื‘ืจ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ื•ื ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืœ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืžืงื“ื™ืฉื™ืŸ

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 mis-use 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.

ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ืคืฉืข ื›ืœืœ ืขืœ ืฉื•ืจ ืขืœ ื—ืžื•ืจ ืขืœ ืฉื” ืขืœ ืฉืœืžื” ืคืจื˜ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื‘ื“ื” ืืฉืจ ื™ืืžืจ ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื›ืœืœ

ยง 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: โ€œFor 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 otherโ€ (Exodus 22:8). โ€œFor any matter of trespassโ€ is a generalization; โ€œwhether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garmentโ€ is a detail. And when the verse states: โ€œOr for any manner of lost thing,โ€ it then generalizes again.

ื›ืœืœ ื•ืคืจื˜ ื•ื›ืœืœ ืื™ ืืชื” ื“ืŸ ืืœื ื›ืขื™ืŸ ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžื” ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœ ื•ื’ื•ืคื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœ ื•ื’ื•ืคื• ืžืžื•ืŸ

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.

ื™ืฆืื• ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ ื™ืฆืื• ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ืฉื”ื•ืงืฉื• ืœืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื™ืฆืื• ืฉื˜ืจื•ืช ืฉืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื’ื•ืคืŸ ืžืžื•ืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉื•ืช ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืจืขื”ื• ืจืขื”ื• ื•ืœื ื”ืงื“ืฉ

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.

ื•ืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืฉืœืฉื” ื•ืืจื‘ืขื”

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.

ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื ืื™ื ื• ื ืฉื‘ืข ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ื™ ื™ืชืŸ ืื™ืฉ ืืœ ืจืขื”ื• ื›ืœืœ ื›ืกืฃ ืื• ื›ืœื™ื ืคืจื˜ ื•ื’ื ื‘ ืžื‘ื™ืช ื”ืื™ืฉ ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื›ืœืœ

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: โ€œWhen a man delivers to his neighbor money or vessels to safeguard, and it is stolen out of the manโ€™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 judgeโ€ (Exodus 22:6โ€“7). โ€œWhen a man delivers to his neighborโ€ is a generalization; โ€œmoney or vesselsโ€ is a detail. And when the verse states: โ€œAnd it is stolen out of the manโ€™s house,โ€ it then generalizes again.

ื›ืœืœ ื•ืคืจื˜ ื•ื›ืœืœ ืื™ ืืชื” ื“ืŸ ืืœื ื›ืขื™ืŸ ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžื” ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœ ื•ื’ื•ืคื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœ ื•ื’ื•ืคื• ืžืžื•ืŸ

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.

ื™ืฆืื• ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ ื™ืฆืื• ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ืฉื”ื•ืงืฉื• ืœืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื™ืฆืื• ืฉื˜ืจื•ืช ืฉืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื’ื•ืคืŸ ืžืžื•ืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉื•ืช ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืจืขื”ื• ืจืขื”ื• ื•ืœื ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ

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.

ื ื•ืฉื ืฉื›ืจ ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ื™ ื™ืชืŸ ืื™ืฉ ืืœ ืจืขื”ื• ื›ืœืœ ื—ืžื•ืจ ืื• ืฉื•ืจ ืื• ืฉื” ืคืจื˜ ื•ื›ืœ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœืฉืžื•ืจ ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื›ืœืœ

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: โ€œWhen 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 bothโ€ฆbut if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its ownerโ€ (Exodus 22:9โ€“11). โ€œWhen a man delivers to his neighborโ€ is a generalization; โ€œa donkey, or an ox, or a sheepโ€ is a detail. And when the verse states: โ€œOr any beast to safeguard,โ€ it then generalizes again.

ื›ืœืœ ื•ืคืจื˜ ื•ื›ืœืœ ืื™ ืืชื” ื“ืŸ ืืœื ื›ืขื™ืŸ ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžื” ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœ ื•ื’ื•ืคื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœ ื•ื’ื•ืคื• ืžืžื•ืŸ

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.

ื™ืฆืื• ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ ื™ืฆืื• ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ืฉื”ื•ืงืฉื• ืœืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื™ืฆืื• ืฉื˜ืจื•ืช ืฉืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื’ื•ืคืŸ ืžืžื•ืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉื•ืช ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืจืขื”ื• ืจืขื”ื• ื•ืœื ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ

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.

ืฉื•ืžืจ ื—ื ื ืื™ื ื• ื ืฉื‘ืข ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื• ื‘ื ื™ ื”ืขื™ืจ ืฉืฉืœื—ื• ืืช ืฉืงืœื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื ื’ื ื‘ื• ืื• ืฉืื‘ื“ื•

ยง 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.

ืื ืžืฉื ืชืจืžื” ื”ืชืจื•ืžื”

If this occurred after the contributions of the chamber had already been collected from the chamber,

Scroll To Top