Commentary for Bava Metzia 198:11

ומנכי ליה אגר טירחיה ודמי ברזנייתא:

But we learnt: If he [the steward in charge of the sanctuary] took a stone or beam of <i>hekdesh</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Intending to put it to secular use. ');">¹⁰</span> he is not guilty of trespass. If he gave it to his neighbour, he [the steward] is guilty of trespass, but not the latter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The steward is guilty of having removed it from the possession of hekdesh; for which very reason his neighbour is not guilty, since it is no longer hekdesh. Cf. p. 566, n. 5. ');">¹¹</span> If he built it into his house, he is not liable for trespass unless he dwells in [and enjoys the use of] it to the value of a <i>perutah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Me'ii. 19b; v. B.K. 20b. ');">¹²</span> Now, R. Abbahu sat before R. Johanan and said in Samuel's name: This proves that if a man dwells in his neighbour's courtyard without his permission, he must pay him rent!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as one is guilty of trespass in living under that beam, though the beam is so built in as to leave it unaltered, which shews that there is a debt due to hekdesh for this. Now, this inference of Samuel proves that he regards hekdesh and secular property on a par. ');">¹³</span> — Did not R. Johanan observe to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [This is the reading of BaH; cur. edd.: 'R. Johanan said to him,' which Rashi omits; cf. B.K. 20b.] ');">¹⁴</span> Samuel retracted from that [inference]? But how do you know that he retracted from the latter; perhaps he retracted from the former?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the law of stealing dates. ');">¹⁵</span> — No: [he must have retracted from the latter,] in accordance with Raba's<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec.: Rabbah's. ');">¹⁶</span> dictum; for Raba said: <i>Hekdesh</i> without [its owner's] knowledge is as secular property with [its owner's] knowledge.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if one makes use of hekdesh, even if the steward is ignorant thereof, he is just as liable as when one makes use of secular property and its owner knows and demands repayment. The reason is that the real owner of hekdesh is God, Who always knows. This proves that the two are not equal, and therefore Samuel is more likely to have retracted from the latter. ');">¹⁷</span> Raba said: If carriers broke a shopkeeper's barrel of wine, which on a market day is sold for five [<i>zuz</i>], but on other days for four, if they make a return on the market day, they return a barrel of wine; but if on other days,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the market day. ');">¹⁸</span> they must return five [<i>zuz</i>].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But he can refuse a barrel of wine, since he could have obtained a higher price on market day. ');">¹⁹</span> That, however, holds good only if he had no [other] wine for sale; but if he had [some left after the market], then he should have sold that. And they deduct the payment for his trouble and the value of the tapping.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The cost of making a bung hole for the wine to be drawn. According to another reading, the crier's fee, who announced that he had wine for sale, v. supra 40b. ');">²⁰</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 198:11. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.