Commentary for Bava Metzia 109:19

גופא אמר רב קטינא ב"ד נזקקין אפילו לפחות משוה פרוטה מתיב רבא (ויקרא ה, טז) ואת אשר חטא מן הקדש ישלם

MUST FOLLOW HIM TO RETURN IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'must carry it after him.' ');">¹⁹</span> EVEN AS FAR AS MEDIA.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he repents, he does not obtain forgiveness unless he returns it to him personally, and he must go even so far. ');">²⁰</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. But we have already learnt it once: fraud is constituted by [an overcharge of] four silver [<i>ma'ahs</i>] in twenty four, which is a <i>sela'</i>, [hence] a sixth of the purchase!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 49b. ');">²¹</span> — He [the Tanna] desires [to state], THE [MINIMUM] CLAIM IS TWO SILVER [<i>MA'AHS</i>], AND ADMISSION IS [AT LEAST] THE VALUE OF A <i>PERUTAH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 327, n. 5. ');">²²</span> But that too we have [already] learnt: The judicial oath is [imposed] for a claim of two silver [<i>ma'ahs</i>] and an admission of a <i>perutah</i>! — The last clause is necessary, viz., A <i>PERUTAH</i> IS SPECIFIED IN FIVE INSTANCES. A <i>PERUTAH</i> IS SPECIFIED IN FIVE INSTANCES etc. But let him [the Tanna] teach also, [The minimum] overreaching is a <i>perutah</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if the overreaching is less there is neither compensation nor cancellation of the sale. ');">²³</span> — Said R. Kahana: This proves that the law of overreaching does not apply to perutahs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are copper coins. I.e., the minimum sum to which it applies is an issar, which is a silver coin. ');">²⁴</span> But Levi maintained: The law of overreaching does apply to perutahs. And thus did Levi read in his Baraitha [collection]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Levi had a compilation of Baraithas similar to that of R. Hiyya and R. Hoshaia, v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 216, n. 5.] ');">²⁵</span> A <i>perutah</i> was specified in five instances: [i] [Minimum] overreaching is a <i>perutah</i>; [ii] Admission is a <i>perutah</i>; [iii] The <i>kiddushin</i> of a woman is with a <i>perutah</i>; [iv] Robbery [imposes its obligations] on account of a <i>perutah</i>; and [v] The court session is on account of a <i>perutah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If liability is admitted or proved by witnesses, yet payment is refused, a court session orders measures of compulsion against the recalcitrant debtor. The smallest sum to be involved for this step to be taken is a perutah. ');">²⁶</span> Now, why does our Tanna not include the court session? — He includes it under robbery.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the same principle operates in both. ');">²⁷</span> Yet does he not teach both robbery and loss?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' HE WHO FINDS AN ARTICLE WORTH A PERUTAH IS BOUND TO PROCLAIM IT. The principles here too are identical, viz., that perutah is 'money', to the return of which the owner has a right, even if it involves considerable trouble. ');">²⁸</span> — Those are [both] necessary. 'Robbery', [to teach that] HE WHO ROBS HIS NEIGHBOUR OF THE VALUE OF A <i>PERUTAH</i> AND SWEARS [FALSELY] TO HIM [CONCERNING IT], MUST FOLLOW HIM TO RETURN IT EVEN AS FAR AS MEDIA.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus apart from the fact that the minimum which constitutes robbery is perutah, we are further informed that even such a small sum must be returned to the robbed man personally, though the expenses of such return far exceed the actual sum involved. ');">²⁹</span> 'A loss:' [thus] HE WHO FINDS [AN ARTICLE] WORTH A <i>PERUTAH</i> IS BOUND TO PROCLAIM IT, even if it depreciated [after being found].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that by the time it is announced it is not worth a perutah; yet the announcement must be made. ');">³⁰</span> Now, why does Levi not teach that a loss [in the sense of the Mishnah] is [at least] a <i>perutah</i>? — He teaches robbery. But does he not teach both robbery and the court session?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And in both these cases too the same principle is at stake. ');">³¹</span> — He needs [to teach that] in order to reject the view of R. Kattina, who said, The court sits<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'meets'. ');">³²</span> even for less than a perutah's worth. Now, why does Levi omit <i>hekdesh</i>? — He deals with <i>hullin</i>, not sacred objects. Then since our Tanna does treat of sacred objects, let him teach, The [minimum of second] tithe [to be eligible for redemption] is a <i>perutah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But a lesser quantity must be consumed in Jerusalem. ');">³³</span> — [The omission is] in accordance with the view that if its fifth is less than a <i>perutah</i> [it cannot be redeemed]. Then let him state, The [added] fifth of the [second] tithe must be [not less than] a <i>perutah</i>. — He treats of principals, not fifths.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In all cases stated in the Mishnah the principal itself must be not less than a perutah. ');">³⁴</span> The [above text] states: 'R. Kattina said: The court sits even for less than a perutah's worth.' Raba objected: <i>And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 16. ');">³⁵</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 109:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.