Mesorat%20hashas for Bava Metzia 113:9

איבעית אימא לעולם בכדי אונאה ולא תיפוך ובדרב חסדא קמיפלגי דאמר מאי אין להם אונאה אינן בתורת אונאה

R. Johanan said: It becomes <i>hullin</i> by Biblical law, but its value must be assessed by Rabbinic law. But Resh Lakish maintained: That its value, must be assessed is also Biblical. What are the circumstances? Shall we say, that it is within the limit of overreaching?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The substitute is worth less than the original only by an amount that constitutes overreaching, not cancellation. ');">⁷</span> In such a case, could Resh Lakish maintain that its value is assessed by Biblical law? Did we not learn, THE FOLLOWING ARE NOT SUBJECT TO [THE LAW OF] OVERREACHING: [THE PURCHASE OF] SLAVES, BILLS, REAL ESTATE AND SACRED OBJECTS? But if it refers to [a difference involving] cancellation of sale — could R. Johanan in that case say that its value must be made up by Rabbinical law [only]? Did not R. Jonah say in respect to sacred objects, and R. Jeremiah say in reference to real estate, yet both in R. Johanan's name: The law of overreaching does not apply thereto, but cancellation of sale does!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this implies by Biblical law. Hence according to R. Jonah, R. Johanan is self-contradictory. ');">⁸</span> — In truth, it refers to [a difference involving] cancellation of sale, but reverse it, [ascribing] R. Johanan's views to Resh Lakish and Resh Lakish's to R. Johanan. Wherein do they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan and Resh Lakish. ');">⁹</span> differ? — In respect to Samuel's dictum, viz., If <i>hekdesh</i> worth a <i>maneh</i> was redeemed with the equivalent of a <i>perutah</i>, it is redeemed. One Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The one who holds that hekdesh is not subject even to cancellation of sale. ');">¹⁰</span> accepts Samuel's ruling, the other rejects it. Alternatively, all agree with Samuel; but here they differ in this: one Master maintains, [Only] if it was redeemed, but not in the first place;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this is Biblical law, for when Scripture writes, then he shall redeem it according to thine estimation (Lev. XXVII, 27), it implies at its full value. Therefore, if redeemed with less, the deficiency must be made good. ');">¹¹</span> whilst the other holds that it is permissible even at the very outset.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'According to thine estimation' in his opinion means any value arbitrarily set upon it. Nevertheless, in order to safeguard the Temple treasury from loss, the Rabbis ordered the deficiency to be made good. ');">¹²</span> An alternative answer is this: In truth it refers to [a difference] within the limit of overreaching, and you must not reverse it. But they differ on R. Hisda's dictum, who said: What is meant by, they ARE NOT SUBJECT TO [THE LAW OF] OVERREACHING, is that they are not subject to the provisions of overreaching,

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Bava Metzia 113:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.