Bava Batra 188

אימא סיפא רבי יוסי אומר יבור

explain the last clause [of the Mishnah quoted, which reads]. R. Jose says: He shall pick out [all]. This would be correct if you assumed [that a quarter of a <i>kab</i> in <i>kilayim</i> is] like [a quantity of] more than a quarter [of a <i>kab</i>] of refuse. For their<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of R. Jose and the first Tanna. ');">¹</span> dispute could [then be said to] depend on [the following principles]. The first Tanna might hold the opinion that a penalty is not imposed on a permitted thing for the sake of a prohibited one, and R. Jose might hold the opinion that a penalty may thus be imposed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the prohibition is Biblical. ');">²</span> But if it is said that [a quarter of a <i>kab</i> of <i>kilayim</i> is] like a quarter [of refuse], why should he pick?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus add one Rabbinical restriction to another: first restriction, reduction to less than a quarter; second restriction, picking out all foreign matter. Even the law requiring reduction is not Biblical, but Rabbinical. Is one Rabbinical restriction not enough that R. Jose must add to it another? ');">³</span>

אי אמרת בשלמא כיותר מרובע טנופת דמי בהא קא מיפלגי ת"ק סבר לא קנסינן התירא אטו איסורא ור' יוסי סבר קנסינן אלא אי אמרת כרובע דמי אמאי יבור

This is the reason of R. Jose. there: Because<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though Biblically allowed. ');">⁴</span> it seems as if he was retaining<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he began to remove some, he must remove all; otherwise, the remainder might be regarded as if it had been intentionally put in. ');">⁵</span> <i>kilayim</i>.

התם היינו טעמא דר' יוסי משום דמיחזי כי מקיים כלאים

Come and hear! [It has been taught]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 37a. ');">⁶</span> If two [persons] deposited [money] with one [man], one of them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'. ');">⁷</span> a <i>maneh</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maneh = 100 zuz. ');">⁸</span>

ת"ש שנים שהפקידו אצל אחד זה מנה וזה מאתים זה אומר מאתים שלי וזה אומר מאתים שלי נותן לזה מנה ולזה מנה והשאר יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו

and the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'. ');">⁷</span> two hundred <i>zuz</i>, and the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'. ');">⁷</span> says. 'the two hundred <i>zuz</i> are mine', and the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'. ');">⁷</span>

הכי השתא התם ודאי מנה למר ומנה למר הכא מי יימר דלאו כוליה ערובי עריב

[also] says, 'the two hundred <i>zuz</i> are mine one <i>maneh</i> is given to the one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'. ');">⁷</span> and one <i>maneh</i> to the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'. ');">⁷</span> and the remainder must lie until [the prophet] Elijah comes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Elijah the prophet, the herald of the Messianic era who is to make the truth known. The phrase is a technical term meaning 'indefinitely'. ');">⁹</span>

ת"ש מסיפא א"ר יוסי א"כ מה הפסיד הרמאי אלא הכל יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו

[Does not this show that one is not penalised by being made to lose the whole<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since only one maneh is retained while the other is returned. ');">¹⁰</span> for the sake of a part?]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why. then, has it been said above that 'the Rabbis have imposed&nbsp;… the penalty of paying for all'? ');">¹¹</span> — What a comparison!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'How now!' ');">¹²</span>

הכי השתא התם ודאי איכא רמאי הכא מי יימר דערובי עריב

In that case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there', in the dispute about the maneh and the two hundred zuz. ');">¹³</span> one <i>maneh</i> certainly belongs to the one, and one <i>maneh</i> to the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, the certain maneh must be returned. ');">¹⁴</span> [but in] this [case],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The refuse in the produce. ');">¹⁵</span>

ת"ש שטר שיש בו רבית קונסין אותו ואינו גובה לא את הקרן ולא את הרבית דברי ר"מ

who can say that he has not [himself] put it all in?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the refuse is in a bigger proportion than the usual quantity, the seller may be suspected of having put in at least some, and one suspected of some may be suspected of all. ');">¹⁶</span> Come and hear [a confirmation]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the statement that a penalty may be imposed on the whole for the sake of the part. ');">¹⁷</span> from the last [clause of the quoted Baraitha which reads]: R. Jose said, 'If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if one maneh is returned. ');">¹⁸</span>

הכי השתא התם משעת כתיבה הוא דעבד ליה שומא הכא מי יימר דערובי עריב

what has the knave lost?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the knave (lit.. 'cheat') who deposited only one maneh gets that maneh back, he loses nothing and, consequently, would never admit the truth. ');">¹⁹</span> But all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So here, as a penalty for mixing, compensation must be paid for all the refuse. ');">²⁰</span> must be kept over until Elijah comes. What a comparison!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 6. ');">²¹</span>

ת"ש מסיפא וחכ"א גובה את הקרן ואינו גובה את הרבית

In that case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 7. ');">²²</span> there is certainly [one] knave [at least].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One of them must be a knave, since only one had deposited the larger sum. ');">²³</span> but in this case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 9. ');">²⁴</span>

הכי השתא התם ודאי קרנא דהתירא הוא הכא מי יימר דכוליה לא ערובי עריב

who can say that he has put it in at all?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The existence of the refuse in the produce may be due entirely to natural causes. ');">²⁵</span> Come and hear! [It has been taught]: [If] a bill [of debt] contains [an undertaking to pay] usury, a penalty is imposed [on the lender], and he receives neither the principal nor the interest; these are the words of R. Meir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.K. 30b; B.M. 72a. ');">²⁶</span> [Does not this prove that a penalty may be imposed on the whole for the sake of its part?] — What a comparison!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 392. n. 6. ');">²⁷</span>

ת"ש דתני רבין בר ר"נ לא את המותר בלבד הוא מחזיר אלא מחזיר לו את כל הרבעין כולן אלמא היכא דבעי אהדורי כולה מהדר

In that case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there', in the case when usury was mentioned in the bill of debt. ');">²⁸</span> [the lender] had committed the transgression<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the putting'. 'the laying'; Neither shall ye lay upon him usury. Ex. XXII. 24. ');">²⁹</span> from the moment of the writing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, let him lose the interest as well as the principal. ');">³⁰</span>

הכי השתא

but in this case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 392. n. 9. ');">³¹</span> who can say that he has put it in at all?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 392. n. 19. Hence he should not be required to pay. as a penalty, for all the refuse. ');">³²</span> Come and hear! [an objection] from the last [clause of the quoted Baraitha]: And the Sages say. '[the lender] receives the principal but not the interest'. [Does not this show that a penalty on the whole is not imposed on account of its part]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 392. n. 5. ');">³³</span> — What a comparison!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 392. n. 6. ');">³⁴</span> In that case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 2 above. ');">³⁵</span> the principal [at least] is certainly a permitted sum; but here, who can say that all has not been put in by him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 392. n. 10. ');">³⁶</span> Come and hear what Rabin son of R. Nahman learned:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 104b. ');">³⁷</span> [In case of the sale of a piece of ground, under certain conditions, though it was found to be bigger than arranged. by an area equal to that of a quarter of a <i>kab</i> per <i>se'ah</i>, the sale is valid; if, however, the difference is greater. then] not only must the surplus<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the portion of land by which the area is greater than a quarter of a kab per se'ah, viz., the difference between the actual area on the one hand, and the agreed area and a quarter of a kab per se'ah on the other. ');">³⁸</span> be returned but all the quarters<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the quarters of a kab per se'ah which, if not exceeded, were not to be returned. ');">³⁹</span> also must be returned. This shows clearly that whenever [a part] has to be returned, all must be returned!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This confirms R. Huna's statement, supra. according to the first explanation, that the return of all the refuse is law, because one does not forego more than a quarter of a kab. ');">⁴⁰</span> — What a comparison!