Bava Metzia 112

קדשים שהוא חייב באחריותן יש להן אונאה ושאינו חייב באחריותן אין להן אונאה רבי יהודה אומר אף המוכר ס"ת בהמה ומרגלית אין להם אונאה אמרו לו לא אמרו אלא את אלו:

SACRIFICES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'sacred objects.' ');">¹</span> FOR WHICH ONE [THE OWNER] BEARS RESPONSIBILITY ARE SUBJECT TO [THE LAW OF] OVERREACHING; THOSE FOR WHICH ONE BEARS NO RESPONSIBILITY ARE NOT SUBJECT THERETO.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one declares, 'Behold, I vow to offer a sacrifice', and then dedicates an animal in fulfilment of his vow, he is responsible for it, and should it receive a blemish or be stolen he must replace it by another, since his vow did not specify that particular animal. R. Simeon therefore regards it as his, i.e., secular property, hence subject to the law of overreaching. But if he declares, 'I vow to sacrifice this animal,' and it is subsequently lost or stolen, he has no further responsibility in the matter. Consequently it is already sacred property, and as such not subject to the law of overreaching. ');">²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מנהני מילי דתנו רבנן (ויקרא כה, יד) וכי תמכרו ממכר לעמיתך או קנה מיד עמיתך דבר הנקנה מיד ליד יצאו קרקעות שאינן מטלטלים יצאו עבדים שהוקשו לקרקעות יצאו שטרות דכתיב וכי תמכרו ממכר שגופו מכור וגופו קנוי יצאו שטרות שאין גופן מכור ואין גופן קנוי ואינן עומדין אלא לראיה שבהם

R. JUDAH SAID: ALSO WHEN ONE SELLS A SCROLL OF THE TORAH, AN ANIMAL, OR A PEARL, THERE IS NO LAW OF OVERREACHING. THEREUPON THEY [SC. THE SAGES] SAID TO HIM: IT [THE LAW OF OVERREACHING] WAS ENACTED ONLY IN REFERENCE TO THESE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained in the Gemara. ');">³</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. How do we know this? — For our Rabbis taught: <i>And if thou sell a sale unto thy neighbour, or acquirest aught of thy neighbor's</i> hand<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 14. ');">⁴</span>

מכאן אמרו המוכר שטרותיו לבשם יש להם אונאה פשיטא לאפוקי מדרב כהנא דאמר אין אונאה לפרוטות קמ"ל יש אונאה לפרוטות הקדשות אמר קרא (ויקרא כה, כה) אחיו אחיו ולא הקדש

— this applies to that which is '<i>acquired'</i> [by being passed] from hand to hand, thus excluding land, which is not movable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore incapable of being passed from hand to hand. ');">⁵</span> slaves, which are assimilated to landed estates;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 342, n. 4. ');">⁶</span>

מתקיף לה רבה בר ממל כל היכא דכתיב ידו ידו ממש הוא אלא מעתה דכתיב (במדבר כא, כו) ויקח את כל ארצו מידו הכי נמי דכל ארעא בידיה הוה נקיט לה אלא מרשותו הכא נמי מרשותו

and bills, for it is written, '<i>And if thou sell a sale</i>,' implying, that which is intrinsically sold and intrinsically bought, excluding bills which are not intrinsically sold or bought, and exist only as evidence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a loan. ');">⁷</span> Hence it was said: If one sells his bills to a perfume dealer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For use as wrappers, stoppers, etc., I.e., for the value of the paper. ');">⁸</span>

וכל היכא דכתיב ידו לאו ידו ממש הוא והתניא (שמות כב, ג) אם המצא תמצא בידו אין לי אלא ידו גגו חצירו וקרפיפו מנין ת"ל אם המצא תמצא מ"מ

they are subject to the law of overreaching. But surely that is obvious! — It is to reject R. Kahana's view, that overreaching does not apply to [a purchase involving only] perutahs; therefore we are taught that overreaching does apply to perutahs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For normally the value of the paper of a person's bills could only be a matter of perutahs, and would not amount to an issar. ');">⁹</span> SACRED OBJECTS-Scripture saith, <i>One man shall not defraud</i> his brother:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 14: this is the literal translation. ');">¹⁰</span>

טעמא דכתב רחמנא אם המצא תמצא הא לאו הכי הוה אמינא כל היכא דכתב ידו ידו ממש הוא ותו תניא ונתן בידה אין לי אלא ידה גגה חצירה וקרפיפה מנין ת"ל ונתן מ"מ טעמא דכתב רחמנא ונתן הא לאו הכי הו"א כל היכא דכתב ידו ידו ממש

his brother, but not <i>hekdesh</i>. Rabbah b. Mammel objected: Wherever 'his hand' is written, is it then literal! If so, when it is stated, And he took all his land out of his hand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXI, 26. ');">¹¹</span>

אלא כל ידו ידו ממש הוא ושאני התם דליכא למימר הכי אלא ברשותו

does that too mean that he held all his land in his hand! But it must mean, out of his possession, so here too, it means out of his possession! — Then wherever 'his hand' is written, is it not literal? But it has been taught: If the theft be certainly found in his hand […he shall restore double].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 3. ');">¹²</span> From this I know [the law] only [if it is found] in his hand: whence do I know it of his roof, courtyard, or enclosure? From the phrase, If it certainly be found, implying in all circumstances. Hence this is only because the Divine Law wrote, 'If it certainly be found;' but otherwise I would have said that wherever 'his hand' is written, 'hand' is meant literally. Again, it has been taught: [Then let him write her a bill of divorcement] and he shall give it in her hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 1. ');">¹³</span>

בעי רבי זירא שכירות יש לו אונאה או אין לו אונאה ממכר אמר רחמנא אבל לא שכירות או דלמא לא שנא אמר ליה אביי מי כתיב ממכר לעולם ממכר סתמא כתיב והאי נמי ביומיה מכירה היא

Thus I know only [that he can place it in] her hand; whence do I know it of her roof, court, or enclosure? Because it is written, and he shall give it, implying, in any manner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 56 and notes. ');">¹⁴</span> Hence this is only because Scripture wrote 'and he shall give it'; but otherwise I would have said that wherever Scripture writes 'hand' it is meant literally! — But [in truth] 'his hand' is always meant literally; there, however,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the verse quoted by Rabbah b. Mammel. ');">¹⁵</span>

בעי רבא חטין וזרען בקרקע מהו יש להם אונאה או אין להם אונאה כמאן דשדיין בכדא דמיין ויש להם אונאה או דלמא בטלינהו על גב ארעא

it is different, because it cannot possibly be translated thus, but [must mean] 'his possession.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'hand' is always to be interpreted literally, save where the context forbids it. ');">¹⁶</span> R. Zera propounded: Does the law of overreaching apply to hiring or not? The Divine Law said, '[<i>and if thou sell</i>] a sale', implying but not hire; or perhaps there is no difference? — Said Abaye: is it then written, a permanent sale? An undefined 'sale' is stated, and this too<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. hiring. ');">¹⁷</span>

היכי דמי אילימא דאמר איהו שדאי בה שיתא ואתו סהדי ואמרי דלא שדא בה אלא חמשה והאמר רבא כל דבר שבמדה ושבמשקל ושבמנין אפילו פחות מכדי אונאה חוזר

for its day is a sale.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., hiring an article is the equivalent of a temporary sale, and therefore subject to the law of fraud. ');">¹⁸</span> Raba propounded: [What of] wheat which was sown in the soil:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A man was engaged to sow a field with wheat, the wheat being his (the employee's). ');">¹⁹</span>

אלא דאמר איהו שדאי בה כדאבעי לה ואיגלאי מילתא דלא שדא בה כדאבעי לה יש להם אונאה או אין להם אונאה כמאן דשדי בכדא דמיין ויש להם אונאה או דלמא בטלינהו אגב ארעא

does the law of overreaching apply thereto or not? Is it just as though he had placed it in a pitcher, hence subject to the law of overreaching: or perhaps he has assimilated it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'made it as nought.' ');">²⁰</span> to the soil?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And as the law of fraud does not apply to the soil, it neither applies to the wheat. ');">²¹</span>

נשבעין עליהן או אין נשבעין עליהן כמאן דשדיין בכדא דמיין ונשבעין עליהן או דלמא בטלינהו אגב ארעא ואין נשבעין עליהן

[But] what are the circumstances? Shall we say that he declared, 'I cast six [measures] therein'; and then witnesses came and testified that he sowed five only? But Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Kid. 42b the reading is 'Rabbah.' ');">²²</span> said: [On account of] any fraud<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thing'. ');">²³</span>

עומר מתירן או אין עומר מתירן היכי דמי אי דאשרוש תנינא אי דלא אשרוש תנינא דתנן אם השרישו קודם לעומר עומר מתירן ואם לאו אסורין עד שיבא עומר הבא

in measure, weight or number, even if less than the standard of overreaching, one can withdraw!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the goods are not as specified, being short in measure, weight, or number, one can withdraw. It is unnecessary that the fraud shall he a sixth, for a sixth is required only when the goods are as specified. Otherwise it is altogether an erroneous bargain, and hence revocable. This being so, it will obviously apply to real estate too, so that even if the wheat be accounted part of the soil, the vendee can insist upon compensation or revoke the sale. ');">²⁴</span> — But [the question arises] where he declared, 'I cast as much into it as was necessary; whilst it was subsequently revealed that he had not sown with it as much as was required: is it subject to the law of overreaching or not? Is it as though he had placed it in a pitcher, and hence subject to overreaching; or perhaps he assimilated it to the soil? Further, is an oath taken concerning it or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if A maintained that B had undertaken to sow his soil with six measures of grain, with which he had supplied him, but had only used five, whilst B pleaded that he had used five and a half. ');">²⁵</span>

לא צריכא דחצדינהו וזרעינהו קודם לעומר ואתא ליה עומר וחליף עילוייהו ולא אשרוש קודם לעומר

Is it as though he had placed it [the seed] in a pitcher, and therefore an oath must be taken; or perhaps, he assimilated it to the soil, and so no oath is taken?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No oath is imposed for a claim of land. ');">²⁶</span> [Again,] does the <i>'omer</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²⁷</span> permit it [for food] or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The produce of each year was not permitted for food until the 'omer (sheaf of corn) was brought to the Temple and waved before the Lord. (Lev. XXIII, 10-14); until then it was called hadash, 'new.' ');">²⁸</span> But how is this meant? If it took root, then we have learnt it; and if not, we have also learnt it. For we learnt: If they [the seeds] took root before the [bringing of the] <i>'omer</i>, the <i>'omer</i> permits them;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The resultant crop, though maturing after the 'omer, is nevertheless permitted for use. ');">²⁹</span> if not, they are forbidden until the bringing of the next <i>'omer</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Men. 70a. ');">³⁰</span> — This arises only if he reaped and resowed it before the <i>'omer</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he resowed that years grain, the 'new' crop, before the 'omer. Had he not resown it, the 'omer of course would have permitted it. ');">³¹</span> then the <i>'omer</i> came and went,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'omer was brought, and its time — the sixteenth of Nissan passed by. ');">³²</span> whilst it did not take root before the [bringing of the] <i>'omer</i>.