Bava Metzia 113

מהו למינקט ומיכל מינייהו כמאן דשדיין בכדא דמי ושרינהו עומר או דלמא בטלינהו אגב ארעא תיקו

Now, may one remove and eat it? Is it as though lying in a pitcher, and therefore made permissible by the <i>'omer</i>; or perhaps, he assimilated it to the soil?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore it is forbidden until the next 'omer. ');">¹</span>

אמר רבא אמר רב חסא בעי רבי אמי אונאה אין להם ביטול מקח יש להם או אין להן אמר ר"נ הדר אמר רב חסא פשיט ר' אמי אונאה אין להם ביטול מקח יש להם ר' יונה אמר אהקדשות ר' ירמיה אמר אקרקעות ותרוייהו משמיה דר' יוחנן אמרו אונאה אין להם ביטול מקח יש להן

The question stands.

מ"ד אהקדשות כ"ש אקרקעות מ"ד אקרקעות אבל אהקדשות לא כדשמואל דאמר שמואל הקדש שוה מנה שחיללו על שוה פרוטה מחולל

Raba said in R. Hasa's name: R. Ammi propounded: Now these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That are enumerated in the Mishnah. ');">²</span>

תנן התם אם היה קודש בעל מום יצא לחולין וצריך לעשות לו דמים א"ר יוחנן יצא לחולין דבר תורה וצריך לעשות לו דמים מדבריהם ור"ל אמר אף צריך לעשות לו דמים מן התורה

are not subject to the law of overreaching. But are they subject to cancellation of sale or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the fraud was more than a sixth. Though the law of overreaching in the case of a sixth, viz., that refund must be made, does not operate, yet the law of complete cancellation for more than a sixth may do. ');">³</span>

במאי עסקינן אילימא בכדי אונאה בהא לימא ר"ל צריך לעשות לו דמים דבר תורה והתנן אלו דברים שאין להם אונאה הקרקעות והעבדים והשטרות וההקדשות

— Said R. Nahman: R. Hasa subsequently said that R. Ammi solved it [thus:] They are not subject to the law overreaching, but are subject to cancellation of sale.

אלא ביטול מקח בהא לימא רבי יוחנן צריך לעשות לו דמים מדבריהם והא"ר יונה אהקדשות ורבי ירמיה אמר אקרקעות ותרוייהו משמיה דר' יוחנן אמרי אונאה אין להם ביטול מקח יש להם לעולם בביטול מקח ואיפוך דרבי יוחנן לר"ל ודר"ל לרבי יוחנן

Now, R. Jonah said [the following] in respect to sacred objects, whilst R. Jeremiah said [it] in respect to real estate, both in R. Johanan's name, viz.: The law of overreaching does not apply thereto, but cancellation of sale does. He who said this in reference to sacred objects, would certainly [say it] in reference to real estate [too].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since cancellation of sale applies to sacred objects, it proves that this does not come within the category of overreaching but of erroneous bargains. Now, if this applies to sacred objects which belong to Heaven, though technically speaking Heaven cannot err (cf. the principle of the British Constitution: The King can do no wrong), it surely holds good in respect to real estate. For since it is agreed that cancellation of sale is not the same as overreaching, we have no verse to exclude land therefrom. ');">⁴</span>

במאי קמיפלגי בדשמואל דאמר שמואל הקדש שוה מנה שחיללו על שוה פרוטה מחולל מר אית ליה דשמואל ומר לית ליה דשמואל

But he who referred this to land, would not [admit] sacred objects too, in accordance with Samuel. For Samuel said: If <i>hekdesh</i> worth a <i>maneh</i> was redeemed with the equivalent of a <i>perutah</i>, it is redeemed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus in his opinion there can be no question of cancellation in respect of hekdesh: but v. infra. ');">⁵</span>

איבעית אימא דכולי עלמא אית להו דשמואל והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר שחיללו אין לכתחלה לא ומר סבר אפילו לכתחלה

We learnt elsewhere: If the consecrated [animal] was blemished, it becomes <i>hullin</i>, but its value must be assessed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first clause states that if a substitute is offered for an unblemished animal the latter retains its sanctity, because an unblemished animal cannot be redeemed. But if it was blemished, it becomes hullin, i.e., loses its sanctity, which the substitute assumes. Nevertheless, if the latter is not worth as much as the original it must be made up in money, which becomes hekdesh too. Tem. 27b. ');">⁶</span>

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,