Bava Metzia 198

שקרקע נקנית בכסף ובשטר ובחזקה כך שכירות נקנה בכסף ובשטר ובחזקה שכירות מאי עבידתיה אמר רב חסדא שכירות קרקע

real estate is acquired by means of money, a deed, or <i>hazakah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹</span>

אמר שמואל האי מאן דגזיל חביצא דתמרי מחבירו ואית בה חמשים תמרי אגב הדדי מזדבנן בנ' נכי חדא חדא חדא מזדבנן בנ'

so is hiring effected by the same means. But what has hiring to do [with these]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was assumed that it refers to the hiring of movable property, in respect of which money, etc., does not effect possession. ');">²</span>

להדיוט משלם חמשים נכי חדא להקדש משלם חמשים וחומשייהו מה שאין כן במזיק דלא משלם חומשא דאמר מר (ויקרא כב, יד) איש כי יאכל קדש פרט למזיק

— R. Hisda said: It refers to the renting<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'hiring.' ');">³</span>

מתקיף לה רב ביבי בר אביי להדיוט אמאי משלם חמשים נכי חדא נימא ליה אנא חדא חדא הוה מזבנינא להו

of real estate.

אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע שמין בית סאה באותה שדה תנן

Samuel said: If a man robbed his neighbour of a cake of pressed dates containing fifty dates, which, sold together, bring fifty [perutahs] less one; whilst, sold separately, realise fifty perutahs, — in the case of secular property,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to an ordinary man.' ');">⁴</span>

למימרא דסבר שמואל דין הדיוט לאו כדין גבוה דמי והתנן נטל אבן או קורה מהקדש לא מעל נתנה לחבירו הוא מעל וחבירו לא מעל בנאה בתוך ביתו לא מעל עד שידור תחתיה בשוה פרוטה

he must repay forty nine [perutahs]; in the case of <i>hekdesh</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. I.e., if he stole them from the sanctuary. ');">⁵</span>

ויתיב ר' אבהו קמיה דרבי יוחנן ויתיב וקאמר משמיה דשמואל זאת אומרת הדר בחצר חבירו שלא מדעתו צריך להעלות לו שכר (א"ל רבי יוחנן) הדר ביה שמואל מההיא

he must pay fifty, plus the fifth thereof. This, however, is not so in the case of one who injures [property belonging to] <i>hekdesh</i>, for such a one does not add a fifth. For a Master stated: And if a man eat of the holy thing [unwittingly, then he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it etc.]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 14. ');">⁶</span>

וממאי דמההיא הדר ביה דלמא מהא הדר לא מההיא הדר ביה כדרבא דאמר רבא הקדש שלא מדעת כהדיוט מדעת דמי

this excludes one who injures [the holy thing]. To this R. Bibi b. Abaye demurred: In the case of secular property, why must he pay [only] fifty less one? Can he not say, 'I would have sold them singly'? — R. Huna the son of R. Joshua replied: We learnt, The area of a <i>se'ah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁷</span>

אמר רבא הני שקולאי דתברו חבית' דחמרא לחנוואה ביומא דשוקא מיזדבנא בה' בשאר יומי מיזדבנא בארבע אהדרו ליה ביומא דשוקא מהדרו ליה חביתא דחמרא בשאר יומי מהדרו ליה ה'

in that field is assessed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. B.K. 55b. If an animal enters a field and eats part of the crops, the value of the crops themselves are not assessed for the purpose of damages, but the decrease in the sale value of the se'ah area in which the damage was done, — an assessment which is obviously less than the former. This shews that in respect to repayment a lenient attitude is taken, and the same applies here. ');">⁸</span>

ולא אמרן אלא דלא ה"ל חמרא לזבוני אבל ה"ל חמרא לזבוני הא איבעי ליה לזבוני

Shall we say that in Samuel's opinion the law appertaining to secular property is not the same as that of the [Most] High?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., hekdesh. ');">⁹</span>

ומנכי ליה אגר טירחיה ודמי ברזנייתא:

But we learnt: If he [the steward in charge of the sanctuary] took a stone or beam of <i>hekdesh</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Intending to put it to secular use. ');">¹⁰</span> he is not guilty of trespass. If he gave it to his neighbour, he [the steward] is guilty of trespass, but not the latter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The steward is guilty of having removed it from the possession of hekdesh; for which very reason his neighbour is not guilty, since it is no longer hekdesh. Cf. p. 566, n. 5. ');">¹¹</span> If he built it into his house, he is not liable for trespass unless he dwells in [and enjoys the use of] it to the value of a <i>perutah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Me'ii. 19b; v. B.K. 20b. ');">¹²</span> Now, R. Abbahu sat before R. Johanan and said in Samuel's name: This proves that if a man dwells in his neighbour's courtyard without his permission, he must pay him rent!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as one is guilty of trespass in living under that beam, though the beam is so built in as to leave it unaltered, which shews that there is a debt due to hekdesh for this. Now, this inference of Samuel proves that he regards hekdesh and secular property on a par. ');">¹³</span> — Did not R. Johanan observe to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [This is the reading of BaH; cur. edd.: 'R. Johanan said to him,' which Rashi omits; cf. B.K. 20b.] ');">¹⁴</span> Samuel retracted from that [inference]? But how do you know that he retracted from the latter; perhaps he retracted from the former?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the law of stealing dates. ');">¹⁵</span> — No: [he must have retracted from the latter,] in accordance with Raba's<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec.: Rabbah's. ');">¹⁶</span> dictum; for Raba said: <i>Hekdesh</i> without [its owner's] knowledge is as secular property with [its owner's] knowledge.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if one makes use of hekdesh, even if the steward is ignorant thereof, he is just as liable as when one makes use of secular property and its owner knows and demands repayment. The reason is that the real owner of hekdesh is God, Who always knows. This proves that the two are not equal, and therefore Samuel is more likely to have retracted from the latter. ');">¹⁷</span> Raba said: If carriers broke a shopkeeper's barrel of wine, which on a market day is sold for five [<i>zuz</i>], but on other days for four, if they make a return on the market day, they return a barrel of wine; but if on other days,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the market day. ');">¹⁸</span> they must return five [<i>zuz</i>].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But he can refuse a barrel of wine, since he could have obtained a higher price on market day. ');">¹⁹</span> That, however, holds good only if he had no [other] wine for sale; but if he had [some left after the market], then he should have sold that. And they deduct the payment for his trouble and the value of the tapping.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The cost of making a bung hole for the wine to be drawn. According to another reading, the crier's fee, who announced that he had wine for sale, v. supra 40b. ');">²⁰</span>