Bava Metzia 95

Chapter 95

א רבי שמעון אומר אף על פי שאמרו טלית קונה דינר זהב ואין דינר זהב קונה טלית מכל מקום כך הלכה אבל אמרו מי שפרע מאנשי דור המבול ומאנשי דור הפלגה ומאנשי סדום ועמורה וממצרים בים הוא עתיד ליפרע ממי שאינו עומד בדיבורו

1 R. Simeon said: Though they [sc. the Sages] ruled, [The delivery of] a garment acquires the gold denar,1 but not vice versa: that however, is only the halachah2

ב והנושא ונותן בדברים לא קנה והחוזר בו אין רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו

2 but they [also] said, He who punished the generations of the Flood, and of the Dispersion, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Egyptians at the [Red] Sea, He will exact vengeance of him who does not stand by his word; and he who enters into a verbal transaction effects no title, yet he who retracts therefrom, the spirit of the Sages is displeased with him. Whereon Raba observed: We have no other [condemnation] than that the spirit of the Sages is displeased with him!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Baraitha does not mean that he is subjected to the curse, 'He who punished etc.,' but quite literally, that he who would retract is told that his action displeases the Rabbis, but nothing more. This proves that no curse is pronounced on account of mere words, and so contradicts the previous statement. ');">3 For words accompanied by [the passage of] money one is subject to 'BUT'; for words unaccompanied thereby one is not subject to 'BUT'.

ג ואמר רבא אנו אין לנו אלא אין רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו דברים ואיכא בהדייהו מעות קאי באבל דברים וליכא בהדייהו מעות לא קאי באבל

3 Raba said: Both Scripture and a Baraitha4 support Resh Lakish, 'Scripture', — for it is written, [If a soul sin …] and lie unto his neighbor in that which vas delivered him to keep or in the putting forth of the hand5

ד אמר רבא קרא ומתניתא מסייע ליה לריש לקיש קרא דכתיב (ויקרא ה, כא) וכחש בעמיתו בפקדון או בתשומת יד או בגזל או עשק את עמיתו תשומת יד אמר רב חסדא כגון שיחד לו כלי להלואתו עשק א"ר חסדא כגון שיחד לו כלי לעשקו

4 or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath oppressed his neighbour:6 'the putting forth of the hand' — said R. Hisda: E.g., if he [the debtor] assigned a utensil to him for [the payment of] his debt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The putting forth of the hand was understood to refer to a monetary loan. Now, if a debtor swears falsely in denying his debt, he is not liable to a sacrifice. Since, however, that passage states that he is liable to one (vv. 24-25: Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely … then he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord), R. Hisda explains that this refers to a false denial of a debt for the payment of which a utensil had been assigned by the debtor, for then the loan is equivalent to a bailment ('in that which was delivered to him to keep' — i.e., a bailment). ');">7

ה וכי אהדריה קרא כתיב (ויקרא ה, כג) והיה כי יחטא ואשם והשיב את הגזלה אשר גזל או את העושק אשר עשק או את הפקדון אשר הפקד אתו ואילו תשומת יד לא אהדריה מאי טעמא לאו משום דמחסרא משיכה

5 'Or hath oppressed' — said R. Hisda: E.g., if he assigned him a utensil for that in respect of which he oppressed him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. his wages, the reference being to one who withholds his employee's wages (cf. Deut. XXIV, 14-15: Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant … At his day thou shalt give him his hire). Here too, a sacrifice for false denial of liability is incurred only if the employer had assigned an article for payment. ');">8 Yet when Scripture repeated it,9

ו אמר ליה רב פפא לרבא אימא מעושק הוא דהדר קרא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שנטלו ממנו וחזרו והפקידו אצלו

6 it is written, Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took away, or the thing that he withheld by oppression, or that which was delivered him to keep; but 'the putting forth of the hand'10 is not repeated. Why so? surely because it lacked meshikah!11

ז היינו פקדון תרי גוני פקדון

7 Said R. Papa to Raba: But perhaps that follows from 'oppression', which Scripture did repeat?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in the case of 'oppression' too, as interpreted in the text, there was a meshikah, and yet Scripture orders that the utensil shall be returned. So the same holds good of a loan. In fact, since 'oppression' is mentioned, viz., that the utensil assigned for the employee's wages must be returned in spite of the lack of meshikah, it follows that on the contrary meahikah is unnecessary, and thus the verse refutes Resh Lakish. This difficulty, though not explicitly raised by R. Papa, is implied, and the Talmud proceeds to answer it. ');">12 — The circumstances here13

ח אי הכי תשומת יד נמי ליהדריה ולוקמיה כגון שנטלו הימנו וחזר והפקידו אצלו אי אהדריה קרא לא תיובתא ולא סייעתא השתא דלא אהדריה קרא מסייע ליה

8 are, e.g. that he [the employee] took it [the utensil] from him and then entrusted it to his keeping.14 [But] this is identical with 'bailment'! — There are two kinds of bailments — 15 If so, 'the putting forth of the hand' [i.e.. loan] should also be repeated, and it could [likewise] be applied to the case where, e.g.,he [the creditor] had taken it [the utensil assigned for repayment] from him [the debtor], and then re-deposited it with him?16

ט ותשומת יד לא אהדריה קרא והתניא אמר ר' שמעון מנין ליתן את האמור למעלה למטה דכתיב (ויקרא ה, כד) או מכל אשר ישבע עליו לשקר ואמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב לרבות תשומת יד להישבון בהדיא מיהא לא אהדריה קרא

9 — Had Scripture repeated it, it would have been neither a refutation nor a support:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of R. Johanan or Resh Lakish. For the former would explain it as meaning even if no meshikah had taken place, i.e., a utensil was assigned for the debt, but the creditor had never performed meshikah thereon; and still the debtor is liable to a sacrifice, because meshikah is unnecessary by Biblical law; whilst Resh Lakish would maintain that meshikah must have taken place for the law to operate. ');">17 since, however, Scripture did not repeat it, it supports him [Resh Lakish].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [For the only reason that can be given for the repetition by the Torah of 'oppression' and not of 'the putting forth of the hand', is that in the former it provides only for the case where meshikah had been performed, whilst in the case where it was absent, such as is indicated by the omission of the latter, there is no liability to a sacrifice.] ');">18

י מתניתא מנלן דתניא נתנה לבלן מעל ואמר רב דוקא בלן הוא דלא מחסרא משיכה אבל מידי אחריתא דמחסרא משיכה לא מעל עד דמשיך

10 Yet did not Scripture repeat, 'the putting forth of the hand'? But it was taught: R. Simeon said: Whence do we know that what was stated above19 is to be applied to what is stated below?20

יא והתניא נתנה לספר מעל וספר הא בעי לממשך תספורת הכא במאי עסקינן בספר נכרי דלאו בר משיכה הוא

11 Because it is written, Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely.21 And R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha in Rab's name: That is to extend the law of restoration to 'the putting forth of the hand'! — Even so, Scripture did not explicitly repeat it — 22

יב תניא נמי הכי נתנה לספר או לספן או לכל בעלי אומנות לא מעל עד דמשך קשיין אהדדי אלא לאו ש"מ כאן בספר נכרי כאן בספר ישראל ש"מ

12 Where have we a Baraitha?23 — For it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Me'il. 20a. There, however, it is a Mishnah. [Several MSS texts in fact read [H] 'we have learnt'. This will involve the further emendation of 'a Baraitha' into 'a Mishnah'. V. Strashun, a.l.] ');">24

יג וכן אמר רב נחמן דבר תורה מעות קונות ובדקה לוי במתניתיה ואשכח נתנה לסיטון מעל

13 If he gave it to a bath-attendant, he is liable to a trespass offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. 99b. So here too (this is a continuation of the passage quoted there), if the Temple treasurer unwittingly gave a perutah of hekdesh to a bath-attendant for admission, he (the treasurer) is liable to a trespass offering. ');">25 And Raba said thereon: This holds good only of a bath-attendant, since no meshikah is lacking.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., immediately the treasurer pays the perutah, he receives his return, the baths being open for him to enter, so that he need not perform meshikah with any object to receive his quid pro quo. Consequently, the bath-attendant in his turn becomes the legal owner of the perutah immediately it is given him, and for that the treasurer is liable to a sacrifice. ');">26 But [if he gave it for] any other object, which requires meshikah,27 he is not liable to a trespass offering until he does draw it into his possession.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For only then does the recipient of the perutah obtain a legal title thereto. This proves that meshikah is required by Biblical law. For if it were only a Rabbinic measure, whilst by Scriptural law the recipient of the perutah immediately acquires a title thereto, the treasurer would always be liable to a trespass offering, no matter for what he gave the perutah, since a Rabbinical enactment cannot free a person from an obligation that lies upon him pursuant to Scriptural law. ');">28 But has it not been taught: If he gave it to a hairdresser, he is liable to a trespass offering. Now in the case of the hairdresser, must he [the treasurer] not draw the shears into his possession?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It would appear that when one paid a hairdresser in advance, he signified his liability to trim the customer's hair by handing him the shears. But in any case, some form of meshikah is necessary, and yet the treasurer incurs a liability immediately he gives the money, which shews that meshikah is only a Rabbinical requirement. ');">29 — The reference here is to a heathen barber, to whom the law of meshikah does not apply.30 It has been taught likewise: If he [the treasurer] gave it [the perutah of hekdesh] to a hairdresser, a ship's captain,31 or to any artisan, he is not liable to a trespass offering until he takes Possession.32 Now these are self-contradictory!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the two views on his liability in connection with a hairdresser, the first Baraitha stating that he is liable immediately he gives the money, whilst the Baraitha teaches that meshikah must first be performed. ');">33 But this must surely prove that one refers to a heathen and the other to an Israelite hairdresser. This proves it. R. Nahman ruled likewise: By Biblical law, [the delivery of] money effects a title, and Levi sought [the source of this ruling] in his Baraitha [collection] and found it; [Viz.,] If he [the treasurer] gave it to a wholesale provision merchant,34 he is liable to a trespass offering.35

Previous Chapter Next Chapter