Bava Metzia 96

Chapter 96

א אלא קשיא לריש לקיש אמר לך ריש לקיש הא מני ר' שמעון היא:
1 But this refutes Resh Lakish!-Resh Lakish can answer you: That is on the basis of R. Simeon's ruling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 47b and p. 284, n. 2. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> BUT THEY [SC. THE SAGES] SAID, HE WHO PUNISHED, etc. It has been stated: Abaye said: He is [merely] told this.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he is warned that God punishes those who do not keep their word. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב אבל אמרו מי שפרע כו': איתמר אביי אמר אודועי מודעינן ליה רבא אמר מילט לייטינן ליה
2 Raba said: He is anathematised.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A formal curse is pronounced against him. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> 'Abaye said: He is [merely] told this,' because it is written, And thou shalt not curse the ruler of thy people.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 27. In Sanh. 85a it is shewn that this applies to all, not particularly a ruler. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג אביי אמר אודועי מודעינן ליה דכתיב (שמות כב, כז) ונשיא בעמך לא תאור רבא אמר מילט לייטינן ליה דכתיב בעמך בעושה מעשה עמך
3 'Raba said: He is anathematised.' because it is written, of thy people, implying [only] when he acts as is fitting for 'thy people'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., only then does the injunction hold good. But it is not fitting for an Israelite to break his word; cf. Zeph. III. 13. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> Raba said: Whence do I know<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'say'. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ד אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דר' חייא בר יוסף יהבו ליה זוזי אמלחא לסוף אייקר מלחא אתא לקמיה דרבי יוחנן אמר ליה זיל הב להו ואי לא קביל עליך מי שפרע ואי אמרת אודועי מודעינן ליה רבי חייא בר יוסף בר אודועי הוא ואלא מאי מילט לייטינן ליה רבי חייא בר יוסף אתי לקבולי עליה לטותא דרבנן
4 it? For [it once happened that] money was given to R. Hiyya b. Joseph [in advance payment] For salt. Subsequently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the sale was to be delivered. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> salt rose in price. On his appearing before R. Johanan,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To ask whether he could withdraw from the transaction. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ה אלא רבי חייא בר יוסף ערבון הוא דיהבי ליה הוא סבר כנגדו הוא קונה ואמר ליה ר' יוחנן כנגד כולו הוא קונה
5 he ordered him, 'Go and deliver [it] to him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The original is in the plural. but the context shews that the singular is required, the plural to be understood indefinitely. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> [the purchaser], and if not, you must submit to [the curse]: He who punished.' Now if you say that one is merely informed — did R. Hiyya b. Joseph require to be told?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That retraction would involve him in a curse. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ו אתמר ערבון רב אומר כנגדו הוא קונה ורבי יוחנן אמר כנגד כולו הוא קונה
6 — What then: he is anathematised? Did R. Hiyya b. Joseph come to submit to a curse of the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely he knew that he could not retract! ');"><sup>11</sup></span> But [what happened was that] only a deposit had been paid to R. Hiyya b. Joseph. He thought that he [the purchaser] was [morally] entitled only to the value thereof, whereupon R. Johanan told him that he was entitled to the whole [of the purchase].
ז מיתיבי הנותן ערבון לחבירו ואמר לו אם אני חוזר בי ערבוני מחול לך והלה אמר לו אם אני אחזור בי אכפול לך ערבונך נתקיימו התנאים דברי רבי יוסי רבי יוסי לטעמיה דאמר אסמכתא קניא
7 It has been stated: A deposit — Rab said: It effects a title [only] to the extent of the value thereof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of movables only in respect of provoking the curse. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> R. Johanan ruled: It effects a title to the whole purchase. An objection is raised: If one gives a pledge<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Though this is the same word as used to indicate 'deposit', it means here a pledge, to be forfeited in certain conditions. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ח ר' יהודה אומר דיו שיקנה כנגד ערבונו אמר ר' שמעון בן גמליאל במה דברים אמורים בזמן שאמר לו ערבוני יקון אבל מכר לו בית או שדה באלף זוז ופרע לו מהם חמש מאות זוז קנה ומחזיר לו את השאר אפילו לאחר כמה שנים מאי לאו הוא הדין למטלטלין בדסתמא קני להו לכולהו
8 to his neighbour and says to him, 'If I retract; my pledge be forfeit to you;' and the other stipulates, 'If I retract, I will double your pledge';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'I will return double Its value.' ');"><sup>14</sup></span> the conditions are binding:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'are fulfilled'. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
ט לא מטלטלין בדסתמא לא קני ומאי שנא קרקע דבכספא קני ליה ממש קני ליה לכולה מטלטלי דלא קני אלא לקבולי מי שפרע לא קני ליה כוליה
9 this is R. Jose's view, R. Jose following in this his general ruling that <i>asmakta</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> acquires title. R. Judah [however] maintained: It is sufficient that it effects a title to the value thereof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In case of retraction, the one does not forfeit his pledge, nor is the other bound to double it. But the transaction is absolute in respect of goods to the value of the deposit, and to that extent neither can withdraw. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
י לימא כתנאי המלוה את חבירו על המשכון ונכנסה השמיטה אע"פ שאינו שוה אלא פלג אינו משמט דברי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ר' יהודה הנשיא אומר אם היה משכון כנגד הלואתו אינו משמט ואם לאו משמט
10 Said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: When is that? If he [the depositor] said to him, 'Let my pledge effect the purchase'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the whole, i.e., it was not merely given as a deposit payment, but with the intention of consummating the whole purchase. That, however, is impossible, and therefore R. Judah ruled that the transaction is completed only to the extent of the value of the pledge. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> But if one sold a house or field for a thousand <i>zuz</i>, of which he [the vendee] paid him five hundred, he acquires title [to the whole], and must repay the balance even after many years.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The balance ranks as a loan, and the vendor cannot cancel the sale on its account. V. infra 77b. ');"><sup>19</sup></span>
יא מאי אינו משמט דקאמר רשב"ג אילימא כנגדו מכלל דר' יהודה הנשיא סבר להך פלגא נמי משמט
11 Now surely. the same ruling applies to movables, viz., [if a deposit is given] without specifying [its purpose],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it should act as a pledge or forfeit, but given without any purpose being stated. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> possession is gained of the whole!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of the curse. This refutes Rab's ruling. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> — No. As for movables, an unspecified deposit does not effect possession [of the whole]. And wherein do they differ?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What is the essential difference between real estate and movables, to permit this distinction to be drawn? ');"><sup>22</sup></span> — Real estate, which is actually acquired by [the delivery of] money,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the delivery of money alone does not effect a title to movables, it does in respect to land. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> is entirely acquired;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the deposit. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> movables, which are acquired [by the delivery of money] only in respect of submission to [the curse] 'He who punished,' are not acquired entirely.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the deposit, but only to the extent of the value of that deposit, and even that, only in respect of submitting to the curse. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> Shall we say that this is disputed by Tannaim? [For it has been taught:] If one makes a loan to his neighbour against a pledge. and the year of release arrived, even if it [the pledge] is worth only half [the loan], it [the year of release] does not cancel [the loan]: this is the ruling of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. R. Judah ha-Nasi said: If the pledge corresponds to [the value of] the loan, it does not cancel it; otherwise, it does.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XV. 1-2: At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release. And this is the manner of the release: Every creditor that lendeth aught unto his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called the Lord's release. The Rabbis deduced from the phrase 'he shall not exact it' that the law of release does not apply to a loan for which the creditor holds a pledge, for he is then regarded as having already exacted it beforehand (Shebu. 44b). ');"><sup>26</sup></span> What is meant by R. Gamaliel's statement, 'It does not cancel [the loan]'? Shall we say, To the value thereof? Hence it follows that in the opinion of R. Judah ha-Nasi even that half too is cancelled!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But surely that is impossible, since it is generally agreed that the law of release does not apply to what the creditor already has in hand! ');"><sup>27</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter