Bava Metzia 114

דאפי' פחות מכדי אונאה חוזר

viz., that even less than the standard of overreaching [a sixth] is returnable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus R. Johanan disagrees with this, and therefore maintains that it must he made good only by Rabbinical law; whereas Resh Lakish accepts this view. ');">¹</span>

מיתיבי רבית ואונאה להדיוט ואין רבית ואונאה להקדש מי אלימא ממתניתין דאוקימנא בתורת אונאה ה"נ רבית ודין אונאה להדיוט ואין רבית ודין אונאה להקדש

An objection is raised: [The prohibitions of] usury and overreaching apply to a layman, but not to <i>hekdesh</i>? — Is this then stronger than our Mishnah, which we interpreted as referring to the provisions of overreaching! So here too, [the prohibition of] usury and the provisions of overreaching apply to a layman, but not <i>hekdesh</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As previously explained by R. Hisda. ');">²</span>

אי הכי היינו דקתני סיפא זה חומר בהדיוט מבהקדש ארבית ליתני נמי זה חומר בהקדש מבהדיוט אאונאה

If so, how can the second clause state, In this respect the case of a layman is more stringent than that of <i>hekdesh</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the contrary, hekdesh is more stringent, since even less than a sixth constitutes overreaching. ');">³</span>

הכי השתא בשלמא זה חומר בהדיוט מבהקדש ותו לא אלא הקדש זה חומר ותו לא

— That refers to usury. Then it should also teach: In this respect the case of <i>hekdesh</i> is more stringent than that of a layman, viz., overreaching? — How compare? As for saying, 'In this respect the case of a layman is more stringent than that of <i>hekdesh</i>,' it is well, for there are no other [instances].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Tosaf. and MS.M. omit 'for there are no other,' since the Mishnah in fact mentions several other instances where greater stringency applies to ordinary property than to that of hekdesh; the reading and argument run accordingly as follows: 'As for saying, " in="" this="" respect="" the="" case="" of="" a="" layman="" is="" more="" stringent="" than="" that="" hekdesh",="" it="" well!="" but="" (with="" to)="" hekdesh,="" (what="" means)="" stringency?'="" whilst,="" to="" say,="" there="" point="" informing="" us="" any="" additional="" instance="" where="" ordinary="" property="" treated="" with="" greater="" stringency="" none="" teaching="" reverse,="" as="" obvious="" regard="" hekdesh="" property.]="" ');"="">⁴</span>

רבית דהקדש היכי דמי אילימא דאוזפיה גזבר מאה במאה ועשרים והלא מעל הגזבר וכיון שמעל הגזבר יצאו מעותיו לחולין והוו להו דהדיוט

But [with respect to] <i>hekdesh</i>: is this [the only] stringency, and are there not others?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the proposed clause is inadmissible. ');">⁵</span>

אמר רב הושעיא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שקיבל עליו לספק סלתות מארבע ועמדו משלש כדתניא המקבל עליו לספק סלתות מארבע ועמדו משלש מספק מארבע משלש ועמדו מארבע מספק מארבע שיד הקדש על העליונה

How is usury by <i>hekdesh</i> possible? Shall we say that the treasurer [of <i>hekdesh</i>] lent one hundred <i>zuz</i> for one hundred and twenty? But he thereby committed a trespass,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By giving money of hekdesh and receiving nothing in immediate return, which is forbidden. The treasurer, of course, acted in ignorance, thinking it permissible on account of the benefit to be reaped by hekdesh. ');">⁶</span>

רב פפא אמר הכא באבני בנין המסורות לגזבר עסקינן כדשמואל דאמר שמואל בונין בחול ואח"כ מקדישין:

and that being so, the money passes out into <i>hullin</i> and is a layman's!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 566, n. 5, hence the prohibition of usury applies to it after all. ');">⁷</span>

אין בהן תשלומי כפל (וכו'): מנהני מילי דת"ר (שמות כב, ח) על כל דבר פשע כלל על שור על חמור על שה על שלמה פרט על כל אבדה אשר יאמר חזר וכלל

— Said R. Hoshaia: What is meant here is, e.g., if one [a layman] contracted to supply flour<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the Temple use in meal offerings. ');">⁸</span>

כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון אף כל דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון

at four se'ahs per <i>sela'</i>, whilst it subsequently stood at three se'ahs per <i>sela'</i>]. As we learnt: If one contracts to supply flour at four [se'ahs per <i>sela'</i>], and it [subsequently] stood at three, he must supply it at four; at three, and it [subsequently] stood at four, he must supply it at four, because <i>hekdesh</i> [always] has the upper hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shek. IV, 9. The contractor received payment in advance, and fixed the price before the market price was out. Now, if the purchaser were a laymen, this would be forbidden as usury, (infra 62b); as, however, the bargain is with hekdesh, it is permitted. According to this, the passage does not refer to a loan at all. ');">⁹</span>

יצאו קרקעות שאינן מטלטלין יצאו עבדים שהוקשו לקרקעות יצאו שטרות שאע"פ שמטלטלין אין גופן ממון הקדשות אמר קרא (שמות כב, ו) רעהו רעהו ולא הקדש:

R. papa said: This refers to bricks for building entrusted to the treasurer, in accordance with Samuel's dictum. For Samuel said: We build with unconsecrated material, and then consecrate it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When building was necessary in the Temple, the materials were not bought with sacred funds, for this would immediately consecrate them, and the workmen by sitting on them would be trespassing. Therefore the materials were bought on credit, and paid for out of the Temple funds only when built up, whereby they became sanctified. Similarly, if one donated these building materials, he did not formally consecrate them until built in. Now, in reference to our discussion, the meaning is that the treasurer lent some of these unconsecrated materials for a higher return. No trespass is involved, since they were unconsecrated; on the other hand, since they were lent on behalf of hekdesh, the prohibition of usury does not apply. ');">¹⁰</span>

ולא תשלומי ד' וה' (וכו'): מאי טעמא תשלומי ד' וה' אמר רחמנא ולא תשלומי שלשה וארבעה:

NEITHER THERE IS DOUBLE REPAYMENT etc. Whence do we know this? — For our Rabbis taught: <i>For all manners of trespass</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 8. ');">¹¹</span>

שומר חנם אינו נשבע (וכו'): מנהני מילי דת"ר (שמות כב, ו) כי יתן איש אל רעהו כלל כסף או כלים פרט (וגונב מבית האיש) חזר וכלל

— this is a general proposition: <i>for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">¹²</span>

כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון אף כל דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון

— this is a specialization; <i>for every manner of lost thing which another challengeth</i> [etc.]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. The verse continues&nbsp;… to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour. ');">¹³</span>

יצאו קרקעות שאינן מטלטלין יצאו עבדים שהוקשו לקרקעות יצאו שטרות שאע"פ שמטלטלין אין גופן ממון הקדשות אמר קרא רעהו רעהו ולא של הקדש:

— this is another general proposition. Now, in a general proposition followed by a specialization followed again by a general proposition, you must be guided by the specialization alone: just as the specialization is clearly defined as a movable article which is intrinsically valuable, so everything movable which is intrinsically valuable [is included]; thus real estate is excluded, not being movable; slaves are excluded, being assimilated to real estate;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is written, And ye shall take them (sc. non-Jewish slaves) as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession. (Lev. XXV, 46) 'Inheritance' and 'inherit' are terms applicable to landed estate, and by employing them for slaves Scripture assimilates slaves to real estate. ');">¹⁴</span>

נושא שכר אינו משלם (וכו'): מנהני מילי דת"ר (שמות כב, ו) כי יתן איש אל רעהו כלל חמור או שור או שה פרט וכל בהמה לשמור חזר וכלל

bills [too] are excluded, for though movables, they are not Intrinsically valuable. As for sacred objects, Scripture saith, [<i>he shall pay double to</i>] his neighbour: his neighbour, but not [to] <i>hekdesh</i>.

כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון אף כל דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון

NOR FOURFOLD OR FIVEFOLD REPAYMENT etc. Why so? — The Divine Law decreed fourfold and fivefold, not threefold and fourfold repayment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the larger includes the double repayment on account of theft. But since that double repayment does not operate here, as shewn above, one is left with a threefold and fourfold repayment, for which there is no Scriptural warrant. ');">¹⁵</span>

יצאו קרקעות שאינן מטלטלין יצאו עבדים שהוקשו לקרקעות יצאו שטרות שאע"פ שמטלטלין אין גופן ממון הקדשות אמר קרא רעהו רעהו ולא של הקדש:

[FURTHERMORE] A GRATUITOUS BAILEE DOES NOT SWEAR etc. How do we know this? — For our Rabbis taught: <i>If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour</i> — this is a general proposition;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying, whatever he delivers. ');">¹⁶</span>

שומר חנם אינו נשבע וכו': ורמינהו בני העיר ששלחו את שקליהן ונגנבו או שאבדו

<i>money or stuff</i> — that is a specialization; <i>and it be stolen out of the man's house</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Shebu. 43a 'to keep' is quoted instead of this phrase. ');">¹⁷</span>

אם משנתרמה התרומה

is again a general statement: now in a general proposition followed by a specialization and again by a general proposition you must be guided by the peculiarities of the specialization. Just as the specialization is clearly defined as something movable and of value in itself, so everything movable and intrinsically valuable [is included]. Thus real estate is excluded, not being movable; slaves are excluded, being assimilated to real estate; bills [too] are excluded, for though movables, they are not intrinsically valuable. As for sacred objects, Scripture writes, <i>[and if a man shall deliver unto] his neighbour</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 6. ');">¹⁸</span> but not <i>hekdesh</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 94b, where it is stated that this passage, viz., Ex. XXII, 6-8, refers to a gratuitous bailee. ');">¹⁹</span> NOR DOES A PAID BAILEE MAKE IT GOOD [etc.]. How do we know this? — For our Rabbis taught: <i>If a man deliver unto his neighbour</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 9. V. infra 94b, where this is said to refer to a paid bailee. ');">²⁰</span> — that is a general proposition; <i>an ass, or an ox, or a sheep</i> — that is a specialization; <i>or</i> any<i> beast to keep</i> — that is again a general proposition. Now, in a general proposition followed by a specialization followed again by a general proposition you must be guided solely by the specialization. Just as the specialization is clearly defined as a movable article which is intrinsically valuable, so everything movable which is intrinsically valuable [is included]. Thus real estate is excluded, not being movable; slaves are excluded, being assimilated to real estate; bills [too] are excluded, for though movables, they are not intrinsically valuable. As for sacred objects, Scripture saith, [<i>If a man deliver unto</i>] his neighbour; <i>'his neighbour'</i>, but not <i>hekdesh</i>. [FURTHERMORE,] A GRATUITOUS BAILEE DOES NOT SWEAR etc. But the following contradicts this: If townspeople sent their <i>shekels</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A capitation tax of one shekel was levied for the expenses of the communal sacrifices. Shek. 2a. ');">²¹</span> and they were stolen or lost,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the hands of the messengers. ');">²²</span> — if [this happened] after the separation of the funds,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The shekels were arranged in three baskets at different periods of the year. The translation follows Tosaf. Rashi: If the court proceedings took place after etc. ');">²³</span>