Bava Metzia 52a (נב.) — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Shimon says: eight pundeyonot to a sela,

two pundeyonot per dinar .

That is, one-sixth, the measure of ona’a in a sale.

The Gemara will explain how the law of ona’a concerning coins differs from the law of ona’a concerning a sale.

Until when is it permitted to return

the ona’a involving coins?

In cities, for the time it takes to show it to a money changer.

In villages

where there is no money changer—

until the eve of

Shabbat.

When he comes to spend it for Shabbat needs, he will know whether they will accept it from him or not.

And

if

the giver

recognizes

the coin, which is the same sela that he gave him,

even after twelve months from the time he received it from him .

The Gemara will explain that he is not legally obligated to accept it, but doing so is an act of piety.

And

if he does not wish to accept it from him,

he has no claim against him

other than resentment .

And he gives it for second tithe,

that is, it is permitted to redeem second-tithe produce with that sela, which is deficient by the measure of ona’a, as though it were a full sela.

And he need not be concerned

that perhaps it has the status of a coin whose image has been worn away. Since

one

who does not accept it at its value as a coin

is merely a mean-spirited person. [

A miser and a narrow-minded person.]

Gemara:

In our Mishna we learned: “To what extent may the sela be deficient and still not involve ona’a?” This implies that the measures stated in the Mishna are not considered ona’a until the deficiency exceeds them by something.

And he raised a contradiction, [

the Gemara challenged this from a beraita]—

“To what extent may the sela be deficient and involve ona’a?”

This implies the opposite: If it is deficient by the measure mentioned in the Mishna, it does involve ona’a?

Rav Pappa said: It is not difficult.

In fact, it may be said that if it is deficient by the measure mentioned in the Mishna, it is ona’a.

And

the tanna of our Mishna counts from the lower measure upward.

There is no ona’a until that measure, but not including it.

And

the tanna of the beraita [

an external tanna who taught the beraita]

counts from the upper measure downward.

It is ona’a up to the stated measure, including that measure.

Now, concerning the law of ona’a stated with regard to a sale, we find no dispute, and everyone agrees that its measure is one-sixth. But concerning the law of ona’a stated with regard to a coin, they disagree as to what measure constitutes ona’a.

And we ask:

What is different with regard to the

law of ona’a of a

sela, that they disagree

about what measure constitutes ona’a,

and what is different with regard to a garment [

the law of ona’a stated with regard to buying and selling]

that they do not disagree?

Rava said:

Indeed, they also disagreed with regard to a garment. But

the one who

taught

with regard to a garment

that the measure of ona’a is one-sixth

is Rabbi Shimon.

The one mentioned in our Mishna, who says that the measure of ona’a with regard to a coin is also one-sixth.

Indeed, the tannaim who disagree with him in the Mishna concerning a coin also disagree with him concerning a garment.

But

Abaye said:

With regard to a

garment,

everyone agrees that the measure of ona’a is one-sixth, since

up to one-sixth, a person relinquishes his claim.

As people say: “Spend freely—

for your body.” [

Buy clothing for your body even at a high price]

“But be exact

for your stomach.” [

Food for eating—buy it at its proper price ]

Therefore, he is not particular if he bought it at a high price, up to one-sixth.

But

with regard to a sela [

if he suffered ona’a concerning a coin], he is particular even when the deficiency is less than one-sixth.

Since it cannot be spent [

since he cannot use this defective coin]

he does not relinquish his claim.

The Gemara discusses the substance of the laws taught in our Mishna:

With regard to the matter itself.

We learned in the Tosefta concerning this matter:

To what extent may the sela be deficient and involve ona’a?

Rabbi Meir says: Four issarim

per sela,

one issar per dinar.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Four pundeyonot

per sela,

one pundeyon per dinar.

Rabbi Shimon says: Eight pundeyonot

per sela,

two pundeyonot per dinar.

Furthermore, [

this will be explained below]

he may sell it at its value .

To what extent may it become deficient and he still be permitted to retain it,

without concern that people will use this sela in order to deceive others?

With regard to a sela

that is becoming progressively deficient, it is permitted to retain it

until

it reaches the measure of a

shekel [

half a sela]. There is no concern that people will deceive with it, since its deficiency is apparent.

But if it becomes more deficient than a shekel, it is forbidden to retain it. Since its deficiency is not apparent relative to a shekel [as it is as broad as a sela, and appears to the eye to weigh at least a shekel], people will trade with it as though it were a shekel.

And

with regard to a dinar

that is becoming progressively deficient, it is permitted to retain it

until a quarter. [

The precise measure will be explained below.]

Less than this by an issar is forbidden. [

This will be explained below.]

And with regard to these coins that they prohibited retaining,

he may not sell it, neither to a merchant nor to a robber [

a bandit]

, nor to a murderer [

a killer]

, because they would deceive others with it.

They would force others to accept it as a superior coin.

Rather, he should bore a hole in it and hang it

as an amulet

around the neck of his son or around the neck of his daughter.

These are the words of the Tosefta.

The Gemara returns to explain the words of the Tosefta, section by section:

The Master said: “With regard to a sela, until a shekel

, and with regard to a dinar, until a quarter.”

The Gemara explains:

What is different with regard to a sela

whose deficiency is permitted only

until a shekel [

that is, half its value],

and what is different with regard to a dinar

whose deficiency is permitted

until a quarter

of its value?

Abaye said: What does “a quarter,” which it teaches

with regard to a dinar, mean?

Also a quarter of a shekel.

That is, half the dinar.

Rava said: It is also precise

in accordance with Abaye’s words, that the reference is not to a quarter of a dinar but to a quarter of a shekel—

for it teaches “a quarter,” and it does not teach “a fourth.” Conclude from this.

And we ask:

Why does he need to relate the

measure of the deficiency of a

dinar to

a quarter of a

shekel?

He could have stated it simply: With regard to a dinar, until half its value.

And we answer:

He teaches us something incidentally: There is a dinar that comes from a shekel.

That is, there is a dinar formed from a shekel that became deficient by the value of a dinar. This dinar may be retained.

And

this supports

the words of

Rabbi Ami, for Rabbi Ami said: “A dinar that comes from a shekel may be retained,”

and used as a dinar.

But

a dinar that comes from a sela

that became deficient by the value of a dinar,

may not be retained.

Since the sela is a thick coin, people will err with regard to this dinar and use it as a shekel.

We learned further in a beraita:

“Less than this by an issar is forbidden”:

The Gemara explains:

What is it saying ?

Abaye said: This is what it is saying:

If

the

sela

became deficient by more than the measure of ona’a

by

an issar, it is forbidden

to use it as a full sela.

Rava said to him: If so, [

that it became deficient by more than the measure of ona’a, why does it need to become deficient specifically by an issar?

Even

if it became deficient by

the slightest amount as well,

it should be forbidden to use it as a full sela.

Rather, Rava said:

The beraita means to say: If

the

sela

became deficient by an issar per dinar [1:24,

in accordance with Rabbi Meir],

it is forbidden

to spend it, since this constitutes ona’a.

And the anonymous

beraita

is in accordance with Rabbi Meir.

We learned there

in tractate Kelim:

A sela that was disqualified, and he prepared it

so that he could weigh weights with it

, is susceptible to ritual impurity.

That is, it becomes susceptible to ritual impurity like a vessel, since he made it into a vessel.

To what extent may it become deficient and he still be permitted to retain it?

With regard to a sela, two dinars. [

That is, a shekel, as above.]

And if it became deficient

by less than this, he should cut it. [

He should cut the coin in two, so that people will not use it as a shekel.]

And we are uncertain:

What is the law if it is more than this?

That is, if it became deficient from a sela by more than the measure of ona’a, but more than a shekel remains in it, is it permitted to retain it, without concern that people will come to spend it as a full sela?

Rav Huna said:

Whether

less than this remains in it,

he should cut it, [

lest people come to spend it as a shekel], and whether

more than this remains, he should cut away the excess

and leave it as a shekel. [Lest people come to spend it as a full sela]]

Only when exactly a shekel remains in it is it permitted to retain it as it is and use it as a shekel.

But

Rabbi Ami said: If less than this remains, he should cut it.

But

if more than this remains—

he may retain it.

We are not concerned that people will come to spend it as a full sela, since a sela is a large coin and it is apparent that it has lost some of its weight.