Bava Metzia 52b (נב:) — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection to the words of Rav Huna:

It was objected:

We learned above: “To what extent must the sela be lacking?

Moreover, he may sell it for its value,”

and the straightforward meaning of the beraita’s statement, “he may sell it for its value,” is: according to its true value.

Is it not

the case]

that it became lacking by more than the measure of ona’a?

And nevertheless, it is permitted to retain it and sell it according to its value, and not as Rav Huna stated?

And we answer:

No.

It is referring to an additional coin,

which has not yet become lacking by the measure of ona’a,

and it teaches us that he may

sell it for its value,

that is, as a sound and superior coin.

An additional objection is raised to the words of Rav Huna:

It was objected: “To what extent may it become lacking and one still be permitted to retain it? With regard to a sela

up to a shekel .”

Needs clarification: why did they not object from the stipulation concerning utensils themselves, for it is written there — "up to two denarii"? And see Shitmak in the name of the Raavad.

Is it not

the case]

that it becomes lacking little by little

[that it gradually becomes diminished], and nevertheless it is permitted to retain it until it is worth a shekel, contrary to Rav Huna’s statement?

And we answer:

No.

It is referring to a case

where it fell into a fire and became diminished all at once

[the coin fell into the fire and became diminished in one instant until it was worth a shekel].

The Gemara returns to explain the beraita cited above:

The Master said: “He should perforate it and suspend it from the neck of his son or from the neck of his daughter.”

And we juxtapose this with a contradiction:

We learned in a beraita concerning a coin that became diminished beyond the measure for which it is permitted to retain it:

“He may not make it a weight among his weights, nor cast it among his scrap metal

[the broken pieces of silver vessels in his possession]

, nor perforate it and suspend it from the neck of his son or from the neck of his daughter. Rather,

he should either grind it, melt it, cut it, or carry it to the Salt Sea.”

But in our beraita we learned: “He should perforate it and suspend it from the neck of his son”?!

And we answer:

Rabbi Elazar said, and some say that Rav Huna said that Rabbi Elazar said: This is not difficult. Here,

it is referring to a coin that was perforated

in the middle,

and in such a case it is permitted, since it can no longer be used in any manner.

And

here,

it is referring to a coin that was perforated

on the side,

and in such a case we are concerned that the swindler might cut around it until he removes the hole, and then put it into circulation as a shekel.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Until when is it permitted to return it? In cities

until he shows it to a money changer. In villages

until Friday afternoon.”

But regarding the law of ona’a in a sale, we learned: “Until when is it permitted to return it? Until the amount of time necessary to show it to a merchant or to his relative,” and we did not distinguish between cities and villages.

And we ask:

What is different with regard to a sela, that a distinction is made

between cities and villages,

and what is different with regard to a garment, that no distinction is made?

Abaye said:

Indeed, even with regard to a garment, a distinction must be made between cities and villages. And

when we also learned our Mishna with regard to a garment, we learned it with regard to cities.

But in villages, its measure is until Friday afternoon, as with a coin.

Rava said: With regard to a garment, everyone is familiar with it.

[Everyone is expert with regard to it], and therefore even in villages its measure is until the time necessary to show it to a merchant or to his relative.

But

with regard to a sela, since not everyone is familiar with it, but only a money changer, therefore

in cities, where there is a money changer, its measure is until he shows it to a money changer.

And

in villages, where there is no money changer, until Friday afternoon, since they go to the market

[they go into the city, to the market, to purchase the needs of Shabbat], and then they can show it to a money changer.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And if he recognized it even after twelve months…” and so on:

And we ask:

Where

[in what case is this referring]?

If it is referring to cities, did you not say that it is until he shows it to a money changer? If it is referring to villages, did you not say that it is until Friday afternoon?

Rav Hisda said: The measure of piety

is what is taught here.

According to the strict law, he need return it only within the time limits mentioned earlier in the Mishna.

And we ask:

If so, say the latter clause—

“He has nothing against him but resentment”: against whom

[who is the one who resents him]?

If it is against the pious person,

who agreed to accept it after twelve months, and he says that he has resentment against him—did he force him to accept it, so that he should resent him?!

He should simply not accept it from him, and there should be no resentment

against him.

Rather, it is against the one who accepted it from him, and

when

after he accepted it from him, should there be resentment against him?!

And we answer:

This is what it is saying: This refers to another person,

who is not pious,

who, even though he does not accept it from him, has nothing against him but resentment.

For he himself caused his own loss by not returning it within the proper time.

We learned:

“And he may give it for ma’aser sheni, and need not be concerned, for he is merely a bad-hearted person.”

Rav Pappa said: Infer from this that one who refuses coins

[one who is unwilling to accept money when he finds some defect in it]

is called a bad-hearted person .

It appears difficult: what is new in Rav Papa's words, for did not our Mishnah explicitly say "he is but a wicked person"? The Tosafot explain: the Mishnah speaks only of a sela; Rav Papa informed us that even with other coins the law is so. [I would have thought that for inferior coin one is more scrupulous if damaged — so it is understood. Torat Chaim.] The Rashba and Ra'an will answer: were it not for Rav Papa's words, we would say only one who does not accept at all is a wicked person, but one who accepts at its value is not wicked. Rav Papa showed that one who does not accept as a whole coin is also considered a wicked person. Otherwise we would not permit one to profane second tithe with it as with a whole coin. [And see later how the Rishonim differ in the Gemara's conclusion, whether we profane second tithe on it at its value or as a fine sela]. The Ritva explained that Rav Papa taught that it is permitted to give this coin initially, and his proof is that we profane second tithe upon it.

And this statement applies only when they suffice for him,

that is, when he can put them into circulation with difficulty. But if the money is entirely defective, he is not obligated to accept it.

The Gemara discusses the substance of the Mishna’s statement:

Our Mishna, which said, “He may give it for ma’aser sheni and need not be concerned,”

supports

the words of

Ḥizkiyya, for Ḥizkiyya said:

One who has in his possession a sela that is slightly deficient, by the measure of ona’a, and

comes to exchange it

for small coins,

exchanges it according to its value.

According to the amount by which it is deficient. He may not deceive another person by exchanging it as though it were a fine sela.

But if he

comes to redeem

ma’aser sheni with

it, he redeems

with

it

ma’aser

for

the value of a fine sela

.”

And we ask:

What is he saying?

That is, what innovation did Ḥizkiyya introduce with his statement—that if he comes to exchange it, he exchanges it according to its value? Is this not already stated in our Mishna, which says that if a sela is deficient by the measure of ona’a, it is forbidden to put it into circulation as though it were a fine sela?

And we answer:

This is what he is saying: Even though, when he comes to exchange it,

in Jerusalem for a meal of ma’aser, he is compelled to

exchange it according to its value,

and not as a fine coin, since it is deficient by the measure of ona’a, nevertheless it is still called a “sela,” and

when he redeems

with

it

ma’aser sheni,

he redeems it for

the value of a

fine sela.

According to Ḥizkiyya, the intention of the Mishna’s statement, “He may give it for ma’aser sheni and need not be concerned,” is to say that he may redeem ma’aser sheni with it according to the value of a fine sela, and not merely according to its actual value.

We analyze this:

Does this mean that Ḥizkiyya holds that we treat ma’aser sheni disparagingly?

That is, that we reduce the amount of its redemption.

But Ḥizkiyya said: With regard to ma’aser sheni that is not worth a peruta

and does not have the power to cause the money given in redemption to acquire its sanctity ,

if one wishes to redeem it,

he says: “It and its fifth are redeemed upon the earlier money.”

That is, if he has additional money of ma’aser sheni in his possession, he redeems this ma’aser with that money.

Because a person cannot determine the exact amount of his money.

That is, a person does not redeem his tithes with an exact amount, lest he inadvertently understate the amount, with the result that he has not redeemed the ma’aser properly. Rather, he leaves a small surplus above the value of the ma’aser.

Therefore, he can redeem ma’aser worth less than a peruta with that surplus.

In any event, it is clear that one does not redeem ma’aser with an exact amount, and certainly one does not reduce its value ; if so, how can he redeem ma’aser according to the value of a fine sela, with a sela that has become deficient?

And we answer: Indeed, he redeems with it only according to its actual value.

And

what

did Ḥizkiyya mean by saying, “When he redeems it, he redeems it

as a fine coin,”

His intention was to say:

in the category of a fine coin.

That is, for its certain, actual value.

And this is what he is saying: Just as when he comes to exchange it in Jerusalem, they will accept it from him only according to its value, and some will depreciate its value by more than the amount of its deficiency, so too, when he comes to redeem ma’aser sheni with it, he redeems it for the lesser amount.

And he comes to teach us

that we do not depreciate it twice.

[We do not depreciate ma’aser sheni twice.] Although our Mishna teaches a depreciation of ma’aser sheni, in that one may redeem ma’aser sheni with a sela that became deficient by the measure of ona’a, and we do not say that this coin is unfit for redemption, like a coin that has been invalidated,

nevertheless, we do not depreciate the ma’aser further; rather, we redeem it only according to its certain actual value, and not according to the value of a fine sela.

The Gemara returns to discuss Ḥizkiyya’s statement.

The substance of the matter.

Ḥizkiyya said: “With regard to ma’aser sheni that is not worth a peruta, one says: ‘It and its fifth are redeemed upon the earlier money, because a person cannot determine the exact amount of his money .’”

The Ramban wrote: "And it seems to me that Chizkiya speaks good sense — that it is not the way of a person to reduce his monies, and that it is permitted that in money his mind does not grasp that it is in tithe but it is in his hands as mundane and he can profane it, and that a tithe of half a pruta joins and even that which was profaned. But our view is that any tithe that does not contain the value of a pruta at the time of separation is never profaned, unless it becomes fit for use and for melting truly." And from his words it is clear that a person can profane second tithe on money and the whole is taken into the sanctity of tithe; only because his mind does not apprehend it [as tithe] it is not seized. But according to Tosafot [below] the later authorities proved that one never takes more into tithe than its value. See Chazon Ish [Dmei 15:11].

And we ask:

It was objected:

Was it not taught in tractate Hallah, among the matters in which they were more stringent with teruma and bikkurim than with ma’aser:

“With regard to teruma and bikkurim

that were eaten by a non-koen or by an impure koen,

one is liable to death for them.

Rashi. However, according to Rav’s opinion [Sanhedrin 83b], a non-koen who ate teruma is not liable to death; he has merely violated a prohibition. According to his view, the passage is referring only to an impure koen. [Based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Bikkurim, chapter 2, halakha 1.] And

if they ate them unintentionally, they must pay the principal and

the fifth.