Bava Metzia 52b — the Talmud in English

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

They raise an objection:

we learned above: “To what extent may the sela be deficient?

Moreover, he sells it at its value,”

and plainly the intention of the beraita in saying “he sells it at its value” is according to its true value.

Is it not

the case]

that it became deficient by more than the measure of onaa?

And nevertheless it is permitted to retain it and to sell it according to its value, and not in accordance with the words of Rav Huna?

And we answer:

No.

It is referring to a coin

that is still intact, for it has not yet become deficient by the measure of its onaa,

and it teaches us that he can

sell it at its value,

that is, as a beautiful and superior coin.

We raise another objection to the words of Rav Huna:

They raise an objection: “To what extent may it become deficient and he may be permitted to retain it? With regard to a sela

—until a shekel .”

Is it not

the case]

that it became deficient little by little

that it became deficient little by little], and nevertheless it is permitted to retain it until [it is worth] a shekel, and not in accordance with the words of Rav Huna?

And we answer:

No.

It is referring to a situation

in which it fell into the fire and became deficient in a single instance

the coin fell into the fire and became deficient all at once to the value of a shekel.

The Gemara returns to explain the beraita brought above:

The Master said: “He should pierce it and hang it around the neck of his son or around the neck of his daughter.”

And they raise a contradiction,

for we learned in a beraita concerning a coin that became deficient beyond the measure for which they permitted retaining it:

“He should not make it a weight among his weights, nor throw it among his scrap metal

fragments of silver vessels in his possession]

, and he should not pierce it and hang it around the neck of his son or around the neck of his daughter; rather

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

But in our beraita we learned: “He should pierce it and hang it around the neck of his son”

. And we answer:

Rabbi Elazar said—and some say that Rav Huna said [that] Rabbi Elazar [said]: It is not difficult. Here,

it is where it was pierced

in the middle,

and in such a case it is permitted, since it is no longer possible to use it in any manner.

And

here

it is where it was pierced

on the side,

and in such a case we are concerned lest the swindler cut around it until he removes the hole, and take it out in the marketplace 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 the eves of Sabbaths.”

But concerning the law of onaa in a transaction, we learned: “Until when is it permitted to return it? Until the time required 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 he distinguishes

between cities and villages,

and what is different with regard to a garment, that he does not distinguish?

Abaye said:

indeed, also with regard to a garment one must distinguish between cities and villages. And

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

But in villages, its measure is until the eves of Sabbaths, as with a coin.

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

Every person is expert in it, and therefore even in villages its measure is until he shows it to a merchant or to his relative.

But

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

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

And

in villages, where there is no money changer, until the eves of Sabbaths, for they go up to the marketplace

for they go to the city, to the marketplace, to purchase the needs of Shabbat, and then they can show it to a money changer.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And if he recognizes it, even after twelve months …” et cetera:

And we ask:

Where [(

in what case is it referring)]?

If it is in cities, you said: until he shows it to a money changer. If it is in villages, you said: until the eves of Sabbaths?

Rav Hisda said: It is a measure of piety

that they taught here.

And according to the law, he need return it to him only according to the measures mentioned above in the Mishna .

And we ask:

If so, say the latter clause—

“He has only a grievance against him”—against whom [(

who is the one who has the grievance)]?

If it is against the pious person

who agreed to accept it after twelve months, is it said that he has a grievance? Did he force him to accept it from him, so that he should have a grievance against him?!

He should not accept it from him, and there should not be a grievance

against him.

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

when

after he accepted it from him there should be a grievance against him?!

And we answer:

This is what it says: The latter is another person,

who is not pious,

even though he does not accept it from him, he has only a grievance against him.

For he is the one who caused his own loss, by not returning it at its proper time.

We learned:

“And he gives it for Second Tithe, and he need not be concerned, for he is merely ill-natured.”

Rav Pappa said: Learn from this that one who is particular about coins

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

is called ill-natured .

And this applies only when they are usable,

that is, when he can circulate them with difficulty. But if the money is completely defective, he is not obligated to accept it.

The Gemara discusses the substance of the words of the Mishna:

Our Mishna, which said, “He gives it for Second Tithe and need not be concerned,”

supports the

words of

Hezekiah, for Hezekiah said:

one who had in his possession a sela that was slightly deficient, by the measure of onaa, and

came to exchange it

for small coins,

he exchanges it at its value.

According to its deficiency. And he should not deceive his fellow by exchanging it for him as a beautiful sela.

But if he

came to redeem

Second Tithe upon

it, he redeems

upon

it

Second Tithe

at

the value of a

beautiful sela.”

And we ask:

What is he saying?

That is, what did Hezekiah innovate with his words—that if he came to exchange it, he exchanges it at its value? Is this not our Mishna, which says that if there is in the sela a deficiency by the measure of onaa, it is forbidden to circulate it as a beautiful sela?

And we answer:

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

in Jerusalem for the meal of the Second Tithe, against his will,

he exchanges it at its value,

and not as a beautiful one, since it is deficient by the measure of onaa, nevertheless its name is still “sela,” and

when he redeems

upon

it

Second Tithe

he redeems it at

the value of a

beautiful sela.

And according to the words of Hezekiah, the intention of the Mishna—“He gives it for Second Tithe and need not be concerned”—is to say that he redeems upon it at the value of a beautiful sela, and not only at its value .

And we consider this:

Does this mean that Hezekiah holds that we treat Second Tithe lightly?

And we reduce the value of its redemption.

But Hezekiah said: Second Tithe that does not have the value of a peruta

and does not have the power to seize its redemption in its sanctity .

If he wishes to redeem it,

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

That is, if he has additional money of Second Tithe in his possession, he redeems the Second Tithe upon that money.

For it is impossible for a person to measure out his money exactly.

That is, a person does not redeem the tithes with exact precision, lest he mistakenly give less, with the result that he did not redeem the Second Tithe properly. Rather, he leaves a little more than the value of the Second Tithe.

And therefore he can redeem Second Tithe worth less than a peruta upon that surplus .

In any event, it is explained that one does not redeem Second Tithe with exact precision, and all the more so one does not reduce its value , and if so, how can he redeem Second Tithe at the value of a beautiful sela upon a deficient sela?

And we answer: Indeed, he redeems upon it only according to its true value.

And

what

Hezekiah said, “When he redeems it, he redeems it

as a beautiful one,”

his intention is to say—

in the category of a beautiful one.

That is, at the value of its certain worth.

And this is what he says: Just as when he comes to exchange it in Jerusalem, they will accept it from him only at its value, and some will reduce its price by more than the amount of its deficiency, so too when he comes to redeem it, he redeems it at the lower value.

And he comes to teach us

that we do not treat it lightly twice.

We do not treat Second Tithe lightly twice, and although we learned in our Mishna a leniency concerning Second Tithe, that he can redeem Second Tithe upon a sela that became deficient by the measure of onaa, and we do not say, “This sela is unfit for redemption, like a coin that has been invalidated,”

nevertheless, we do not treat the Second Tithe with an additional leniency, and we redeem upon it only according to its certain value, and not according to the value of a beautiful sela .

The Gemara returns to discuss the words of Hezekiah

itself.

Hezekiah said: “Second Tithe that does not have the value of a peruta, he says: ‘It and its fifth are redeemed upon the earlier money, for it is impossible for a person to measure out his money exactly .”

And we raise an objection:

They raise an objection

for we learned in tractate Challa, concerning those matters in which they were more stringent with teruma and first fruits than with Second Tithe:

“Teruma and first fruits

if a non-priest ate them or an impure koen,

one is liable to death on account of them.

And

if they ate them inadvertently, they are obligated to pay the principal and

a fifth.