Bava Metzia 56b (נו:) — the Talmud in English

Consecrated offerings for which he bears liability -

if they die, are stolen, or are lost, he is obligated to bring others in their place. This is the case when he consecrated the offering with the wording: “It is incumbent upon me to bring an offering.”

If they developed a blemish and he sold them,

they have

the status of

onaa,

because, since the owners bear liability for them, they are considered their property, and the verse “You shall not wrong one another” applies to them.

But one for which he does not bear liability,

if it dies, is stolen, or is lost, he need not bring another in its place. This is the case when he consecrated it with the wording: “This is an offering.”

If it developed a blemish and he sold it with onaa,

it does not have

onaa,

and he is not obligated to return the amount of the onaa, because the prohibition “You shall not wrong one another” does not apply here.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one who sells a Torah scroll, an animal, or a precious stone -

they do not have onaа.

The Gemara will explain why they do not have onaa.

The Sages said to him,

the Sages said to Rabbi Yehuda:

They said this only with regard to these,

slaves, promissory notes, land, and consecrated property; only these do not have onaa, but other things do have onaa.

Gemara:

From where are these matters

derived? From where do we learn that slaves, promissory notes, land, and consecrated property do not have the status of onaa?

As the Sages taught:

It is stated in the verse [Leviticus 25:14]:

“When you sell anything to your fellow or purchase from the hand of your fellow

you shall not wrong one another.” The words “from the hand of your fellow” are expounded to teach that only

an item acquired directly from hand to hand

is included in the warning “You shall not wrong.”

Land is excluded

from the laws of onaa, since

it is not movable property

and is not acquired directly from hand to hand.

Slaves are excluded

from the laws of onaa, since

they are equated with land,

as it is stated [Leviticus 25:46]: “And you shall hold them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession forever; you may work them forever.” Slaves are thereby equated with a possession [land]: Just as land does not have the law of onaa, so slaves do not have the law of onaa.

Promissory notes are excluded

from the laws of onaa, since

it is written

there, with regard to the prohibition of onaa,

“When you sell anything,” -

and we learn from there that only an item

whose substance is sold and whose substance is acquired

is subject to the law of onaa.

Promissory notes are excluded

from the laws of onaa, since

their substance is neither sold nor acquired; they exist only as evidence of the claim contained in them .

From here they said: Since promissory notes were excluded in the beraita only because their substance is not acquired and sold, it is clear that

one who sells his promissory notes to a perfume seller

so that he can use them as coverings for his perfume jars -

they do have onaа,

since they were sold for the purpose of using their substance.

And we raise a difficulty: What is the novelty of this statement?

It is obvious

that in this case they have the status of onaa, for in what way do these promissory notes, intended for use of their substance, differ from other movable objects that have onaa?

And we answer: This statement was made

to exclude the view of Rav Kahana, who said

earlier [55a] that

there is no onaа with regard to small copper coins -

that is, a transaction involving “small coins,” which are copper coins, is not subject to onaa; only a transaction involving an issar, a silver coin, is subject to onaa.

It teaches us

through the statement that promissory notes have onaa that

there is onaа with regard to small copper coins,

for ordinarily promissory notes sold to a perfume seller are sold for an amount that does not reach an issar, but only for the value of small coins.

Consecrated property:

From where do we learn that it does not have the law of onaa?

The verse says [

Leviticus 25:14]: “You shall not wrong

your brother” -

and the word “brother” is expounded to teach that only with regard to

your brother

is there the law of onaa,

but not

with regard to

consecrated property,

which is not your brother.

Rabba bar Memel raised an objection:

Regarding the inference that the beraita made earlier from the words “from the hand of your fellow,” that the reference is specifically to movable objects acquired directly from hand to hand:

Wherever [

a place]

the verse writes “his hand,”

does it mean

his actual hand?

If that is so, since it is written [

Numbers 21:26]:

“And he took all his land from his hand,”

is it

also the case that he was holding all the land in his hand?

Does one also interpret that verse to mean that the entire land was grasped in his hand and that he took it from his hand?

But it is impossible to interpret it that way!

Rather,

certainly the meaning there is that he took the land

from his possession,

and “his hand” means “his possession.”

Here too,

here, with regard to onaa, where it is written “from the hand of your fellow,” one should likewise interpret it this way: It means

from his possession -

from the possession of your fellow - and land too is included in the verse “from the hand of your fellow.”

And we answer: This was stated as a question:

Wherever [

a place]

the verse writes “his hand,” is it not -

does it not mean

his actual hand?

But it was taught

in a beraita: It is written in the verse [Exodus 22:3]:

“If the theft shall surely be found in his hand

... he shall pay double.”

I have derived

from there that a thief is liable to pay double

only

when the thief took the stolen item by means of

his hand.

But if it entered

his roof

or

his courtyard or enclosure,

and he closed the entrance before it in order to steal it,

from where

do we know that his courtyard also acquired it for him and that he is liable to pay double?

The verse states: “If the theft shall surely be found”

to include that

in any event

he is liable to pay double, even if he did not steal it with his actual hand, but through his possession.

We see from the beraita that only

because [

of the fact]

the Merciful One wrote, “If the theft shall surely be found,”

do we learn to include his entire possession.

Had this not been so,

we would have thought [

we would say] that

wherever [

a place]

the verse writes

“his hand,”

it

means

his actual hand.

And furthermore,

there is proof from another beraita.

It was taught

in a beraita: It is written in the verse [Deuteronomy 24:1]: “And he shall write her a bill of divorce

and place it in her hand.” I have derived

from there

only

that she is divorced when he places the bill of divorce into

her hand

itself.

And if he placed the bill of divorce into

her roof, courtyard, or enclosure, from where

do we know that she is divorced in these cases as well?

The verse states: “And he shall place it,”

and from the fact that it did not write “and he shall place it in her hand,” but rather “and he shall place it,” we learn to include that

in any event

she is divorced, even if he did not place the bill of divorce into her actual hand, but into her possession.

It is clear from the beraita that only

because [

of the fact]

the Merciful One wrote, “And he shall place it,”

do we learn to include all of her possession for receiving the bill of divorce.

Had this not been so,

we would have

thought,

we would say, that

wherever the verse writes “his hand,”

it means

his actual hand.

Rather,

it is certainly demonstrated by these beraitot that

every “his hand”

in the verse means

his actual hand.

But there it is different,

with regard to the verse “And he took all his land from his hand,”

for it cannot be said that way,

as it is impossible to interpret “his hand” in that manner [as meaning his actual hand];

rather,

the meaning there is

from his possession.

But in other places, we say that it means his actual hand.

Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma:

With regard to

rent,

if one misled the other concerning the amount of the rent, does

he have

the law of

onaa, or does

he

not have the law of onaа?

The sides of the dilemma are:

Do we expound the word “sale,” written with regard to onaa, to exclude that only

“sale,” the Merciful One said -

but not rent,

or perhaps [

perhaps]

there is no difference,

there is no difference between a sale and rent, and both have the law of onaa?

Abaye said to him: Is it written

with regard to onaa

“an eternal sale”? “Sale” is written without qualification, and this

rent

is also a sale for its duration,

for the day or period of the rental is considered a sale for a limited time.

Rava raised a dilemma: Wheat that was sown in the ground,

if one sold it after it had been sown in the ground,

what

is the law?

Do they have onaа or do they not have onaа?

The sides of the dilemma are:

Do we regard them as

as though they had been placed in a vessel [

as though the wheat had been placed in a vessel], and they are still considered movable objects,

and they have onaа, or perhaps,

perhaps

he nullified them

and subordinated them

to the ground,

the land, and they are considered land, which does not have the law of onaa?

And we examine this:

What are the circumstances?

What was the form of onaa concerning which Rava raised the dilemma as to whether sown wheat has the law of onaa?

If you say

that the onaa occurred in a case

where he,

the seller, said:

“I sowed six,”

I sowed six se’a in it [the land],

and witnesses came and said that he did not sow

more than

five,

and witnesses came and said that he had sown only five se’a in it -

in such a case there is no dilemma as to whether it is considered land or movable property with regard to onaa.

For

Rava said: Any matter involving a measure, a weight, or a number -

even less than the measure of onaа, the transaction is revoked

because it is a mistaken transaction. The seller explicitly stated the measure, and it became clear that this was not so. Since it is a mistaken transaction, even if the wheat he sowed is subordinated to the land, the purchaser may withdraw from the transaction. For although land was excluded from the laws of onaa, it was nevertheless not excluded from the law of a mistaken transaction, since in a mistaken transaction there was no sale at all: The purchaser did not intend to buy according to what ultimately became clear, namely, that the transaction was not as they had agreed.

Rather,

the dilemma concerning wheat that was sown, as to whether it has the law of onaa, must refer to a case

where he,

the seller, said

“I sowed

it

as much as it required,”

I sowed in the land as many seeds as it needed,

but it became clear that I had not sown

seed

as much as it required,

and it became clear that he had not sown as much as the land required.

Since this matter depends on estimation, and errors in estimation are common, it has the law of onaa [and not the law of a mistaken transaction]. In this case Rava raised the dilemma:

Do they have onaа or do they not have onaа?

The sides of the dilemma are: Do we regard the wheat

as though it had been placed in a vessel -

as though it had been placed in a vessel,

and it has onaа

as movable property,

or perhaps he nullified it alongside the land

perhaps he subordinated it to the land, and it does not have onaa?

Likewise, a dilemma may be raised concerning this wheat that was sown in the ground with regard to an oath of partial admission. For example: If the plaintiff claimed, “You agreed with me to sow the six se’a that I gave you, but you sowed only five,” and the defendant claims, “I sowed five and a half se’a,”

in such a case,

do they take an oath concerning it

as in the case of movable property,

or do they not take an oath concerning it

as in the case of land?

The question is whether the wheat is

regarded as though it had been placed in a vessel -

as though it had been placed in a vessel,

and they take an oath concerning it

as in the case of movable property,

or perhaps he nullified it alongside the land

perhaps he subordinated it to the land

and they do not take an oath concerning it

as in the case of land?

Likewise, a dilemma may be raised concerning this wheat that was sown in the ground: Does bringing the

Omer offering permit it

from the prohibition of hadash,

or does the Omer offering not permit it

from the prohibition of hadash?

The Gemara understood that the question of whether the Omer offering permits it from the prohibition of hadash concerns the growth of the wheat. Therefore, it raised the following difficulty:

What are the circumstances

of the case about which the dilemma was raised?

If

the dilemma was raised in a case

where the wheat had already sprouted

before the offering of the Omer, then

we already learned

that the Omer offering permits all crops that had sprouted before the Omer.

If

they were uncertain regarding the case

where they had not taken root,

that is, the wheat had not taken root before the offering of the omer,

we have also learned

that the omer does not permit, from the prohibition of new produce, crops that took root after the omer was brought.

As we learned in the Mishna: If they took root before the omer,

those crops that grew after the omer—

the omer permits them

from the prohibition of new produce,

but if not,

and if they took root only after the offering of the omer sacrifice—

they are forbidden

those crops are subject to the prohibition of new produce

until the next omer comes

in the following year.

If so, this is difficult: In what manner were they uncertain whether the omer permits the wheat in the ground from the prohibition of new produce?

And we answer:

It is necessary [to state this],

they needed to be uncertain only in a case

where they harvested them and sowed them,

that is, he harvested the wheat from the new produce and sowed it in the ground

before the omer, and the omer arrived and passed over them,

and the time for offering the omer arrived and passed over them while they were sown in the ground,

and they did not take root—

the wheat did not take root

before the omer.