Bava Metzia 56b — the Talmud in English

Sacred offerings for which he is liable for their responsibility -

for if they died, were stolen, or were lost, he is liable to bring others in their place; and this is where he consecrated the offering with the wording: “It is incumbent upon me to bring an offering.”

If a blemish occurred in them and he sold them,

they have

a law of

exploitation,

because since the owners are liable for their responsibility, they are like their property, and the verse “Do not exploit a man his brother” applies to them.

But one for whose responsibility he is not liable,

if they died, were stolen, or were lost, he need not bring others in their place; and this is where he consecrated them with the wording: “This is an offering.”

If a blemish occurred in them and he sold them through exploitation,

they do not have

exploitation,

and he is not liable to return the exploitation, because “Do not exploit a man his brother” does not apply here.

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

they do not have exploitation.

And the Gemara will explain why they do not have exploitation.

They said to him,

the Sages to Rabbi Judah:

They said this only concerning these,

the slaves, the documents, the land, and the sacred offerings, for only these do not have exploitation; but other things do have exploitation.

Gemara:

From where are these matters?

From where do we learn that with regard to slaves, documents, land, and sacred offerings, there is no law of exploitation?

For the Sages taught:

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

“And when you sell a sale to your fellow, or acquire from the hand of your fellow

do not exploit a man his brother” - and they derive from the words “from the hand of your fellow” that only

an object acquired from hand to hand

is included in the prohibition “Do not exploit.”

Land is excluded

from the law of exploitation, since

it is not movable property ,

and it is not acquired from hand to hand.

Slaves are excluded

from the law of exploitation, since

they were equated with land,

as it is stated [Leviticus 25:46]: “And you shall bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit them as a possession, forever they shall work through them” - slaves were equated with a possession [land]; just as with land there is no law of exploitation, so with slaves there is no law of exploitation.

Documents are excluded

from the law of exploitation, since

it is written

there, concerning the prohibition of exploitation,

“And when you sell a sale” -

and we learn from there that only an object

whose body is sold and whose body is acquired

has the law of exploitation;

documents are excluded

from the law of exploitation, since

their bodies are neither sold nor acquired, and they exist only as evidence contained in them .

From here they said: Since documents were excluded in the beraita only because their bodies are not acquired and sold, it is clear that

one who sells his documents to be used for perfume

for use as covers for his perfume jars -

they have exploitation,

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

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

It is obvious

that they have the law of exploitation in this manner, for in what way do these documents, intended for use through their bodies, differ from other movable property with which there is exploitation?

And we answer: This statement was said in order

to exclude the view of Rav Kahana, who said

above [55a] that

there is no exploitation with small coins -

for a transaction involving “small coins,” which are copper coins, but only in a transaction involving an issar - a silver coin - is there exploitation.

It teaches us

by this statement that documents have exploitation:

there is exploitation with small coins,

for ordinarily, when one sells documents to be used for perfume, the transaction is not for an amount reaching an issar, but only an amount of small coins.

Sacred offerings,

from where do we learn that there is no law of exploitation with them?

The verse says [Leviticus 25:14]: “Do not exploit a man his

Leviticus 25:14]: “You shall not wrong

brother” - and they derive from “brother” that only concerning

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

his brother

is there a law of exploitation,

and not

concerning

sacred property,

which is not his brother.

Rabba bar Memel raised an objection:

Concerning what the beraita inferred above from “from the hand of your fellow,” that the reference is specifically to movable property acquired from hand to hand: Is it so that

everywhere [place]

a place]

that it is written, “his hand,”

the meaning

is his actual hand?

If that is so, since it is written [Numbers 21:26]:

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

and

is it

is it also so that he was holding all the land in his hand?

And there too, will you interpret that the entire land was grasped in his hand, and he took it from his hand?

But it is impossible to interpret it this way!

Rather,

certainly the meaning there is that he took the land

from his authority,

and “his hand” means “his authority”;

here too,

here as well [concerning exploitation, where it is written “from the hand of your fellow”], you should interpret it this way, for the meaning is

from his authority - from the authority of your fellow, and even land is included in the wording “from the hand of your fellow.”

And we answer: It was phrased as a question:

“Everywhere” [place]

that it is written, “his hand,” is it not

a place]

the meaning his actual hand?

And is it not taught in a beraita: The verse states [Exodus 22:3]:

“If the theft shall surely be found in his hand

and so on, he shall pay double” -

I have only

to learn from there that the thief is liable for double

rather

when the thief took the theft through

his hand.

But if it entered into

his roof

or into

his courtyard or his enclosure

and he locked the entrance before it

in order to steal it,

from where

do we learn that even then his courtyard acquired it for him and he is liable for double?

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

to include that

in any event he is liable for double, even if he did not steal it with his actual hand, but through his authority.

We see from the beraita that only

because

the Merciful One wrote,

“If the theft shall surely be found,”

we learn to include all of his authority;

were it not so,

we would have said that

everywhere [place]

Had this not been so,

that the verse wrote

we would say] that

“hand,”

the meaning

is his actual hand.

And furthermore,

another proof, from an additional beraita.

It was taught:

The verse states [Deuteronomy 24:1]: “And he shall write for her a scroll of severance and give it into

her hand; I have only

to learn from there

rather

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

her hand

itself.

And if he gave the bill of divorce into

her roof, her courtyard, or her enclosure, from where

do we learn that she is divorced in these ways as well?

The verse says: “And he shall give,”

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

in any event

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

It is explained in the beraita that only

because

the Merciful One wrote

“and he shall give”

do we learn to include all of her authority for receiving the bill of divorce;

were it not so,

we would have said,

“he would have said,”

that is, we would have said that

everywhere that it wrote “his hand”

the meaning

is his actual hand.

Rather,

it is certainly proven from these beraitot that

every “his hand”

in Scripture - the meaning

is his actual hand.

But there it is different,

concerning the verse “And he took all his land from his hand,”

for

it is impossible to say this,

that “his hand” should be interpreted this way [as meaning his actual hand];

rather

the meaning there is

in his authority.

But in other places, we say that the meaning is his actual hand.

Rabbi Zeira raised a question:

Concerning

rent,

if he exploited him in the amount of the rent, does

he have

the law of

exploitation, or does

he not

have the law of

exploitation?

And these are the sides of the uncertainty:

Do we derive from “sale,” written concerning exploitation, to exclude that only

“a 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 in both there is a law of exploitation?

Abaye said to him: Is it written

concerning exploitation,

“a sale forever”? “A sale” is written without qualification, and this

rent

is also a sale for its day,

for the day of the rental it is a sale, since renting an object is considered a sale for a period.

Rava raised a question: Wheat that he sowed in land,

if he sold it after he sowed it in the land,

what is

the law?

Do

they have exploitation, or do they not have exploitation?

And these are the sides of the uncertainty:

Are they

like one who threw them into a jar,

as though they were placed in a jar, and they are still considered movable property

and they have exploitation, or perhaps

they

were nullified

by being upon

the back of the land,

the land, and are considered like land, which has no law of exploitation?

And we examine it:

What are the circumstances?

What was the manner of exploitation about which Rava was uncertain, whether there is a law of exploitation concerning wheat that he sowed or not?

If you say

that the exploitation was in a case

where he said,

the seller:

“I sowed six measures in it,”

I sowed six seah in it [the land],

and witnesses came and said that he did not sow

seed

in it except five,

and witnesses came and said that he sowed only five seah in it,

in such a case there is no uncertainty whether it is considered land or movable property with regard to exploitation.

For

Rava said: Anything involving measure, weight, or number -

even less than the amount of exploitation, he returns

because it is a mistaken transaction, for the seller explicitly stated the measure and it became clear that this was not so. And since it is a mistaken transaction, even if the wheat he sowed is nullified to the land, the buyer withdraws from the transaction, for although land was excluded from the law of exploitation, nevertheless it was not excluded from the law of a mistaken transaction. For in a mistaken transaction there is no sale at all, since it was not in the buyer’s mind to purchase according to what became clear in the end, that the transaction was not as they had agreed.

Rather,

it must be said that the uncertainty concerning wheat that he sowed, whether it has the law of exploitation, is in a case

where he said,

the seller

“I sowed”

I sowed

it as it required,

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

and it became clear that he did not sow

seed

in it as it required,

and it became clear that he did not sow in it as much as the land required.

as much as it required,

Since this matter depends upon estimation, and it is common for people to err in estimation, its law is the law of exploitation [and not the law of a mistaken transaction]; and in this case Rava was uncertain whether

they have exploitation or do not have exploitation. And these are the sides of the uncertainty: Are the wheat

like one who cast them into a jar,

considered as though he placed them in a jar,

and they have exploitation

as the law of movable property,

or perhaps he nullified them on account of the land

or perhaps he nullified them on account of the land, and they do not have exploitation?

And likewise, there is an uncertainty concerning this wheat that he sowed in the land with regard to the oath of one who partially admits a claim, for example: If the claimant claimed, “You agreed with me to sow six seah that I gave you, and you sowed only five,” and the defendant claims, “I sowed five and a half seah.”

In this case, do they

swear concerning them

as the law of movable property,

or do they not swear concerning them

as the law of land ?

or do they not take an oath concerning it

There is an uncertainty: Are the wheat

like one who cast them into a jar, considered as though he placed them in a jar,

and they swear concerning them

as the law of movable property,

or perhaps he nullified them on account of the land

or perhaps he nullified them on account of the land

and they do not swear concerning them

as the law of land?

And likewise, there is an uncertainty concerning this wheat that he sowed in the land: Does bringing the

omer offering permit them

from the prohibition of hadash,

or does the omer offering not permit them

from the prohibition of hadash?

The Gemara understood that the uncertainty whether the omer offering permits them from the prohibition of hadash concerns the growth of the wheat, and therefore it raised the question:

What are the circumstances

of the case about which they were uncertain?

If

they were uncertain in a case

where they had already taken root,

where the wheat had already taken root before the offering of the omer -

we have already learned

that the omer permits all growth that had already taken root before the omer.

we already learned

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

If

we were in doubt concerning the case

that they did not take root

the wheat did not take root before the offering of the omer, as well,

we learned

that the omer does not permit from the prohibition of new produce the growths that took root after the bringing of the omer.

For we learned: If they took root before the omer

those growths 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 bringing of the omer-offering

they are forbidden

those growths are forbidden with the prohibition of new produce

until the next omer comes

in the following year.

If so, it is difficult: in what manner were they in doubt whether the omer permits the wheat that is in the ground from the prohibition of new produce?

And we answer:

It is necessary,

they needed to be in doubt only in a case

that he harvested them and sowed them

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

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

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

and they did not take root

and the wheat did not take root

before the omer.