Bava Metzia 57a — the Talmud in English

In this manner one must inquire:

what is the law regarding taking and eating

from them?

Can he take and eat from these wheat grains that he sowed in the ground?

And it is obvious that there is no inquiry concerning the growths of the wheat, for even if the previous omer permitted the seeds before they were sown, and he sowed them before the omer, since they had not taken root until after the omer, their growths are forbidden until the next omer. And the entire inquiry is concerning the seeds [the wheat] themselves that are in the ground: were they permitted by the bringing of the omer, so that it is possible to remove them and eat them after the omer, or not?

And the sides of the inquiry are: are these wheat grains

considered as though they had been cast into a vessel—

considered as though he had placed them in a vessel—

and the omer

permitted them

as it did

like other wheat that was permitted at the time of the offering of the omer?

Or perhaps he nullified them by virtue of the ground—

or perhaps he nullified them by virtue of the ground, and they are considered like ground, and this law—that the omer should permit them—does not apply to them?

Concerning all these inquiries raised regarding wheat that he sowed in the ground—whether it is considered movable property or ground—the Gemara remains with

teyku.

Rava said that Rav Ḥisda said:

Rabbi Ami inquired:

for we learned in the Mishna several things that

have no onaa.

And now one must inquire:

do they have rescission of the sale [if the onaa was more than one-sixth].

— если переплата превышала одну шестую стоимости?

Or

even rescission of the sale

do they not have.

Rav Naḥman said: He went back,

afterward he returned and

said: Rav Ami resolved

this inquiry: even though

the things mentioned in the Mishna have no onaa, nevertheless

the things mentioned in the Mishna, nevertheless

they have rescission of the sale.

The Gemara now brings a dispute between amoraim, who disputed according to Rabbi Yoḥanan concerning this matter: they have no onaa, but they have rescission of the sale:

Rabbi Yona said

that this law was stated

with consecrated property,

whereas

Rabbi Yirmeya said

that this law was stated

with land.

And both of them,

Rabbi Yona and Rabbi Yirmeya,

said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan

this:

they have no onaa, but they have rescission of the sale.

And the Gemara explains:

The one who says [Rabbi Yona, who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that there is a law of rescission of the sale]

— рабби Йона, который передал от имени рабби Йоханана, что применяется отмена сделки, —

with consecrated property, all the more so

that Rabbi Yoḥanan said this

with land.

Since he taught us that rescission of the sale is not included within onaa, we have no exclusion of land from the law of rescission of the sale. And if with consecrated property, in which there is no error before Heaven, nevertheless the law of rescission of the sale was stated, then certainly this is the law with the sale of land, which is conducted between human beings, with whom a mistaken sale is applicable: that they have the law of rescission of the sale.

But

the one who says with land,

who says that the law of rescission of the sale applies to them, said this specifically with land, because rescission of the sale is not from the laws of onaa, but rather because the sale was made in error. Therefore, this applies only to land.

But with consecrated property, no.

They do not even have rescission of the sale, since error before Heaven is not applicable to consecrated property. As for the law of onaa, consecrated property was excluded from the law of onaa,

as according to Shmuel.

For Shmuel said:

an object of

consecrated property worth one hundred dinars, which he redeemed for the value of one peruta,

it is

redeemed.

Thus, consecrated property has no rescission of the sale, even when the consecrated property suffered onaa of more than one-sixth.

We learned there:

in tractate Temura [26b], that one who says concerning an unblemished offering that it should be redeemed onto an unconsecrated animal, or who says, “This animal is in exchange for this animal,” or, “This is the substitute for this,” has said nothing, for an unblemished offering is not redeemed.

But

if it was [an animal of]

животное

consecrated property with a blemish,

and he redeemed it onto an unconsecrated animal,

it goes out to unconsecrated status, and he must make a valuation for it [if the unconsecrated animal is not worth as much as the consecrated animal, he must add the difference to the consecrated property, despite the fact that the animal acquired the sanctity of the offering].

— если обычное животное стоит меньше посвящённого, необходимо добавить посвящённому имуществу разницу, несмотря на то что обычное животное приобрело святость жертвенного животного.

And in explaining this law,

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

this that we learned in the Mishna, “

it goes out to unconsecrated status”

is

a matter of Torah law,

for although the two animals are not equal in their value, the consecrated animal with a blemish goes out to unconsecrated status, because there is no onaa with consecrated property,

whereas this that we learned in the Mishna, that

he must make a valuation for it,

to add the difference between them to the consecrated property, is a law

of rabbinic origin.

For the Sages obligated him to pay the onaa to the consecrated property.

And Reish Lakish said: even

what they said,

“he must make a valuation for it,”

is

from Torah law.

And although there is no onaa with consecrated property, it is stated concerning the redemption of consecrated property, “your valuation”; the verse teaches that the redemption must be according to the value of its worth.

Whereas Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the intention is according to what they appraise it to be, even if this is not its true value.

And the Gemara asks:

With what are we dealing?

What is the difference between the value of the consecrated property and the unconsecrated property?

If you say that it is within the measure of onaa,

that is, less than one-sixth, is it possible that

with this Reish Lakish would say, “He must make a valuation for it by Torah law,”

and it follows that he holds that there is onaa with consecrated property?

But did we not learn [above, 56a],

выше, на 56а,

“These are the things that have no onaa: land, slaves, and documents,”

“and consecrated property.”

And if so, it is impossible to establish the Mishna in tractate Temura as referring to a difference of less than one-sixth, for in such a case certainly there is no onaa with consecrated property, and he need not add any money at all.

Rather,

perhaps you will say that the difference was within the measure of

rescission of the sale,

that is, more than one-sixth, and concerning this it was said that he must add money to it.

This matter is impossible, for would

concerning this Rabbi Yoḥanan say, “He must make a valuation for it by rabbinic law,”

but by Torah law he need not add, because there is no onaa with consecrated property even when it is more than one-sixth?

But did Rabbi Yona not say

what is stated below,

“with consecrated property,” whereas Rabbi Yirmeya said

this law

“with land,”

and both of them

said this

in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: “They have no onaa”

but

“they have rescission of the sale.”

And it follows that according to Rabbi Yona, Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that consecrated property has rescission of the sale when it is more than one-sixth, and this contradicts what Rabbi Yoḥanan said, that he need add money only by rabbinic law?

And we answer:

Actually,

that which was stated in the Mishna, that he must make a valuation for it, is

with rescission of the sale,

that is, the difference was more than one-sixth,

And reverse Rabbi Yoḥanan for Reish Lakish, and Reish Lakish for Rabbi Yoḥanan.

That is, according to Rabbi Yona the dispute is reversed: Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that he must add by Torah law, and Reish Lakish holds that he need add only by rabbinic law; and there is no contradiction in Rabbi Yoḥanan’s words.

And the Gemara explains:

With what do

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish

disagree? With regard to Shmuel’s statement.

For Shmuel said: “Consecrated property worth one hundred dinars, which he redeemed for the value of one peruta, is redeemed,”

and although there is here onaa of more than one-sixth, it follows that consecrated property was excluded from onaa even when the onaa was at the measure of rescission of the sale.

One master,

Reish Lakish, who holds that he must add money by rabbinic law,

holds Shmuel’s view,

that there is no onaa at all with consecrated property.

And the other master,

Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that he must add money by Torah law,

does not hold Shmuel’s view

but rather holds that even with consecrated property the exclusion is only from onaa, but they have rescission of the sale.

If you wish, say: everyone holds Shmuel’s view,

and indeed there is no onaa at all with consecrated property,

and here, they disagree about this:

One master,

who holds that he must add money by Torah law,

holds:

specifically

“when he redeemed it”—yes,

only if he has already redeemed it for the value of one peruta is it redeemed, after the fact, since there is no onaa with consecrated property.

But

initially,

when he comes to redeem it for less than its value,

no.

Since “your valuation,” which is stated in the Torah, means at its value, therefore, although the redemption takes effect, he is obligated to add money by Torah law.

And the other master holds

that he need add only by rabbinic law, because he holds that Shmuel’s law applies

even initially,

and what is stated in the verse, “your valuation,” means at any value, and only by rabbinic law must he add.

If you wish, say: actually,

that which was stated in the Mishna, that he must make a valuation for it, is when the difference is

within the measure of onaa, and do not reverse

the view of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish as we answered above; rather, Reish Lakish is the one who holds that he must make a valuation for it by Torah law.

And concerning what we raised from the Mishna—that there is no onaa with consecrated property, and why must he add money by Torah law—

the answer to this is:

And they disagree concerning Rav Ḥisda’s statement.

For Rav Ḥisda said: What is the meaning of “they have no onaa,”

which is stated concerning consecrated property?

It does not mean, as with land, that he does not return the onaa, but rather that consecrated property

is not subject to the law of onaa.