Bava Metzia 57b — the Talmud in English

And this is

that even less than the measure of onaa is returned.

And therefore Reish Lakish holds that he must make a monetary adjustment for it by Torah law, while Rabbi Yohanan disputes Rav Hisda and explains it according to its plain meaning: that there is no onaa at all in their case, and therefore he need add only by rabbinic law.

He raised an objection

from what we learned in a beraita: There is

interest and onaa for an ordinary person, but there is no interest and onaa for consecrated property.

And plainly, the intention is that the law of onaa does not apply at all to consecrated property. But this is difficult for Rav Hisda, who holds that even less than the measure of onaa is returned?

And we answer:

Is

the beraita

stronger than the Mishna, which we established

as explaining what is written in it, “there is no onaa for them,” to mean that they are not

subject to the law of onaa!

On the contrary, even less than the measure of onaa is returned.

Here too

we shall explain the beraita:

There is interest and the law of onaa for an ordinary person, but there is no interest and the law of onaa for consecrated property.

And this is in accordance with Rav Hisda, that it is returned even when it is less than the measure of onaa.

And we challenge:

If so, this is what it teaches at the end

of the beraita:

This is a stringency in an ordinary person over consecrated property,

which is not properly explained, for with regard to onaa, consecrated property is stringent, since it is returned even when it is less than the measure of onaa!?

And we answer: Indeed, what we said, “a stringency in an ordinary person over consecrated property,” applies only

to interest,

for an ordinary person is stringent in this matter, since there is no interest with consecrated property.

And we challenge:

Let it also teach, “This is a stringency in consecrated property over an ordinary person,” with regard to onaa,

since consecrated property is stringent, as it is returned even when it is less than the measure of onaa? And the Gemara rejects the challenge:

How can these be compared!?

For the matters are not equal!

For

Granted, “This is a stringency in an ordinary person over consecrated property,”

there is a novelty in this: that an ordinary person is more stringent than consecrated property,

and nothing more,

for in other matters consecrated property is more stringent than an ordinary person.

But consecrated property,

which is more stringent than an ordinary person—is it possible to state a novelty,

“This is a stringency,” and nothing more!

On the contrary, this is indeed generally so, and there is no novelty in it.

And we inquire concerning it:

The interest of consecrated property,

which has no prohibition,

what are the circumstances,

in what manner was this law stated?

If you say that he lent it

[that is, he lent]

the treasurer one hundred

on condition that he return

with

interest

one hundred twenty,

and concerning this it was said that it is not prohibited,

this is difficult:

But surely the treasurer committed sacrilege

when he lent the money inadvertently, for he thought that there was no prohibition in this, since he was causing profit to consecrated property.

And once the treasurer committed sacrilege, his money went out to ordinary use, and it became ordinary property,

and it is in the treasurer’s possession; and the treasurer has only the obligation to pay the principal and the fifth to consecrated property. If so, surely there is a prohibition of interest with regard to this money?

And we answer:

Rav Oshaya said: Here, with what are we dealing?

This law is stated in a case

such as where he accepted upon himself

this person who received money from consecrated property, on condition

to supply fine flour

to consecrated property for the communal meal-offering sacrifice throughout the year, and they stipulated that the price would be

four

seahs of wheat for a sela, and afterward the wheat became more expensive

and stood at three

seahs for a sela. It follows that if he now supplies it at the price they stipulated, he gives one additional seah for every sela, and this is interest; but with consecrated property it is permitted, because there is no interest with consecrated property.

As it was taught: One who accepts upon himself to supply fine flour

to consecrated property

at four

seahs per sela, and the wheat became more expensive

and stood at three

seahs per sela,

supplies

fine flour at the price they stipulated, namely

at four

seahs per sela.

And if the price they stipulated was

three

seahs per sela, and afterward the price fell

and stood at four

seahs per sela, he

supplies

to consecrated property

four

seahs per sela, according to the current price and not according to what they stipulated initially, because

the hand of consecrated property has the advantage,

so that there should be no loss to consecrated property; and there is no prohibition of interest in this, since there is no interest with consecrated property.

Rav Pappa said: Here, we are dealing with building stones entrusted to the treasurer

in order to build for consecrated property,

we are dealing

with. These stones are not consecrated until after they have been built, and at present they are not yet in the possession of consecrated property and have no sanctity. And this treasurer lent them on condition of paying an addition of interest; in this case there is no sacrilege, for the stones are still ordinary property. And concerning this they said that there is no prohibition of interest, because there is no interest with consecrated property.

In accordance with Shmuel, for Shmuel said: They build with ordinary materials,

the building stones are purchased by consecrated property on credit, and they are not consecrated until the completion of the building, so that they should not come to sacrilege during the time of construction,

and afterward they consecrate them,

and at the completion of the work they redeem consecrated money onto the building, and the money is given to the merchants and craftsmen. Likewise, one who wishes to donate stones to consecrate them gives them to the treasurer, and consecrates them only after the completion of the building.

We learned in our Mishna: Slaves, promissory notes, land, and consecrated property

do not have payments of

double.

And we inquire concerning it:

From where are these matters

learned?

For the Sages taught:

It is stated concerning the law of a thief who pays double [Exodus 22]: “For every matter of transgression, for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garment, for every lost item concerning which he says: This is it! He shall pay double to his fellow.”

And this verse is expounded through the method of a generalization, a specification, and a generalization:

“For every matter of transgression,”

this is a

generalization.

“For an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garment,”

this is a

specification.

“For every lost item concerning which he says

“This is it,”

he returned and generalized.

And this derivation is one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles by which the Torah is expounded. According to this principle, every matter that at first is written in a general form, and then the matter is again written in the form of a specification, and afterward the matter returns in a general form, comes to teach that when one comes to learn from this verse,

you may derive only something similar to the specification

stated in the verse.

And thus we reason:

Just as the specification is explicit

in this verse, it is

a movable object whose substance is money,

and if it is stolen, one is liable to pay double for it,

so too every movable object whose substance is money,

one is liable to pay double for its theft.

Land is excluded, since it is not movable,

and one is not liable to pay double for it.

And likewise,

slaves are excluded,

for one is not liable to pay double for their theft, because

they were compared to land,

with regard to inheritance, as it is stated [Leviticus 25]: “And you shall take them as an inheritance for your sons after you, to inherit as a possession.” And from here they learned [Kiddushin 22b] that Scripture compared them to an ancestral field with regard to acquisitions, and likewise with regard to other matters, including payments of double.

And likewise

promissory notes are excluded,

for one is not liable to pay double for their theft,

for even though

they are

movable,

nevertheless they were excluded from double, because

their substance is not money.

And likewise

consecrated property

has no liability of double for its theft, since

the verse says [

Exodus 22]

“his fellow,”

and through this Scripture excludes that only when he stole from

his fellow

is he liable to pay double,

but not

when he stole

from consecrated property.

We further learned in our Mishna that with regard to these matters there is no liability of double,

nor payments of four and five.

And we inquire concerning it:

What is the reason?

And we answer: Only

payments of “four and five,” the Merciful One said,

with regard to the obligation for slaughtering and selling,

and not payments of “three and four.”

And in these matters, since he does not pay double for them, it follows that for slaughtering or selling them he would pay payments of only three and four, and this is not the liability that the Torah imposed. And payments of four and five apply always only when there is a liability of double.

We further learned in our Mishna that with regard to these matters,

an unpaid bailee does not take an oath,

if the deposit was stolen or was lost through unavoidable circumstances.

And we inquire concerning it:

From where are these matters?

For the Sages taught:

It is stated in the section of bailees [Exodus 22],

“When a man gives to his fellow

silver or vessels to guard,” and this verse is expounded through a generalization, a specification, and a generalization.

That is: “When a man gives to his fellow” is a

generalization, “silver or vessels,”

this is a

specification, “to guard,”

the verse

returned and generalized.

And since this verse contains

a generalization, a specification, and a generalization,

when you come to learn from it by this principle,

you may derive only

something that is

similar to the specification:

What is the specification,

the

explicit

one in the verse? It is only

a movable object whose substance is money.

So too every object

learned from here is subject to the law of the oath of bailees only if it is

a movable object whose substance is money.

Land is excluded, since it is not movable,

and there is no oath concerning it.

Slaves are excluded,

for one does not take an oath concerning them because

they were compared to land.

And likewise

promissory notes are excluded, for even though they are movable,

nevertheless

their substance is not money,

and therefore there is no oath concerning them. And the reason for

consecrated property

that there is no oath concerning it is that

the verse says [

Exodus 22] “When a man gives to

his fellow,”

and the verse comes to exclude and say:

“His fellow,” and not consecrated property.

And we further learned that with regard to these matters,

a paid bailee does not pay,

if they were stolen or lost while in his possession.

And we inquire concerning it:

From where are these matters?

For the Sages taught:

It is stated in the section of a paid bailee [Exodus 22], which is the second section in the passage of bailees,

“When a man gives to his fellow,”

this is a

generalization, “an ass or an ox or a sheep,”

this is a

specification, “and every animal to guard,” he returned and generalized.

And this verse is expounded by

a generalization, a specification, and a generalization,

and therefore

you may derive only something similar to the specification:

Just as the specification, explicit, is a movable object whose substance is money,

a paid bailee is liable for its theft or loss,

so too every movable object whose substance is money

a paid bailee is liable for.

Land is excluded, since it is not movable; slaves are excluded, since they were compared to land; promissory notes are excluded, for even

though they are movable, their substance is not money,

and

consecrated property

is excluded because

the verse says, “his fellow”—his fellow and not that of consecrated property.

We learned in the Mishna concerning land and consecrated property:

An unpaid bailee does not take an oath, etc.:

And he raised a contradiction

against this from what we learned at the beginning of tractate Shekalim:

The people of the city who sent their shekels,

the half-shekel that they collected from each person in order to purchase the communal sacrifices with them for all Israel—if the people of the city sent their shekels to the Temple through messengers, who are considered bailees,

and the shekels were stolen or lost

from the messenger-bailees, then:

If

the messengers came to court as defendants concerning the shekels that were lost or stolen from them,

after the “contribution” was made,

that is, after the time when they “contributed” from all the shekels that had already arrived and been gathered in the Temple.