## Bava Metzia Daf 56b

###### Bava Metzia 56b:1
[Bava Metzia 56b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/56b:1)

קֳדָשִׁים שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן – יֵשׁ לָהֶן אוֹנָאָה. וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן – אֵין לָהֶן אוֹנָאָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף הַמּוֹכֵר סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה, בְּהֵמָה וּמַרְגָּלִית – אֵין לָהֶם אוֹנָאָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא אֶת אֵלּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **sacrificial animals for which one bears responsibility** to replace **them, they are** subject to the *halakhot* of **exploitation,** as this responsibility indicates a certain aspect of ownership. **And** those **for which one does not bear responsibility** to replace **them, they are not** subject to the *halakhot* of **exploitation. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even** in the case of **one who sells a Torah scroll, an animal, or a pearl,** these items **are not** subject to the *halakhot* of **exploitation,** as they have no fixed price. The Rabbis **said to him:** The early Sages **stated** that **only these** items listed above are not subject to the *halakhot* of exploitation.


###### Bava Metzia 56b:2
[Bava Metzia 56b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/56b:2)

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר לַעֲמִיתֶךָ אוֹ קָנֹה מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ״, דָּבָר הַנִּקְנֶה מִיָּד לְיָד. יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת, שֶׁאֵינָן מְטַלְטְלִים. יָצְאוּ עֲבָדִים, שֶׁהוּקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת. יָצְאוּ שְׁטָרוֹת, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר״, שֶׁגּוּפוֹ מָכוּר וְגוּפוֹ קָנוּי. יָצְאוּ שְׁטָרוֹת, שֶׁאֵין גּוּפָן מָכוּר וְאֵין גּוּפָן קָנוּי, וְאֵינָן עוֹמְדִין אֶלָּא לִרְאָיָה שֶׁבָּהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? It is **as the Sages taught:** It is written: **“And if you sell to your colleague an item that is sold, or acquire from your colleague’s hand,** one shall not exploit his brother” (Leviticus 25:14). This is referring to **an item acquired from hand to hand. Land is excluded, as it is not movable. Slaves are excluded, as they are juxtaposed to land** in several sources, and therefore their legal status is like that of land in certain respects. **Documents are excluded, as it is written: “And if you sell** to your colleague **an item that is sold,”** indicating **an item** that is **itself sold and itself acquired. Documents are excluded, as they are not sold themselves and they are not acquired themselves.** They have no intrinsic value, **and they exist only for the proof therein.**


###### Bava Metzia 56b:3
[Bava Metzia 56b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/56b:3)

מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: הַמּוֹכֵר שְׁטָרוֹתָיו לְבַשָּׂם, יֵשׁ לָהֶם אוֹנָאָה. פְּשִׁיטָא! לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַב כָּהֲנָא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין אוֹנָאָה לִפְרוּטוֹת, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: יֵשׁ אוֹנָאָה לִפְרוּטוֹת. הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת? אָמַר קְרָא ״אָחִיו״ – אָחִיו, וְלֹא הֶקְדֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From here** the Sages **said:** In the case of **one who sells his documents** that are no longer in use **to a perfumer** for use in packaging his wares, **they are** subject to the *halakhot* of **exploitation** because he is selling the paper itself. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this **obvious?** In that case, one sold paper, and it is no different from any other movable property. The Gemara answers: This serves **to exclude** the opinion of **Rav Kahana, who says: There is no exploitation for** cases involving ***perutot*,** as paper is sold for mere *perutot*. The Sages therefore **teach us: There is exploitation for** cases involving ***perutot*. Consecrated** property is excluded, as **the verse states:** “One shall not exploit **his brother”** (Leviticus 25:14), indicating that these halakhot apply only to transactions involving **“his brother,” but not** to transactions involving **consecrated** property.


###### Bava Metzia 56b:4
[Bava Metzia 56b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/56b:4)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבָּה בַּר מֶמֶל: כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּכְתִיב ״יָדוֹ״, יָדוֹ מַמָּשׁ הוּא? אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, דִּכְתִיב ״וַיִּקַּח אֶת כׇּל אַרְצוֹ מִיָּדוֹ״, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּכֹל אַרְעָא בִּידֵיהּ הֲוָה נָקֵיט לַהּ? אֶלָּא מֵרְשׁוּתוֹ, הָכָא נָמֵי מֵרְשׁוּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba bar Memel objects to this:** Is that to say that **anywhere that it is written “his hand,”** the reference **is** to **his actual hand,** and not merely to his possession, in its metaphorical sense? **If that is so,** that **which is written: “And taken all his land from his hand”** (Numbers 21:26), would you **also** explain **here** that **he was holding all his land in his hand? Rather,** clearly, “from his hand” means **from his possession. Here too,** “from your colleague’s hand” in the case of exploitation means **from his possession.**


###### Bava Metzia 56b:5
[Bava Metzia 56b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/56b:5)

וְכֹל הֵיכָא דִּכְתִיב ״יָדוֹ״, לָאו יָדוֹ מַמָּשׁ הוּא? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״אִם הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא בְיָדוֹ״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא יָדוֹ. גַּגּוֹ, חֲצֵירוֹ וְקַרְפֵּיפוֹ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִם הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that **anywhere that it is written “his hand”** the reference **is not** to **his actual hand? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **“If** the theft **is found in his hand”** (Exodus 22:3): **I have** derived from here **only his hand; from where** do I derive that the *halakha* is the same if the stolen item is found on **his roof,** in **his courtyard, or** in **his enclosure? The verse states: “If** the theft **is found [*himmatze timmatze*]”;** the use of the double verb teaches that the *halakha* applies **in any case** where the stolen item is in his possession.


###### Bava Metzia 56b:6
[Bava Metzia 56b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/56b:6)

טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״אִם הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא״, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּכְתַב ״יָדוֹ״, יָדוֹ מַמָּשׁ הוּא. וְתוּ, תַּנְיָא: ״וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא יָדָהּ. גַּגָּהּ חֲצֵירָהּ וְקַרְפֵּיפָהּ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְנָתַן״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם. טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְנָתַן״, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּכְתַב ״יָדוֹ״, יָדוֹ מַמָּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: The *halakha* applies if the stolen item is found in his possession, and this includes any place in his possession. **The reason** is that **the Merciful One writes: “If the theft is found [*himmatze timmatze*].”** If **that** were **not so, I would say** that **wherever He writes “his hand,”** the reference **is** to **his actual hand. And furthermore, it is taught** in a *baraita* that it is written with regard to a bill of divorce: **“And place it in her hand”** (Deuteronomy 24:1). **I have** derived **only her hand; from where** do I derive that the *halakha* is the same if he places the bill of divorce on **her roof,** in **her courtyard, or** in **her enclosure? The verse states: And place, in any case** that he places it in her possession. Here too, the Gemara infers: **The reason** that any place in her possession is included is that **the Merciful One writes “and place.”** If **that** were **not so, I would say** that **wherever He writes “his hand,”** the reference **is** to **his actual hand.**


###### Bava Metzia 56b:7
[Bava Metzia 56b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/56b:7)

אֶלָּא, כֹּל ״יָדוֹ״ – יָדוֹ מַמָּשׁ הוּא. וְשָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּלֵיכָּא לְמֵימַר הָכִי, אֶלָּא בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara rejects Rabba bar Memel’s objection and concludes: **Every** mention of the term **“his hand”** in the Torah **is** a reference to **his actual hand. And it is different there,** in the verse: “And taken all his land from his hand” (Numbers 21:26), **where it cannot be said that** the reference is to his actual hand. **Rather,** it means there: **In his possession.**


###### Bava Metzia 56b:8
[Bava Metzia 56b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/56b:8)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: שְׂכִירוּת יֵשׁ לוֹ אוֹנָאָה, אוֹ אֵין לוֹ אוֹנָאָה? ״מִמְכָּר״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, אֲבָל לֹא שְׂכִירוּת, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִי כְּתִיב ״מִמְכָּר לְעוֹלָם״? ״מִמְכָּר״ סְתָמָא כְּתִיב, וְהַאי נָמֵי, בְּיוֹמֵיהּ מְכִירָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma** with regard to **rental:** Is **it** subject **to** the *halakhot* of **exploitation,** or is **it not** subject **to** the *halakhot* of **exploitation?** The Gemara elaborates: Is it **an item that is sold** about which **the Merciful One speaks, but not a rental; or perhaps** there **is no difference? Abaye said to him: Is it written:** And if you sell **an item that is sold forever?** What **is written** is **simply:** “And if you sell **an item that is sold,” and indeed for its day** the rental **is** considered **a sale.** The legal status of a rental is that of a sale for a limited period. Consequently, it is subject to the *halakhot* of exploitation.


###### Bava Metzia 56b:9
[Bava Metzia 56b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/56b:9)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: חִטִּין וּזְרָעָן בַּקַּרְקַע, מַהוּ? יֵשׁ לָהֶם אוֹנָאָה, אוֹ אֵין לָהֶם אוֹנָאָה? כְּמַאן דְּשַׁדְיָין בְּכַדָּא דָּמְיָין, וְיֵשׁ לָהֶם אוֹנָאָה, אוֹ דִלְמָא בַּטְּלִינְהוּ עַל גַּב אַרְעָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises a dilemma:** In a case involving **wheat** kernels, **and one sowed them in the ground, what is** the *halakha*? Are **they** subject **to** the *halakhot* of **exploitation, or** are **they not** subject **to** the *halakhot* of **exploitation?** The Gemara elaborates: Is their legal status **like** that of kernels **cast into a jug, and they** are subject **to** the *halakhot* of **exploitation,** as they remain movable property? **Or, perhaps he subordinated them to the ground,** and like land they are not subject to the *halakhot* of exploitation.


###### Bava Metzia 56b:10
[Bava Metzia 56b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/56b:10)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵימָא דְּאָמַר אִיהוּ: ״שְׁדַאי בַּהּ שִׁיתָּא״, וַאֲתוֹ סָהֲדִי וְאָמְרִי דְּלָא שְׁדָא בָּהּ אֶלָּא חַמְשָׁה, וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁבְּמִדָּה וְשֶׁבְּמִשְׁקָל וְשֶׁבְּמִנְיָן, אֲפִילּוּ פָּחוֹת מִכְּדֵי אוֹנָאָה – חוֹזֵר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances? If we say that** the hired laborer **said: I sowed six** *kav* of grain **in** the field, **and witnesses came and said that he sowed only five** *kav* **in it, but doesn’t Rava** himself **say:** With regard to **any item that** is otherwise subject to the *halakhot* of exploitation, and it is sold **by measure, or by weight, or by number, even** if the disparity was **less than the measure of exploitation** in the transaction, the transaction is **reversed.** A disparity of one-sixth between the value of an item and its price constitutes exploitation only in cases where there is room for error in assessing the value of an item. In a case where the sale item is easily quantifiable, any deviation from the designated quantity results in a nullification of the transaction, even if the wheat kernels are subordinate to the ground.


###### Bava Metzia 56b:11
[Bava Metzia 56b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/56b:11)

אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר אִיהוּ: ״שְׁדַאי בָּהּ כִּדְאִבְּעִי לַהּ״, וְאִיגַּלַּאי מִילְּתָא דְּלָא שְׁדָא בָּהּ כִּדְאִבְּעִי לַהּ, יֵשׁ לָהֶם אוֹנָאָה אוֹ אֵין לָהֶם אוֹנָאָה? כְּמַאן דִּשְׁדֵי בְּכַדָּא דָּמְיָין וְיֵשׁ לָהֶם אוֹנָאָה, אוֹ דִּלְמָא בַּטְּלִינְהוּ אַגַּב אַרְעָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is a case **where** the hired laborer **said: I cast** kernels in the field **as required,** without quantifying the measure of the kernels that he cast, **and it was discovered that he did not cast** kernels in the field **as required.** Are **they** subject **to** the *halakhot* of **exploitation** or are **they not** subject **to** the *halakhot* of **exploitation?** Is the legal status of these kernels **like** that of kernels **cast into a jug, and they** are subject **to** the *halakhot* of **exploitation? Or, perhaps** the laborer **subordinated them to the ground?**


###### Bava Metzia 56b:12
[Bava Metzia 56b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/56b:12)

נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן, אוֹ אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן? כְּמַאן דְּשַׁדְיָין בְּכַדָּא דָּמְיָין וְנִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן, אוֹ דִלְמָא בַּטְּלִינְהוּ אַגַּב אַרְעָא וְאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava raises an additional dilemma: If the laborer admitted to part of the claim, does **he take an oath with regard to** the kernels **or** does **he not take an oath with regard to** the kernels? Is their legal status **like** that of kernels **cast into a jug, and one takes an oath with regard to them? Or, perhaps he subordinated them to the ground, and one does not take an oath with regard to them,** as the *halakha* is that **one does not take an oath about** a claim involving land.


###### Bava Metzia 56b:13
[Bava Metzia 56b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/56b:13)

עוֹמֶר מַתִּירָן אוֹ אֵין עוֹמֶר מַתִּירָן? הֵיכִי דָמֵי: אִי דְּאַשְׁרוּשׁ – תְּנֵינָא, אִי דְּלָא אַשְׁרוּשׁ – תְּנֵינָא! דִּתְנַן: אִם הִשְׁרִישׁוּ קוֹדֶם לָעוֹמֶר – עוֹמֶר מַתִּירָן, וְאִם לָאו – אֲסוּרִין עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא עוֹמֶר הַבָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava raises an additional dilemma: Does the sacrifice of the ***omer* offering permit** one to eat the produce grown from these kernels, **or does** the sacrifice of the ***omer* offering not permit** one to eat the produce? The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances? If** it is a case **where** the kernels **took root, we** already **learned** that *halakha*. **If** it is a case **where** the kernels **did not** yet **take root, we** already **learned** that *halakha* also. **As we learned** in a mishna (*Menaḥot* 70a): **If** crops **took root before** the sacrifice of **the *omer* offering,** the ***omer* offering renders it permitted** to eat **them. And if not,** if they took root only after the sacrifice of the *omer* offering, **it is prohibited to eat them until the** time for the sacrifice of the **next *omer* offering will arrive.**


###### Bava Metzia 56b:14
[Bava Metzia 56b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/56b:14)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּחַצְדִינְהוּ וְזַרְעִינְהוּ קוֹדֶם לָעוֹמֶר, וַאֲתָא לֵיהּ עוֹמֶר וַחֲלֵיף עִילָּוַיְיהוּ, וְלָא אַשְׁרוּשׁ קוֹדֶם לָעוֹמֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**No,** Rava’s dilemma is not superfluous, as it is **necessary** to raise it in a case **where one reaped** grain **and sowed** its kernels **prior to** the time of **the *omer* offering, and** the time of **the *omer* offering arrived and passed** while **they** were in the ground, **and** the kernels **did not take root before** the sacrifice of **the *omer* offering.**