## Bava Metzia Daf 57a

###### Bava Metzia 57a:1
[Bava Metzia 57a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/57a:1)

מַהוּ לְמִינְקַט וּמֵיכַל מִינַּיְיהוּ: כְּמַאן דְּשַׁדְיָין בְּכַדָּא דָּמֵי, וּשְׁרִינְהוּ עוֹמֶר, אוֹ דִלְמָא בַּטְּלִינְהוּ אַגַּב אַרְעָא? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is Rava’s dilemma: **What is** the *halakha*? Is it permitted for one **to take** some of the kernels **and eat from them?** Is their legal status **like** that of kernels **cast into a jug, and** the sacrifice of the ***omer* offering rendered their** consumption **permitted? Or perhaps he subordinated them to the ground,** and their legal status is that of seeds that did not take root, and they are therefore forbidden. The Gemara concludes: The dilemmas **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Bava Metzia 57a:2
[Bava Metzia 57a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/57a:2)

אָמַר רָבָא: אָמַר רַב חַסָּא, בָּעֵי רַבִּי אַמֵּי: אוֹנָאָה אֵין לָהֶם, בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח יֵשׁ לָהֶם אוֹ אֵין לָהֶן? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲדַר אָמַר רַב חַסָּא, פָּשֵׁיט רַבִּי אַמֵּי: אוֹנָאָה אֵין לָהֶם, בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח יֵשׁ לָהֶם. רַבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר אַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת, רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר אַקַּרְקָעוֹת, וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרוּ: אוֹנָאָה אֵין לָהֶם, בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח יֵשׁ לָהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava said** that **Rav Ḥasa said** that **Rabbi Ami raises a dilemma** with regard to those matters that are not subject to the *halakhot* of exploitation: Is the *halakha* that **they are not** subject to **exploitation** where the disparity in the price is one-sixth, but **they are** subject to **nullification of the transaction** when it is greater than that? **Or,** perhaps **they are not** subject to nullification of the transaction either. **Rav Naḥman said: Rav Ḥasa then said** that **Rabbi Ami resolved** this dilemma and said: **They are not** subject to **exploitation; they are** subject to **nullification of the transaction. Rabbi Yona said:** This ruling applies **to consecrated** property. **Rabbi Yirmeya said:** It applies **to land. And both of them said** it **in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: They are not** subject to **exploitation; they are** subject to **nullification of the transaction.**


###### Bava Metzia 57a:3
[Bava Metzia 57a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/57a:3)

מַאן דְּאָמַר אַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַקַּרְקָעוֹת. מַאן דְּאָמַר אַקַּרְקָעוֹת, אֲבָל אַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת לָא. כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֶקְדֵּשׁ שָׁוֶה מָנֶה שֶׁחִילְּלוֹ עַל שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – מְחוּלָּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: The **one who states** that this ruling applies **to consecrated** property, **all the more so** does it apply **to land. The one who states** that this ruling applies **to land** states it only with regard to land, **but** it does not apply **to consecrated** property, **in accordance with** the opinion **of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: Consecrated** property **worth one hundred dinars that one desacralized upon** a coin **worth one *peruta*, is desacralized.** Since consecrated property is not subject to the *halakhot* of exploitation at all, it is desacralized upon coins worth any sum.


###### Bava Metzia 57a:4
[Bava Metzia 57a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/57a:4)

תְּנַן הָתָם: אִם הָיָה קוֹדֶשׁ בַּעַל מוּם, יָצָא לְחוּלִּין, וְצָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דָּמִים. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יָצָא לְחוּלִּין – דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, וְצָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דָּמִים – מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אַף צָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דָּמִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in a mishna **there** (*Temura* 26b): **If** the **consecrated** animal **was blemished** and another was substituted for it, the blemished animal **leaves** its consecrated state and assumes **non-sacred** status, **and one is required to calculate** the difference in **monetary** value between the two animals and pay it to the Temple treasury. **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** It **leaves** its consecrated state and assumes **non-sacred** status **by Torah law, and one is required to calculate** the difference in **monetary** value and pay it to the Temple treasury **by rabbinic law. And Reish Lakish says: Even** the *halakha* that **one is required to calculate** the difference in **monetary** value and pay it to the Temple treasury is **by Torah law.**


###### Bava Metzia 57a:5
[Bava Metzia 57a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/57a:5)

בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בִּכְדֵי אוֹנָאָה, בְּהָא לֵימָא רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: צָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דָּמִים דְּבַר תּוֹרָה? וְהָתְנַן: אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אוֹנָאָה: הַקַּרְקָעוֹת, וְהָעֲבָדִים, וְהַשְּׁטָרוֹת, וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With what are we dealing? If we say** that the difference between the value of the substitute animal and the value of the consecrated animal was **the measure of exploitation, does Reish Lakish say in that** case: **He is required to calculate** the difference in **monetary** value and pay it to the Temple treasury **by Torah law? But didn’t we learn** in the mishna: **These are matters that are not** subject to the *halakhot* of **exploitation: Land, slaves, documents, and consecrated** property?


###### Bava Metzia 57a:6
[Bava Metzia 57a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/57a:6)

אֶלָּא בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח, בְּהָא לֵימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן צָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דָּמִים מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָה אַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת, וְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר אַקַּרְקָעוֹת, וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרִי: אוֹנָאָה אֵין לָהֶם, בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח יֵשׁ לָהֶם! לְעוֹלָם בְּבִיטּוּל מִקָּח, וְאֵיפוֹךְ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, וּדְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ – לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the difference was the measure of **nullification of the transaction. In that case, would Rabbi Yoḥanan say: He is required to calculate** the difference **in monetary** value and pay it to the Temple treasury **by rabbinic law? But didn’t Rabbi Yona say** that this ruling applies **to consecrated** property, **and** didn’t **Rabbi Yirmeya say** it applies **to land, and both of them say in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: They are not** subject to **exploitation; they are** subject to **nullification of the transaction?** The Gemara answers: **Actually,** the difference was the measure of **nullification of the transaction. And reverse** attribution of the opinions, so that the opinion **of Rabbi Yoḥanan** will be attributed **to Reish Lakish, and** the opinion **of Reish Lakish** will be attributed **to Rabbi Yoḥanan.**


###### Bava Metzia 57a:7
[Bava Metzia 57a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/57a:7)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? בְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֶקְדֵּשׁ שָׁוֶה מָנֶה שֶׁחִילְּלוֹ עַל שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – מְחוּלָּל. מָר אִית לֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, וּמָר לֵית לֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to what do** Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan **disagree?** They disagree **with regard to** the *halakha* **of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: Consecrated** property **worth one hundred dinars that one desacralized** upon a coin **worth one *peruta* is desacralized.** One **Sage,** Reish Lakish, **accepts** the opinion **of Shmuel,** and therefore the consecrated article is desacralized by Torah law and the requirement to calculate and pay the difference is by rabbinic law. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yoḥanan, **does not accept** the opinion **of Shmuel,** and he therefore holds that the requirement to calculate and pay the difference is by Torah law.


###### Bava Metzia 57a:8
[Bava Metzia 57a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/57a:8)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר שֶׁחִילְּלוֹ – אִין, לְכַתְּחִילָּה – לָא. וּמָר סָבַר: אֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If you wish, say** instead **that everyone accepts** the opinion **of Shmuel, and here they disagree about this:** One **Sage,** Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that **yes,** consecrated property worth one hundred dinars **that one desacralized** upon a coin worth one *peruta* is desacralized after the fact, but ***ab initio*, no,** one may not do so. Therefore, one must nevertheless pay the difference to the Temple treasury by Torah law. **And** one **Sage,** Reish Lakish, holds that the opinion of Shmuel applies **even *ab initio*.** Therefore, the requirement to pay the difference to the Temple treasury is by rabbinic law.


###### Bava Metzia 57a:9
[Bava Metzia 57a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/57a:9)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם בִּכְדֵי אוֹנָאָה, וְלָא תֵּיפוֹךְ, וּבִדְרַב חִסְדָּא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּאָמַר: מַאי אֵין לָהֶם אוֹנָאָה? אֵינָן בְּתוֹרַת אוֹנָאָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If you wish, say** instead: **Actually,** the difference between the actual value of the animal and the amount used to desacralize it was within **the measure of exploitation, and do not reverse** attribution of the opinions of Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan. **And they disagree with regard to** the opinion **of Rav Ḥisda, who said: What** is the meaning of: **They are not** subject to the *halakhot* of **exploitation?** It means that **they are not** subject to **the principle of exploitation** at all. Rather, a more stringent standard applies,