## Bava Metzia Daf 57b

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

דַּאֲפִילּוּ פָּחוֹת מִכְּדֵי אוֹנָאָה חוֹזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
in **that even** if the difference in price is **less than the measure of exploitation,** the exploited party **may renege** on the transaction. Rabbi Yoḥanan does not accept the opinion of Rav Ḥisda and Reish Lakish does.


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

מֵיתִיבִי: רִבִּית וְאוֹנָאָה לַהֶדְיוֹט, וְאֵין רִבִּית וְאוֹנָאָה לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ! מִי אַלִּימָא מִמַּתְנִיתִין דְּאוֹקֵימְנָא בְּתוֹרַת אוֹנָאָה? הָכִי נָמֵי: רִבִּית וְדִין אוֹנָאָה לַהֶדְיוֹט, וְאֵין רִבִּית וְדִין אוֹנָאָה לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to Rav Ḥisda’s opinion from a *baraita*: Dealings **with a layman are** subject to the *halakhot* of **interest and exploitation, but** dealings with **consecrated** property **are not** subject to the *halakhot* of **interest and exploitation.** The Gemara answers: **Is** the objection from the *baraita* **stronger than** that from **the mishna, which** was defused when **we established** it to be referring **to the principle of exploitation,** i.e., that the principle that up to one-sixth is not considered exploitation does not apply to consecrated property? **So too** the *baraita* should be understood: The *halakhot* of **interest and** the **principle of exploitation apply to** dealings with **a layman, but** the *halakhot* of **interest and** the **principle of exploitation do not apply to** dealings involving **consecrated** property.


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

אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: זֶה חוֹמֶר בַּהֶדְיוֹט מִבַּהֶקְדֵּשׁ? אַרִבִּית! לִיתְנֵי נָמֵי: זֶה חוֹמֶר בַּהֶקְדֵּשׁ מִבַּהֶדְיוֹט, אַאוֹנָאָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **If so,** is that consistent with **that which is taught** in **the latter clause** of that *baraita*: **This is the stringency with regard to the layman, in contrast to** the *halakha* **with regard to consecrated** property? According to this explanation, the *halakha* with regard to consecrated property is more stringent than the *halakha* with regard to a layman. The Gemara answers: This stringency is only in the case **of interest,** as it is permitted to collect interest from consecrated property. The Gemara asks: If so, **let** the *tanna* **also teach: This is the stringency with regard to consecrated** property, **in contrast to** the *halakha* **with regard to the layman** in the case of exploitation.


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

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? בִּשְׁלָמָא, זֶה חוֹמֶר בַּהֶדְיוֹט מִבַּהֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְתוּ לָא. אֶלָּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ, זֶה חוֹמֶר וְתוּ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this question: **How can** these cases **be compared? Granted,** the mishna states: **This is the stringency with regard to the layman, in contrast to** the *halakha* **with regard to consecrated** property, **and nothing further,** i.e., there are no other cases where the *halakha* is more stringent for the layman than it is for consecrated property. **But** with regard to **consecrated property,** can one say: **This is** the **stringency, and nothing further,** there are no other stringencies? There are many *halakhot* in which consecrated property is treated more stringently than non-sacred property.


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

רִבִּית דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּאוֹזְפֵיהּ גִּזְבָּר מֵאָה בְּמֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים – וַהֲלֹא מָעַל הַגִּזְבָּר, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁמָּעַל הַגִּזְבָּר, יָצְאוּ מְעוֹתָיו לְחוּלִּין, וְהָווּ לְהוּ דְּהֶדְיוֹט!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances of interest** in cases **of consecrated** property? **If we say that** the Temple **treasurer lent one hundred** consecrated dinars **in** exchange for repayment of **one hundred and twenty** dinars, **didn’t the treasurer** thereby **misuse** consecrated property? **And once the treasurer misused** the money by giving it to a layman, **his money** immediately **leaves** its consecrated state and assumes **non-sacred** status. **And it is** then money **of a layman,** and the *halakhot* of interest apply to it.


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

אָמַר רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו לְסַפֵּק סְלָתוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע, וְעָמְדוּ מִשָּׁלֹשׁ. כִּדְתַנְיָא: הַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לְסַפֵּק סְלָתוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע וְעָמְדוּ מִשָּׁלֹשׁ – מְסַפֵּק מֵאַרְבַּע; מִשָּׁלֹשׁ וְעָמְדוּ מֵאַרְבַּע – מְסַפֵּק מֵאַרְבַּע, שֶׁיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Hoshaya said: With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where one accepts upon himself to supply fine flour** to the Temple **at** the price of **four** *se’a* for a *sela*, **and** the market price rose and **stood at three** *se’a* for a *sela*, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **one who accepts upon himself to supply fine flour at four** *se’a* for a *sela*, **and** their market price **stood at three** *se’a* for a *sela*, he is required to fulfill his commitment and **supply** fine flour **at four** *se’a* for a *sela*. If one committed to supply fine flour **at three** *se’a* for a *sela*, **and** their market price decreased until it **stood at four** *se’a* for a *sela*, he must **supply** fine flour **at four** *se’a* for a *sela*. This is a form of interest, **as** the result is that **the** Temple **treasury is at an advantage.** Although an arrangement of that kind is prohibited in transactions involving laymen, in dealings of the Temple treasury it is permitted.


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

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: הָכָא בְּאַבְנֵי בִנְיָן הַמְּסוּרוֹת לְגִזְבָּר עָסְקִינַן, כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בּוֹנִין בַּחוֹל, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַקְדִּישִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said** that there is a less complicated case of interest involving consecrated property: **Here we are dealing with building stones that are entrusted to the** Temple **treasurer, in accordance with** the opinion **of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: One builds** the structures in the Temple **with non-sacred** materials to avoid misuse of consecrated property during construction, **and one consecrates** those materials **thereafter.** The treasurer has provisional possession of property that will ultimately belong to the Temple treasury. The stones are non-sacred and can be loaned to others, but nevertheless they are not subject to the *halakhot* of interest.


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

אֵין בָּהֶן תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְכוּ׳. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עַל כׇּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע״ – כְּלָל, ״עַל שׁוֹר עַל חֲמוֹר עַל שֶׂה עַל שַׂלְמָה״ – פְּרָט, ״עַל כׇּל אֲבֵדָה אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: Slaves, documents, land, and consecrated property **are not** subject to the *halakhot* of **payment of double** the principal. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? It is **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse that discusses double payment: “For any matter of trespass, whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garment, or for any manner of lost thing about which one shall say: This is it, the claims of both of them shall come before the judges, the one whom the judges convict shall pay double to the other” (Exodus 22:8). **“For any matter of trespass”** is **a generalization; “whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garment”** is **a detail.** And when the verse states: **“Or for any manner of lost thing,” it then generalizes** again.


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

כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט; מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Consequently, this verse contains **a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization,** and one of the thirteen rules of exegesis states that in such a case **you may deduce** that the verse is referring **only** to items **similar to the detail.** Therefore, **just as** each of the items mentioned in **the detail** is clearly **defined as an item that is movable property and** has **intrinsic monetary** value, **so too** double payment is practiced with regard to **any item that is movable property and** has **intrinsic monetary** value.


###### Bava Metzia 57b:10
[Bava Metzia 57b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/57b:10)

יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת, שֶׁאֵינָן מִטַּלְטְלִין. יָצְאוּ עֲבָדִים, שֶׁהוּקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת. יָצְאוּ שְׁטָרוֹת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּטַּלְטְלִין, אֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן. הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת – אָמַר קְרָא: ״רֵעֵהוּ״ – רֵעֵהוּ וְלֹא הֶקְדֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Land is excluded, as it is not movable property.** Canaanite **slaves are excluded, as they are compared to land** in many areas of *halakha*. Financial **documents are excluded, as, although they are movable property, they do not** have **intrinsic monetary** value. The value of the material on which the document is written is negligible; documents are valuable only because they serve as proof for monetary claims. Finally, **consecrated** property **is excluded** because **it is written** in the verse that the one found liable shall pay double to **the other,** i.e., to another person, **but not** to the **Temple** treasury.


###### Bava Metzia 57b:11
[Bava Metzia 57b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/57b:11)

וְלֹא תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה וְכוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא? תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא תַּשְׁלוּמֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה וְאַרְבָּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **Nor payment of four and five** times the principal, as these payments to do not apply to consecrated animals. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this exclusion? The Gemara explains: **The Merciful One states a payment of four or five** times the principal, **but not payment of three and four** times the principal. It has already been established that there is no double payment in the cases in the mishna. The fourfold or fivefold payment in the case of the slaughter or sale of a stolen sheep or cow comprises the principal, the double payment, and then an additional two or three times the principle, respectively. Consequently, once the double payment is subtracted, the total paid would be three or four times the principal, and the verse makes no allowance for such a payment.


###### Bava Metzia 57b:12
[Bava Metzia 57b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/57b:12)

שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְכוּ׳. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ״ – כְּלָל, ״כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵּלִים״ – פְּרָט, ״וְגֻנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **An unpaid bailee does not take an oath** if these items were stolen or lost. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? It is **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse that discusses an unpaid bailee: “When a man delivers to his neighbor money or vessels to safeguard, and it is stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief is found, he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, then the master of the house shall approach the judge” (Exodus 22:6–7). **“When a man delivers to his neighbor”** is **a generalization; “money or vessels”** is **a detail.** And when the verse states: **“And it is stolen out of the man’s house,” it then generalizes** again.


###### Bava Metzia 57b:13
[Bava Metzia 57b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/57b:13)

כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Consequently, this verse contains **a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization,** and one of the thirteen rules of exegesis states that in such a case **you may deduce** that the verse is referring **only** to items **similar to the detail.** Therefore, **just as** each of the items mentioned in **the detail** is clearly **defined as an item that is movable property and** has **intrinsic monetary** value, **so too** double payment is practiced with regard to **any item that is movable property and** has **intrinsic monetary** value.


###### Bava Metzia 57b:14
[Bava Metzia 57b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/57b:14)

יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת, שֶׁאֵינָן מִטַּלְטְלִין. יָצְאוּ עֲבָדִים, שֶׁהוּקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת. יָצְאוּ שְׁטָרוֹת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּטַּלְטְלִין, אֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן. הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת – אָמַר קְרָא: ״רֵעֵהוּ״ – רֵעֵהוּ, וְלֹא שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Land is excluded, as it is not movable property.** Canaanite **slaves are excluded, as they are compared to land** in many areas of *halakha*. Financial **documents are excluded, as, although they are movable property, they do not** have **intrinsic monetary** value. The value of the material on which the document is written is negligible; documents are valuable only because they serve as proof for monetary claims. Finally, **consecrated** property **is excluded** because **it is written** in the verse that the one found liable shall pay double to **the other,** i.e., to another person, **but not** to the **Temple** treasury.


###### Bava Metzia 57b:15
[Bava Metzia 57b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/57b:15)

נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם וְכוּ׳. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ״ – כְּלָל, ״חֲמוֹר אוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה״ – פָּרַט, ״וְכׇל בְּהֵמָה לִשְׁמוֹר״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **A paid bailee does not pay** if these items were stolen or lost. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? The Gemara answers: It is **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse that discusses a paid bailee: “When a man delivers to his neighbor a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast to safeguard, and it dies, or is hurt, or is driven away, no man seeing it, the oath of the Lord shall be between them both…but if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner” (Exodus 22:9–11). **“When a man delivers to his neighbor”** is **a generalization; “a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep”** is **a detail.** And when the verse states: **“Or any beast to safeguard,” it then generalizes** again.


###### Bava Metzia 57b:16
[Bava Metzia 57b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/57b:16)

כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Consequently, this verse contains **a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization,** and one of the thirteen rules of exegesis states that in such a case **you may deduce** that the verse is referring **only** to items **similar to the detail.** Therefore, **just as** each of the items mentioned in **the detail** is clearly **defined as an item that is movable property and** has **intrinsic monetary** value, **so too** double payment is practiced with regard to **any item that is movable property and** has **intrinsic monetary** value.


###### Bava Metzia 57b:17
[Bava Metzia 57b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/57b:17)

יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת, שֶׁאֵינָן מִטַּלְטְלִין. יָצְאוּ עֲבָדִים, שֶׁהוּקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת. יָצְאוּ שְׁטָרוֹת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּטַּלְטְלִין, אֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן. הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת – אָמַר קְרָא: ״רֵעֵהוּ״ – רֵעֵהוּ, וְלֹא שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Land is excluded, as it is not movable property.** Canaanite **slaves are excluded, as they are compared to land** in many areas of *halakha*. Financial **documents are excluded, as, although they are movable property, they do not** have **intrinsic monetary** value. The value of the material on which the document is written is negligible; documents are valuable only because they serve as proof for monetary claims. Finally, **consecrated** property **is excluded** because **it is written** in the verse that the one found liable shall pay double to **the other,** i.e., to another person, **but not** to the **Temple** treasury.


###### Bava Metzia 57b:18
[Bava Metzia 57b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/57b:18)

שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְכוּ׳. וּרְמִינְהוּ, בְּנֵי הָעִיר שֶׁשָּׁלְחוּ אֶת שִׁקְלֵיהֶן וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדוּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ After determining the source of the *halakhot* in the mishna, the Gemara analyzes those *halakhot*. The mishna teaches: **An unpaid bailee does not take an oath** if these items were stolen or lost. **And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from a mishna. Half-shekels were donated by the people during the month of Adar and placed in a special chamber in the Temple, from where, as needed, some of the shekels were taken for use in purchasing public offerings in the coming months. This was done in order to give all of the Jewish people a share in those public offerings. Additionally, from the moment that the money is taken from there, both those shekels that arrived at the Temple and those that did not yet arrive become Temple property. The mishna teaches (*Shekalim* 5a): With regard to **residents of the city who sent their shekels** to the Temple, **and** the coins **were stolen** from the agent **or were lost** en route, the *halakha* depends on the circumstances.


###### Bava Metzia 57b:19
[Bava Metzia 57b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/57b:19)

אִם מִשֶּׁנִּתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** this occurred after the **contributions** of the chamber **had** already **been collected** from the chamber,