## Bava Metzia Daf 99b

###### Bava Metzia 99b:1
[Bava Metzia 99b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/99b:1)

שֶׁקַּרְקַע נִקְנֵית בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה – כָּךְ שְׂכִירוּת נִקְנֵית בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. שְׂכִירוּת מַאי עֲבִידְתַּיהּ? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: שְׂכִירוּת קַרְקַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**land is acquired** either **through** the buyer giving **money** to the seller, or **by** the seller giving the buyer **a bill** of sale, **or by** the buyer performing an act of **taking possession, so** too, **a rental is acquired** either **through** the renter giving **money** to the owner, or **by** the owner giving the renter a rental **document, or by** the renter performing an act of **taking possession.** Based on the assumption that the *baraita* is referring to rental of movable property, the Gemara asks: With regard to the case of **renting** in the *baraita*, **what is its purpose,** i.e., why is it mentioned in connection with acts of acquisition that are effective with regard to land? **Rav Ḥisda said:** The *baraita* is referring to the **rental of land.**


###### Bava Metzia 99b:2
[Bava Metzia 99b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/99b:2)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי מַאן דְּגָזֵיל חֲבִיצָא דְתַמְרֵי מֵחַבְרֵיהּ וְאִית בַּהּ חַמְשִׁין תַּמְרֵי, אַגַּב הֲדָדֵי מִזְדַּבְּנָן בְּחַמְשִׁין נְכֵי חֲדָא, חֲדָא חֲדָא מִזְדַּבְּנָן בְּחַמְשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Apropos the mention in the previous discussion of one who misuses consecrated property, the Gemara cites a related matter. **Shmuel says:** In the case of **one who robs another of a cake [*ḥavitza*] of** pressed **dates, and in** the cake **there are fifty dates,** which, when sold **together, sell for fifty-less-one** *perutot* and when they are sold **one by one, they sell for fifty** *perutot*, the sum that the robber is liable to pay as compensation to the robbery victim depends on who the robbery victim is.


###### Bava Metzia 99b:3
[Bava Metzia 99b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/99b:3)

לְהֶדְיוֹט – מְשַׁלֵּם חַמְשִׁין נְכֵי חֲדָא, לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ – מְשַׁלֵּם חַמְשִׁין וְחוּמְשַׁיְיהוּ, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּמַזִּיק – דְּלָא מְשַׁלֵּם חוּמְשָׁא. דְּאָמַר מָר: ״וְאִישׁ כִּי יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ״ – פְּרָט לְמַזִּיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one robbed, and is paying compensation **to, a common person [*hedyot*], he pays fifty-less-one** *perutot*. If one robbed another of a cake that was consecrated to the Temple treasury and he is paying compensation **to** the **Temple** treasury, **he pays fifty** *perutot* **and** an additional **one-fifth** of the value as a fine for having misused consecrated property **for each** one of the cakes. **This is not so with regard to one liable for** causing **damage** to consecrated property, **who does not pay the** additional **one-fifth** payment, **as the Master says:** The verse states: **“And a man, if he eats sacrificial** food in error, he should add its fifth on it” (Leviticus 22:14). By specifying that one who eats consecrated property is liable to pay the one-fifth payment, the verse **excludes one who is liable for** causing **damage** from that requirement.


###### Bava Metzia 99b:4
[Bava Metzia 99b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/99b:4)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: לְהֶדְיוֹט אַמַּאי מְשַׁלֵּם חַמְשִׁין נְכֵי חֲדָא? נֵימָא לֵיהּ: אֲנָא חֲדָא חֲדָא הֲוָה מְזַבְּנִינָא לְהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Beivai bar Abaye objects to this: Why,** when he pays compensation **to a common person, does he pay fifty-less-one? Let** the victim **say to** the robber: **I would have sold them one by one** and received fifty *perutot* for them; you should therefore compensate me for that entire amount.


###### Bava Metzia 99b:5
[Bava Metzia 99b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/99b:5)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: ״שָׁמִין בֵּית סְאָה בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׂדֶה״ תְּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: We learned** in a mishna (*Bava Kamma* 55b): If an animal causes damage to another’s field, the court **appraises** a large piece of land with **an area required for** sowing **one *se’a* of seed [*beit se’a*] in that field,** including the garden bed in which the damage took place. The court appraises how much it was worth before the animal damaged it and how much is it worth now, and the owner must pay the difference. The court appraises not only the garden bed that was eaten or trampled, but rather the depreciation in value of the bed as part of the surrounding area. This results in a smaller payment, as the damage appears less significant in the context of a larger area. In this case as well, the value of the entire cake is evaluated, not what it would be worth were one to divide it into smaller units.


###### Bava Metzia 99b:6
[Bava Metzia 99b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/99b:6)

לְמֵימְרָא דְּסָבַר שְׁמוּאֵל דִּין הֶדְיוֹט לָאו כְּדִין גָּבוֹהַּ דָּמֵי? וְהָתְנַן: נָטַל אֶבֶן אוֹ קוֹרָה מֵהֶקְדֵּשׁ – לֹא מָעַל, נְתָנָהּ לַחֲבֵירוֹ – הוּא מָעַל, וַחֲבֵירוֹ לֹא מָעַל. בְּנָאָהּ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ – לֹא מָעַל עַד שֶׁיָּדוּר תַּחְתֶּיהָ בְּשָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Is this **to say that Shmuel holds** that the ***halakha* of** compensation paid to **a common person is not like** the ***halakha* of** compensation paid to **the Most High,** i.e., to the Temple treasury? **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Me’ila* 19b): One who physically **took a stone or** a cross **beam from** among items **consecrated** to the Temple treasury is **not** considered to have **misused** consecrated property. If **he gave it to another,** he is considered to have **misused** consecrated property, **but** that **other** person is **not** considered to have **misused** consecrated property. If, after taking a stone or cross beam that was consecrated property one **built it into** the structure of **his house,** he is **not** considered to have **misused** consecrated property **until he resides underneath it,** thereby deriving benefit **of** the **value of one *peruta*.**


###### Bava Metzia 99b:7
[Bava Metzia 99b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/99b:7)

וִיתֵיב רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת, הַדָּר בַּחֲצַר חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַעֲלוֹת לוֹ שָׂכָר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הֲדַר בֵּיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל מֵהַהִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Abbahu was sitting before Rabbi Yoḥanan, and he was sitting and saying in the name of Shmuel,** in reference to that mishna: **That is to say: One who resides in another’s courtyard without his knowledge must pay him rent.** Just as one is considered to derive benefit from a cross beam by residing underneath it and must pay for that benefit, so too, one is considered to derive benefit from the courtyard by residing in it, and he must pay for that benefit. It is apparent from this statement of Shmuel that the *halakhot* of compensating a common person are similar to and can be derived from those of the Temple treasury. This contradicts Shmuel’s previous statement in the Gemara. **Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him** in resolution of this difficulty: **Shmuel retracted that** statement of his.


###### Bava Metzia 99b:8
[Bava Metzia 99b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/99b:8)

וּמִמַּאי דְּמֵהַהִיא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ, דִּלְמָא מֵהָא הֲדַר? לָא, מֵהַהִיא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ כִּדְרָבָא. דְּאָמַר רָבָא: הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת – כְּהֶדְיוֹט מִדַּעַת דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But from where** is it apparent **that he retracted that** statement concerning residing in another’s courtyard; **perhaps he retracted this** ruling, concerning one who stole a cake of pressed dates? The Gemara answers: **No,** it must be **that** statement, concerning residing in another’s courtyard, that **he retracted, in accordance with** the statement **of Rava. As Rava says:** Using **consecrated** property **without** the Temple treasurer’s **knowledge is like** using property belonging to **a common person with** his **knowledge.** Since, ultimately, the true owner of consecrated property is God, benefit from it is always considered to be have been derived with the owner’s knowledge. Consequently, one cannot derive an inference from the *halakha* of deriving benefit from consecrated property to a case of deriving benefit from a common person’s property without his knowledge. Accordingly, it is more reasonable that Shmuel retracted his ruling about residing in another’s courtyard.


###### Bava Metzia 99b:9
[Bava Metzia 99b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/99b:9)

אָמַר רָבָא: הָנֵי שָׁקוֹלָאֵי דִּתְבַרוּ חָבִיתָא דְּחַמְרָא לְחַנְווֹאָה, בְּיוֹמָא דְשׁוּקָא מִיזְדַּבְּנָא בְּחָמֵשׁ, בִּשְׁאָר יוֹמֵי מִיזְדַּבְּנָא בְּאַרְבַּע. אַהְדַּרוּ לֵיהּ בְּיוֹמָא דְשׁוּקָא – מַהְדְּרוּ לֵיהּ חָבִיתָא דְחַמְרָא, בִּשְׁאָר יוֹמֵי – מַהְדְּרוּ לֵיהּ חָמֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites another ruling concerning differing rates of compensation: **Rava says:** With regard to **these porters who broke a shopkeeper’s barrel of wine,** which **on market day sells for five** dinars **and on other days sells for four** dinars, if they **restore** its value **to him on market day,** then it is sufficient if **they compensate him** with **a barrel of wine,** which he could then sell for five dinars. If they wish to repay him **on other days,** i.e., on a non-market day, **they** must **compensate him** with **five** dinars. They cannot discharge their debt by giving him a barrel of wine, as on those days it is worth only four dinars.


###### Bava Metzia 99b:10
[Bava Metzia 99b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/99b:10)

וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ חַמְרָא לְזַבּוֹנֵי, אֲבָל הֲוָה לֵיהּ חַמְרָא לְזַבּוֹנֵי – הָא אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְזַבּוֹנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara qualifies Rava’s ruling: **And we said** that the porters must pay five dinars on a non-market day **only** in a case in **which** the shopkeeper **did not have** other barrels of **wine to sell** on that market day and consequently lost out on a potential sale worth five dinars. **But** if **he had** another barrel of **wine to sell,** then **he should have sold it.** The fact he did not sell the wine he had demonstrates that the porters did not cause him to lose out on a sale worth five dinars.


###### Bava Metzia 99b:11
[Bava Metzia 99b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/99b:11)

וּמְנַכֵּי לֵיהּ אֲגַר טִירְחֵיהּ וּדְמֵי בַּרְזַנְיָיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further qualifies Rava’s ruling: **And** when the porters pay the five dinars, **they deduct from it the** usual **value of** the shopkeeper’s **effort** in selling a barrel **and the** usual **cost of tapping** a barrel, as the shopkeeper was spared these costs.