Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 11, scan section 80

cities, there is a money-changer ; and if in villages, it is said, " until the eve of Sabbath " ? Said R. Hisda : " It is not the strict law, but a meritorious act for pious men is taught here." If so, how is to be understood the latter part, " but he may be angry " ? Who should be angry — the pious one ? Let him not accept it, and not be angry, or the one who returned it should be angry, why it was accepted ? It means to say thus : " That even if he who is not pious, and does not accept it, the one who possesses the coin may be angry, but cannot sue him." " Such a sala may be expended for second tithe," etc. Said R. Papa : " Infer from this that he who is too particular with the examination of money is considered a bad man, provided he can circulate it easily. Our Mishna may be a support to Hiskiyah, whp said that if one came to change a coin of a second tithe for small money, he may take change only for its value ; but if he would exchange the second tithe for it, he may take as much of the second tithe as if it would be a good one. How is this to be TRACT BABA METZIA (MIDDLE GATE). 131 understood? He means to say that, although, when changing it for small money, he cannot take more than its value, he may nevertheless take the second tithe for the full value of such a coin. MISHNA V. : The prescribed quantity for cheating is four silver dinars to each sala ; for a claim of which one of the parties must take an oath, no less than the value of two silver dinars. For admitting a debt, which makes him liable for a biblical oath of denying the claim of the plaintiff, a perutha is sufficient. In five cases the value of a perutha is prescribed — one just men- tioned ; second, a case of betrothal, for which the value of a perutha suffices ; third, the one who benefits himself from the goods belonging to the sanctuary, with the value of one perutha, he has committed a transgression ; fourth, who finds an article worth only a perutha, he is obliged to proclaim ; and fifth, he who has robbed his neighbor for the value of one perutha, and has sworn falsely, and after repented, he must return it to him personally, even should the robbed one be at that time in Madai. GEMARA : Was this not stated already in Mishna II ? It is repeated because of the perutha of admission ; but even this is already stated in a Mishna (in Kidushin, etc.) ? It is repeated here also because of the new statement about the five peruthas. " In five cases the value,'' etc. Let it teach, also, that there is one more perutha of cheating {i.e., that when he sold an article for six peruthas, and it was worth only five). Said R. Kahana: " From this is to be inferred that the law of cheating does not apply to peruthas ; it means that to less than a silver coin no claim of cheating can be made." Levi, however, maintains it does apply, and so he taught in his Boraitha. There are five peruthas — cheating, admitting, betrothal, robbing, and the warrant of the judges. Why does not the Tana of our Mishna mention that a warrant can be issued for a perutha ? Is not robbery the same case, and it is mentioned? But notwithstanding that it men- tioned robbery, it does mention a loss worth a perutha (which also must be decided by the court)? This was necessary to state, owing to the peculiarity of both. The robbed article must be returned, even if the owner is in Madai, and one must proclaim a lost article even if it was worth only one perutha, and after finding it is decreased in value. Why, then, does not Levi men- tion a lost article in his Boraitha? Because he mentioned rob- bery. But why does he mention the warrant for a perutha — is it not the same as robbery ? This was necessary to deny R. Ktina's 132 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. statement, who maintains that a warrant can be issued even for less than a perutha. Rabha objected to R. Ktina's statement from the following: "It is written [Lev. v. i6] : And that in which he hath sinned against the holy thing, he shall pay." That means to include, that even when the value was less than a perutha, it must be returned ; hence it is only of the sanctuary, but not of common property ; therefore if it was taught in the name of R. Ktina, it was as follows : If the court found it nec- essary to take up the claim of the value of a perutha, it may issue a warrant even for less than a perutha, as the court does not start a case less than a perutha ; but if it was started, the de- cision may be even for less. MISHNA VI. : There are five fifth parts (which must be added to the principal amount) and they are : (i) who eats heave-offer- ing ; (2) the heave-offering of tithe {t/ie tenth part of which the Levites must separate from the tithe [Num. xviii. 26]) ; (3) the same which was separated when the grain was bought from a suspicious man ; (4) the first dough [Num. xv. 20] ; and (5) the first-fruits [Lev. ii. 14]. The same is also the case if one redeems his plants in the fourth year (after planting), he must add a fifth part, or he exchanges his second tithe. The same is also the case if one redeems from the sanctuary the article he has sanctified, and also who had any benefit of the things belonging to the sanctuary, the value of a perutha, and also if one robbed his neighbor of the value of 2, perutha and swore falsely, all of them must add a fifth part to the principal amount. GEM ARA : Said Rabha : It was a difficulty to R. Elazar, the statement of our Mishna that a fifth must be added to the heave- offering which was separated when bought from a suspicious man, thus : Is it possible that the sages have given weight to their decision equal to the Scriptures ? (The law that heave- offering must be separated when bought from the man in question is only rabbinically — would it not be enough that one should pay the principal amount only, if consumed?) Said R. Na'hman in the name of Samuel : This Mishna is in accordance with R. Meir, who says elsewhere (Erubin, p. 181) that the sages usually do so. MISHNA VII. : To the following things the law of cheating does not apply : Bondmen, documents, real estate and property belonging to the sanctuary ; and also the law of paying the double amount and of four and five fold does not apply to them. A gratuitous bailee does not swear (if lost), and a bailee for hire TRACT BABA METZIA (MIDDLE GAIE). 133 does not pay (as they would do on movable common property). R. Simeon, however, says : If one is responsible for the property belonging to the sanctuary, the law of cheating does apply, but not when he is not responsible. R. Jehudah said that there is no cheating to him who sells holy scrolls, animals, or pearls (the reason why will be explained further on in the Gemara), but he