meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Talmud/Bavli/Seder Nezikin/Bava Metzia/English/Sefaria Community Translation.txt"}
text: Bava Metzia
  בבא מציעא
  Sefaria Community Translation
  
  
  Bava Metzia
  
  
  
  Daf 1a
  
  
  
  Daf 1b
  
  
  
  Daf 2a
  
  Two men are holding onto a garment.  One says,  "I found it!" and the other says,  "I found it!"  One says, ... "It's all mine!" and the other says, "It's all mine!"  One swears that he doesn't own less than half and the other swears he doesn't own less than half and they split it. 
  One says,  "All of it is mine!" and the other says  "Half of it is mine!"  The one who says all of it is his swears he doesn't own less than three quarters and the one who says half swears he doesn't own less than a quarter and this one gets three quarters and that one gets one quarter. 
  Two men are riding on the back of an animal, or one man is riding and the other is leading. One says,  "It's all mine!" and the other says, "It's all mine!" One swears that he doesn't own less than half and the other swears he doesn't own less then half and they split it.
  In a time in which they agree or where there are witnesses present, they split without an oath
  Why does the mishna teach, "One says, "I found it!" and the other says, "I found it!" One says, "It's all mine!" and the other says, "It's all mine!""  Teach them separately!  Teach,  "One says, "I found it and it's all mine!" and the other says "I found it and it's all mine!" 
  And furthermore, teach just  "I found it!" and we can infer that "it's all mine!"  If it only taught "I found it!", I would have thought that finding was seeing!
  
  Daf 2b
  
  Had the Mishna [only taught the case of a] found object I would've thought [by the case of] a found object is when the Rabbis instituted an oath upon him because he'll rationalize and say my friend didn't lose anything.(he will only not gain) I will go and grab, and I will split it [the talis] with him But, [by] acquisitions that one can't say this, we would say no [since he is a full-fledged thief he would swear falsely. Therefore, we can't make him take an oath]
  And if it taught acquisitions [I would think]that's when they gave him an oath upon him because he'll rationalize and say: my friend gave money; as did I now, that I need it [the object]. I will take it, and my friend will go and bother to buy another. ... But, [by the case of] a found object that one can't say this, we would say no [since he is a full-fledged thief he would swear falsely. Therefore, we can't make him take an oath]. [Therefore both case are]needed.
  Acquisitions: And let us see from who he took? (That is, let us ask the seller who he accepted money from) (Rashi explains that a merchant is believed to say who he accepted money from, provided  he only accepted money from one of them. Tosphos argues and says the gemara is asking that the merchant should be considered a sole witness, who should be believed to exempt the one whose claim he corroborates from swearing an oath.) No, it's necessary. He accepted from both of them. One willingly and one forced. And we don't know which one is which. (Our text follows Rashi. According to Tos., the correct version is, "he doesn't know." The circumstances ,i.e., he accepted money from both of them is just an explanation why he doesn't remember. According to Rashi, it's irrelevant if he knows. He is only believed when he only accepted money from one of them. 
  
  Daf 3a
  
  And one could say the entirety is one master's and one could say that the entirety is [the other] master's. Sumchus says Money that hangs in doubt should be split without an oath. Here where there is no loss of money, since one could say that it belongs to both of them, is it not even more so?...
  You could even say that it [the mishnah] follows Sumchus's opinion: This oath is a rabbinical enactment. Like the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan: For Rebbi Yochanan said This oath is a rabbinical enactment so that an individual could not go and grab the garment of his friend and say "it is mine!"
  We should derive that the Mishnah [here] does not follow Rabbi Yossi, for if it were like Rabbi Yossi -- Rabbi Yossi said: If so, what did the liar lose? Rather it all should be set aside until Elijah comes.
  This is the Rabbis!? Since the Rabbis said: The remainder will be set aside until Elijah comes. This [case] is similar to the remainder, for it is unclear!
  What kind of comparison is this!? If you said, it is easy for the Rabbis, there [the depositor] this maneh certainly belongs to one of them, and the Rabbis said: It should be set aside until Elijah comes. Here [the garment], where it could be said that it belongs to both of them, the Rabbis said to split it with an oath.
  But if you said, the Mishnah is according to Rabbi Yossi, there [the depositors] certainly a maneh belongs to one and another maneh belongs to the other, Rabbi Yossi it will be set aside until Elijah comes, here, where we could say that belongs to [only] one of them, all the more so!
  Even if you say it is Rabbi Yossi, there [the depositors] there is certainly a liar, here, who can tell us that there is a liar? Say, they simultaneously picked it up.
  
  Daf 3b
  
  
  
  Daf 4a
  
  
  
  Daf 4b
  
  
  
  Daf 5a
  
  
  
  Daf 5b
  
  
  
  Daf 6a
  
  
  
  Daf 6b
  
     one got up and said it is kekdesh
  
  Daf 7a
  
  
  
  Daf 7b
  
  
  
  Daf 8a
  
  
     
      
  Rami Bar Chama said: this [the Mishnah where two pick up a garment] means that: Someone who picks up a lost object on behalf of his fellow, his fellow has acquired it.
  For if  you thought his fellow didn't acquire it, then this case would be as if his half is lying on the ground, and his half is lying on the ground, and neither would acquire it. Rather, learn from this: Someone who picks up a lost object on behalf of his fellow, his fellow has acquired it.
  Rava said: Always say: Someone who picks up a lost object on behalf of his fellow, his fellow has not acquired it. Rather this is the reason [of our Mishnah]: Since he can acquire it for himself, he can acquire it for someone else.
  
  Daf 8b
  
  
    
   
     The one who drives [a mixture of two species of animals] receives forty [lashes], and the one who sits in the wagon [being pulled by the mixture] receives forty [lashes]. Rabbi Meir exempts the one sitting in the wagon.
  
  Daf 9a
  
    
    
  
   
  
    
   
  We learn from a Baraita: One is riding upon a donkey, and another is holding the reins [without leading it], the former has acquired the donkey, and the latter has acquired the reins. We learn from this that the rider acquires it.
  [Rather say] that this case is where the rider is driving the donkey with his legs. If that is the case [that he is driving it with his legs] he should also acquire the reins [for they are attached to the donkey, which he is moving]. [It should] say: The former has acquired the donkey and half of the reins. And the latter has acquired half of the reins. It makes sense that the rider has acquired [half of the reins], because he has a mentally competent person [=the person holding the reins] lifting it on his behalf, but the person holding the reins - how can he acquire it?
  
  Say: The former has acquired a donkey and the entirety of the reins, and the latter has acquired that of the reins which is in his hand.
  How could this be? If you wish to say - "he who lifts a lost object on behalf of his friend, his friend has acquired it" - that is when he lifts it on behalf of his friend. Here, he lifts it on his own behalf. [And even if he lifts it on behalf of his friend,] he cannot acquire it, how can acquire it on behalf of his friend?
  Rav Ashi said: The former has acquired the donkey and the bridle, and the latter has acquired that which is in his hand, and neither of them has acquired the remainder.
   
    
  We learn in a Baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: "The rider in the field; and the driver [even] in the city, has acquired it." Here too, [let us say that] he is driving it with his legs. If so, he is also a driver? They are two kinds of drivers.
  If so, why doesn't the rider (who is driving it with his legs) acquire it in the city? Rav Kahana said: Because it isn't normal to ride in the city.
  Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: Now, he who lifts a wallet on the Sabbath; for people do not lift wallets on the Sabbath, he too [the one who lifts the wallet] would not acquire it. [Because] what he has done, he has done, and acquired it, so too here what he has done, he has done, and acquired.
  Rather, we are dealing with a case of commerce, where he told him: Acquire it, in the manner which people acquire it.
  
  Daf 9b
  
  
  
  Daf 10a
  
    
   
        
   
  Rav Nachman and Rav Chisda both said: He who picks up a lost object on behalf of his fellow -- his fellow has not acquired it.
  What is the reason? [It is as if] he is seizing assets for a lender when the borrower owes others, and one who seizes assets on behalf of a lender when the borrower owes others has not taken possession of the assets.
  Rava responded to Rav Nachman: That which a worker finds, belongs to himself.
  In regards to what is this said? When the employer told him: Weed for me today; Hoe for me today. But if he said: Work for me today -- then what he finds belongs to the employer.
  [Rav Nachman] responded: A worker is different, for his hand is like the hand of the employer.
  But did Rav not say: A worker may terminate his employment even in the middle of the day.
  [Rav Nachman] responded: So long as he did not back out [of his job] his hand is like the hand of the employer, and backing out is from a different reason [i.e. not because he is not like the employer] -- as it is written (Leviticus 25, 55): "For unto Me the children of Israel are servants; they are My servants" -- and not servants to servants.
  
  Daf 10b
  
  
  
  Daf 11a
  
  
  
  Daf 11b
  
  
  
  Daf 12a
  
  
  
  Daf 12b
  
  
  
  Daf 13a
  
  
  
  Daf 13b
  
  
  
  Daf 14a
  
  
  
  Daf 14b
  
      
    
  It was said: Someone sells a field to his friend and it turns out that it didn't belong to him. Rav says: [The buyer] has rights to recoup the money he spent to purchase the field and the money he invested to increase the value of the field. Shmuel says [He can recoup the] money [spent to purchase the field], [but] not [the money invested to] increase the value.
  They asked from Rav Huna [If at the outset of the purchase] the increase in value was stipulated [that it would return to the buyer in case the field turned out to have been stolen], what is the halacha?
  
  Daf 15a
  
  
  
  Daf 15b
  
  
  
  Daf 16a
  
  
  
  Daf 16b
  
  
  
  Daf 17a
  
  
  
  Daf 17b
  
  
  
  Daf 18a
  
  
  
  Daf 18b
  
  
  
  Daf 19a
  
  
  
  Daf 19b
  
  
  
  Daf 20a
  
  
  
  Daf 20b
  
  
  
  Daf 21a
  
  
    
      
  
   
  
  
   
     
   
     
   
     
      it is because it is not worthwhile [to collect it]? Half a kav within two amot, since it is not worthwhile [to collect it], he renounces ownership.
  Two kavs within eight amot - what is the law? What is the reason a kav within four amot [belongs to the finder]? Is it because it is troublesome [to collect]? All the more so two kavs within eight amot, since it is even more troublesome [to collect] he renounces ownership.   Or perhaps, it is because it is not worthwhile [to collect it]? Two kavs within eight amot, since it is worthwhile [to collect it], he does not renounce ownership.
  A kav of poppy seeds within four amot - what is the law? What is the reason a kav within four amot [belongs to the finder]? Is it because it is not worthwhile [to collect it]? Poppy seeds, since they are worthwhile [to collect], he does not renounce ownership. Or perhaps, it is because it is troublesome [to collect]? All the more so for poppy seeds, since they are more troublesome to collect, he renounces ownership.
  
  Daf 21b
  
  Anticipated abandonment [of the hope of recovering a lost object]. Abaye said: It is no abandonment [at all].  But Rabbah said:  It is abandonment.  
  Regarding a thing that has an identification mark, no one disagrees that this [anticipated abandonment] is not abandonment. And even if we [eventually] hear him abandon it, this is not abandonment, because when [the finder] took possession of it he had to right to it. Because when [the loser] becomes aware that he lost it, he will not abandon it.  He will say: I have an identification mark on it.  I will give this mark and take it [back].  
  [If the object is found] In the intertidal space of the seashore or on ground that is flooded by a river, even though it may have an identification mark, Torah law permits [the finder to keep it], as we must explain further on.  
  They differ where the object has no identification mark. Abaye said: It is not abandonment because [the loser] did not know that he lost it. Rabbah said: It is abandonment because when he knows that he lost it, he abandons it. He says: I have no identification mark on it. [It is as if] From the moment [he lost it] he abandoned it.
  (Mnemonic: PMGSH MMKGTY KKS'Z)
  Come and hear: "Scattered fruit" - Did he know that he lost it? Didn't Rav Ukba bar Hama say: We are dealing with [the remains of] what has been gathered on the threshing floor, so that he is aware of his loss.
  Come and hear: "Scattered coins belong to the finder" - Why? Did he know that he lost it? There, it is also as Rabbi Yitzhak said: A man tends to frequently handle his purse. Here also, a man tends to frequently handle his purse [and becomes aware of his loss].
  Come and hear: "Round cakes of pressed figs, a baker's cakes - these belong to the finder" -  Why? Did he know that he lost it? There also because [the objects] are heavy he becomes aware of his loss.
  
  Daf 22a
  
  
  
  Daf 22b
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  רשות הרבים היה מקום שרבים עוברים שמה וסביר להניח שלא ראו את הכריכות מוטלות ברצפה ודרסו אותן שוב ושוב ובעקבות כך גם אם היה סימן סביר להניח שנשחק ונהרס ולכן גם היה סימן ,הבעלים התייאשו 
  
  Daf 23a
  
  
  
  Daf 23b
  
       [The mishnah is assuming a standard case of] equal numbers.
      
       Isn’t it written in a ברייתא that if you find a cut fish or bitten fish you are required to be declare it? Barrels of wine, olive oil, wheat, figs, and olives may be kept.
  What are we dealing with (in the fish case)? There is a sign in [the shape of] the cut, just as רבה בר רב הונא cut his meat in three corners (triangularly) [due to the fact that if a standard cut was left out of sight, it may not be eaten for it may have been switched with a non-kosher piece of meat]. 
          
      
        
       
        
  Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says...[<i>anpuria&lt;, one is not obligated to announce.]</i> What is <i>anpuria</i>? Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: "New vessels which one has not yet visually noted." In what circumstances? If they have an identification mark, then what does it matter if one has not noted them visually? If they do not have an identification mark, then what does it matter if one has noted them visually?
  In all cases there is no identification mark on them. The point which is derived is about returning them to learned men on the basis of visual recognition.   Where one has noted them visually, they are established for him in this way and we return them to him. Where one has not noted them visually, they are not established for him in this way and we do not return them to him.   Because Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said In these three things the Rabbis were accustomed to change their words (i.e. lie) In matters of tractates, matters of the bed,
  
  Daf 24a
  
  and in matters of hospitality. What is the point which is derived from it? Mar Zutra said: "Returning a lost thing by visual recognition. If we know that he only lies regarding these three matters, we return it to him. But if he lies in other matters, we do not return it to him."
  Mar Zutra Hasida had a silver cup stolen while he was staying as a guest.  He saw a disciple of the rabbis wash his hands and wipe them on another's garment. He said: "This is the one! For he doesn't care about his fellow's property." He was captured and he confessed.
  It was taught [in a beraita]: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar admits that new vessels which have been sufficiently noted have to be announced. And these new vessels which have not been sufficiently noted do not have to be announced, like  poles of needles, knitting needles, and bundles of axes. All these things which we said - when are they permitted? When they are found singly. But if they are found in pairs they must be announced.
  
  Daf 24b
  
   ...  ...  
    
    ... 
   ...  
   ...    ...    ...    ... ... 
  ...R. Yehuda was doing business after Mar Shmuel in the grain-pounder’s marker. He [R. Yehuda] asked him [Mar Shmuel]: ...“If a person found a purse here, what is the ruling?   ... He replied,  ...“It is his.”  ... “And if an Israelite came, and gave him a sign [proving that the lost item was his], what is the ruling?”   ...He replied,  ..."The finder is obligated to return it.”  ... “Both?” [How can you hold by both opinions?] ... [Mar Shmuel] said to him  ...“[one should go] beyond the line of the law,”  ... for the father of [Mar] Shmuel had once found donkeys in the desert and had returned them to their owner after twelve months had already passed–[he acted] above the line of the law. 
  ... Rava was following after R. Nachman in the leatherworker’s market – there are those who say [it was] the marketplace of the rabbis – and he asked [R. Nachman] ... “If a person found a purse here, what is the ruling?”  ...He said to him ... “It is his.” ... “And if an Israelite came and gave him a sign [what is the ruling]?”  ...He said to him  ...“It is his [it still belongs to the finder].”  ...Wouldn’t he [the Israelite] stand and shout in protest?  ... Such behavior is like one who protests against his house falling, or his ship sinking at sea.
  
  Daf 25a
  
  
  
  Daf 25b
  
  Like the stones of the House of Kolius, what is it (i.e. the law)?
  Come and hear, that we learned (in a braita): If one finds money spread out, they are his (to keep); like the stones of the House of Kolius, he is required to announce. And these are the stones of the House of Kolius: One from here and one from here and one on top of them.
  The Rabbis taught: One who finds a Selah (a type of coin) in the market and his friend finds him and says to him it is mine: it is new; it is a Nero one; (or) it is from so-and-so king, he has not said anything. And not more, but even if his name is written on it, he has not said anything because there is no sign for a coin for we say "maybe he put it out (i.e. used it) and it it fell from another man."
  If he found it beyond an [wooden] enclosure, or behind a [stone] fence, or he found chicks tied together, or he found it in the paths in a field -- he should not touch them. If he found it in the garbage: if it is covered, he should not touch it; if it is not covered, he takes it and announces that he found it.
  
  Daf 26a
  
  
  
  Daf 26b
  
  
  
  Daf 27a
  
  
  
  Daf 27b
  
  
  
  Daf 28a
  
  
  
  Daf 28b
  
  
  
  Daf 29a
  
  
  
  Daf 29b
  
  
  
  Daf 30a
  
  
  
  Daf 30b
  
  ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Rava said, “In any situation where he would return his own [livestock], he must return those which belong to his friend. In any case where who would load and unload his own property, he must also load and unload that which belongs to someone else.” R. Ishmael, son of R. Yossi, was walking on the road when he came upon a man who was carrying bundles of sticks. The man put them down, and rested. Then he said to R. Ishmael, “Help me pick them up.” He asked him, “How much are they worth?” He said to him, “Half a zuz.”  So R. Ishamel gave him half a zuz, and declared the bundle of sticks ownerless.  But the man took them back for himself. So R. Ishmael again paid him half a zuz, and declared the sticks ownerless. Seeing that the man intended to acquire them for himself again, he said to him: “With respect to the rest of the world, these sticks are ownerless [and anyone can take them]. But with respect to you, they are not ownerless [and you cannot reacquire them].” But if that is the case, who would say it was really ownerless? As it has been taught according to the House of Shammai, items declared ownerless can only be acquired by the poor. According to the House of Hillel, an item only qualifies as ownerless if it can be acquired by rich and poor alike, as in [the case of the rules pertaining to] the sabbatical year. So R. Ishmael the son of R. Yossi did, in fact, declare it ownerless and available to anyone to take! It was by words alone that he stopped him.  But R. Ishmael was an elder, and it was not in accordance with his dignity [to help the man]. R. Ishmael, son of R. Yossi, acted within the line of the law. R. Yosef taught [expounding Ex. 18:20], “You shall make known to them” - this refers to their livelihood; “The path” - this refers to acts of loving-kindness; “They are to walk” - this refers to visiting the sick; “Upon” - this refers to burial; “The deeds” - this refers to the law; “They are to perform” - this refers to [actions] within the line of the law.
  The master [i.e. R. Yosef] said: “They are to walk ” - this refers to visiting the sick. If so, the prooftext for deeds of loving-kindness would appear to be redundant. However, is necessary to include the case of someone visiting a sick person with whom he shares a particular affinity. The master reasoned that one who visits a sick person with whom shares a particular affinity takes one-sixtieth of his illness upon himself, but he must visit him nevertheless.  “Upon it” – this refers to burial. We still would not need to mention [a prooftext for] deeds of loving-kindness, except for the case of an elder, where the task is not in accordance with his dignity. “They are to perform” – this refers to [actions] within the line of the law. R. Yohanan taught, “Jerusalem was destroyed because its inhabitants judged according to the law of Torah.” Should they instead have made arbitrary judgments?! Rather, [the teaching means that] they based their judgments on a strict interpretation of Torah law, instead of acting within the line of the law.
  
  Daf 31a
  
     
  Rava said, "'To every lost item of your brother' (Deuteronomy 22:3) - to include the loss of ground."  Said Rav Chananiah to Rava, "There is a teaching that supports you: '[If] he saw waters coming and washing [someone's land] away, behold this one should put a dam in front of them.'"
  He said to him, "If it is because of that, it does not support me. What are we dealing with here? Where there are sheaves." If there are sheaves, what is it saying [that is not already known]? No, it is neccessary. Since there are sheaves that require the earth. What is it that you would say?  "Since they need the earth, it is like the body of the earth. [Therefore,] it teaches us [[otherwise].
  
  Daf 31b
  
  
  
  Daf 32a
  
  
  
  Daf 32b
  
  
  
  Daf 33a
  
   
  
  
          
       
     
  Mishnah: His own lost object and his father's lost object - his own takes precedence.  His own lost object and his teacher's lost object - his own takes precedence.
  His father's lost object and his teacher's lost object - his teacher's takes precedence, since his father brings him to this world and his teacher, who taught him wisdom, brings him to life in the world to come.   But if his father is a Sage - his father's takes precedence.  His father and his teacher were [each] carrying a burden - he lays down his teacher's, and afterward lays down his father's
  His father and his teacher were in captivity - he redeems his teacher, and afterward redeems his father. But if his father is a Sage - he redeems his father, and afterward redeems his teacher.
  Gemara: From where is this ruling derived? Rav Yehuda said  in the name of Rav: “The verse states ‘There shall be no poor among you’ (Devarim 15:4) — this teaches that your concerns take precedence over those of everyone else.”
  But Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: One who fulfills this for himself will eventually come to this.
  
  Daf 33b
  
    
   
     
   
   
  
  Mishnah: [If] one deposited [for safekeeping] an animal or vessels with his neighbor and they were stolen or lost, if he paid but did not want to swear [the prescribed oath], since they [the sages] said,  "An unpaid guardian may swear and [then] be exempt" [from liability]; if the thief is found, [the thief] must pay double. 
  [If the thief] butchered or sold the object, he must pay four or fivefold.  To whom does he pay? To him who the deposit is with. 
  [If the guardian] swore the [prescribed oath] and did not want to pay; if the thief is found, he must pay double.  [If the thief] butchered or sold the object, he must pay four or fivefold.  To whom does he pay? To the owner of the deposit.
  Gemara: What reason does he have to teach, "animal," and what reason does he have to teach, "vessels," (meaning, why mention both)?
  It is necessary. Since, if he taught [only] "animal," I would have said, "It is [in the case of] an animal that [the owner] cedes him the multiple payment, because there is much effort to bring it in and bring it out; but [in the case of] vessels, the effort [required] for which is not much," I would say, He does not cede the multiple payment."
  And if he taught [only] vessels, I would have said,  "It is [in the case of] vessels that [the owner] cedes him the multiple payment, because their multiple payment is not much; but [in the case of] an animal - that if he slaughters or sells [it] - he pays four of fivefold," I would say, "He does not cede the multiple payment." [Hence,] it is necessary. 
  Rami bar Chama strongly objects to it, "And behold, a person can not cede something that has not come into the world! And even according to Rabbi Meir who says,  'A person can cede something that has not come into the world;' those words apply to - for example - fruits of a palm tree that are accustomed to coming, but here
  
  Daf 34a
  
  who is there to say that it will be stolen; and if you find to say that it will be stolen, who is there to say that the thief will be found: and if the thief is found, who is there to say that he will pay - maybe he will admit and be exempt." Said Rava, "He becomes like one who said to him, 'When if it is stolen and you will want to pay me, behold my cow is ceded to you from now.'"
  Rav Zera objected strongly to it, "If so, [that should apply] even to its fleece and its offspring as well! So why is it learned [in a berieta], 'except for its fleece and offspring'?" Rather, said Rav Zera "He becomes like one who said to him, 'except for its fleece and offspring.'"
  And why is it [an unqualified] decision [in the mishnah]? The unqualified [way] of this matter is [that] the gain that comes from the world, a person is accustomed to cede; the gain that comes from itself, a person is not accustomed to cede.
  There are those that say, "Said Rava, 'He becomes like one who said to him, "When if it is stolen and you will want to pay me, adjacent to (before) it being stolen, it is ceded to you."'" What is [the difference] between [the two renditions]?
  [The difference] between them is the question of Rabbi Zera [which is not applicable to the second rendition]. And also (another answer), when it is standing in a marsh. 
  [If he paid, and he did not want to swear, etc.] Said Rav Chiya bar Abba, "Said Rabbi Yochanan,  '[It doesn't mean] paid, [as in] actually paid, but rather once he said, "Behold, I will pay," even though he has not [yet] paid.'"
  [Yet] we learned [in the mishnah],  "If he paid and he did not want to swear:" if he paid, yes; if he did not pay, no!  I will say the end [of the Mishnah]. "If he swore and did not want to pay;" the reason is that he did not want to pay - hence if he wanted [to pay], even if he did not [actually] pay [it is as if he paid]! But rather from [the mishna] here, we cannot imply [anything] from it.
  It was taught [in a bereita] like Rabbi Yochanan, "One who rents a cow from his fellow and it is stolen, and that one says, 'Behold, I am paying and not swearing' and afterwards the thief was found; the thief pays a double payment to the renter."
   Said Rav Pappa, "An unpaid guardian - once he said, 'I have been negligent,' [the owner] cedes the multiple payment to him. Since, if he wanted, he could have exempted himself with [the claim of] theft. A paid guardian - once he said, 'It was stolen,' [the owner] cedes the multiple payment to him. Since, if he wanted, he could have exempted himself with [the claim of] broken or died.
  A borrower who says, 'Behold I will pay,' [the owner] does not cede him the multiple payment. With what could he have exempted himself? With [a claim of] it died on account of work? 'It died on account of work' [however] is not common [and, so, an unlikely claim]."
  Some say, "Said Rav Pappa, 'A borrower also - once he says, "Behold I will pay," [the owner] cedes him the multiple payment. Since, if he wanted, he could have exempted himself with [the claim of] it died on account of work.'" Said Rav Zevid to him, "Thus said Abaye, 'A borrower [is not ceded the payment] until he pays.'" What is the reason? Because all of the benefit [goes to the borrower, the owner] will not cede him the multiple payment based on words.
  It was taught [in a bereita] like Rav Zevid,  "One who borrows the cow of his fellow and it is stolen, and the borrower hastens and pays; and afterwards the thief is found, [the thief] pays a double payment to the borrower."
  For the first [variation] of Rav Pappa, it is certainly not a refutation. [But] for the second [variation], shall we say that it is a refutation?
  Rav Pappa would say to you, "Is [your bereita, the source of your refutation] stronger than our mishnah, that taught, 'he paid' and I established [that it meant], he said [that he would pay].  Here [in the bereita] too, it is that he said [that he would pay]."
  Is it similar? There, it was not learned, "he hastened;" here it was learned, "he hastened!" What is [the meaning] of "he hastened?" He hastened and said.
  Behold, since it learned concerning the renter, "and he said," and concerning the borrower, "he hastened;" we infer from it, that it was teaching precisely [and "hastened" did not mean, hastened and said]. Were [the two statements] learned together [such that one could make the last observation]?
  We asked this to the teachers [who were experts on such statements] of the House of Rabbi Chiya and the House of Rabbi Oshaya, and they said, "We learned them together."
  It is obvious [that in a case where the guardian] said, "I will not pay," and [then] he went back and said, "Behold, I will pay," [that he acquires the multiple payment from the thief should it be received]; Behold, he said, "Behold, I will pay." But [in a case where] he said, "Behold I will pay,"
  
  Daf 34b
  
  and [then] he went back and said, "I will not pay," what [is the law]? Do we say, "He certainly went back on himself;" or maybe he stands by his [original] word and he is [just seeking] to delay [payment to the owner].
  [Also, in a case where] he says, "Behold I will pay," and he dies, and his children say, "We will not pay," what [is the law]? Do we say, "They certainly went back on themselves;" or maybe they stand by the word of their father and they are [just seeking] to delay [payment to the owner].
  [And in a case where] the children paid, what [is the law]? Can [the owner] say to them, "When I ceded the multiple payment, it was to your father who did for me things that were pleasant to me, but not to you." Or maybe it makes no difference [and he cannot make such a claim].
  [And in a case where the guardian] paid to the children [of the owner], what [is the law]? Can they say to him, "When our father ceded the multiple payment, [it was because] you did for him things that were pleasant to him, but as for us, [you did nothing] for us." Or maybe it makes no difference [and they cannot make such a claim].  [And in a case where] the children pay to the children, what [is the law]?
  [And] if [the guardian] only payed half, what [is the law]?  [And] if he borrowed two cows and payed for one of them, what [is the law]? [And] if he borrowed from partners and he paid one of them, what [is the law]? [And] if partners borrowed and one of them paid, what [is the law]? [And] if he borrowed from the wife and payed the husband, what [is the law]? [And] if a woman borrowed and her husband pays, what [is the law]? It is not resolved.
  Said Rav Huna, "We make [the guardian] swear an oath that it is not in his possession." What is the reason? We are concerned lest he set his eyes upon it [and decided to keep it unlawfully].
  [The scholars of the academy] objected [from the following mishnah], "The one who loans to his fellow on collateral, and he lost the collateral, and he said to him,  'I lent you a sela [a silver coin] on it, and it was worth a shekel [half a sela];' and this one says,  'No, but rather you lent me a sela on it, and it was worth a sela,' he is exempt [from swearing an oath. 
  'I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth a shekel,' and this one says, 'No, but rather you lent me a sela on it, and it was worth three dinarim [three-fourths a sela],' he is liable. 
  'You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two,' and this one says, 'No, but rather I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth a sela,' he is exempt. 
  'You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two,' and this one says, 'No, but rather I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth five dinarim,' he is liable. 
  And who swears? The one in whose possession the deposit is, lest he (the borrower) swear and this one (the lender) will take out (present) the deposit."
  On which [part of the mishna was its last statement referring]? If we shall say, "On the end;" he should learn out that the oath is on the creditor [because] he admitted to part of the claim [and not for the reason stated at the end of the mishnah]. But rather said Shmuel "On the beginning."
  What [did he mean by] "on the beginning?" On the end  of the beginning: "'I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth a shekel,' and this one says,  'No, but rather you lent me a sela on it, and it was worth three dinarim [three-fourths a sela],' he is liable."  As the oath is [originally] for the borrower [as he admitted to part of the claim], and the rabbis said, "Let the creditor swear, lest [the borrower] swear and the other one bring out the deposit [used for collateral]"
  And if
  
  Daf 35a
  
  [the oath of] Rav Huna existed, once the creditor swears that it is not in his possession, how can he find to bring it out? Said Rava, "[It is when] there are witnesses that it was incinerated [in which case there is no need for Rav Huna's oath]."
  If so, from where will he bring it? But rather said Rav Yosef, "[It is when] there are witnesses that it was stolen." At the end of the day, from where will he bring it? [He may do so if] he expends effort [to retrieve it] and brings it.
  If so, when the creditor swears too, the borrower may expend effort and bring it. It is understood concerning the creditor - he knows who comes in and goes out of his home, and [so he can] go and expend effort and bring it; but does the borrower know who comes in and goes out of the creditor's home?
  Abbaye says, "It is a decree, lest [the creditor] claim and say, 'I found it after [I took] the oath [of Rav Huna].'" Rav Ashi said, "This one swears and that one swears: this one swears that it is not in his possession and that one swears [about] how much it was worth." And this is what [the] mishnah is saying: "Who should swear first? The creditor swears first, lest [the lender] will swear and [the creditor] take out the deposit." 
  Rav Huna bar Tachlifa said in the name of Rava "The beginning of the end [of the mishnah] is a refutation of Rav Huna: '"You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two," and this one says,  "No, but rather I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth a sela," he is exempt.' And if [the oath of] Rav Huna existed, on the back of that which the creditor swears that it is not in his possession, let him also swear [about] how much it was worth because of [the concept of] the superimposition of oaths (<i>gilgul shevua</i>)."
  Said Rav Ashi, "I recounted this discussion in front of Rav Kahana, and he said to me, 'Let it be [a case] of [the borrower] believes [the creditor].'" And let the borrower believe the creditor also about how much it was worth! It did not sit with [the creditor long enough that he can trust his appraisal]. And let the creditor believe the borrower, with whom it sat with [long enough that he would know its appraisal]! He does not believe him.
  And what is the difference, that the borrower believes the creditor and the creditor does not believe the borrower? The lender [understands] the creditor as a fulfillment of (Proverbs 11:3), "The innocence of the straight will guide them;" the creditor [understands] the borrower as a fulfillment of  (ibid.), "the crookedness of the traitors will despoil them."
  A certain man deposited nose-rings with his fellow. [Later, the former] said to [the latter], "Give me my nose-rings." He said [back] to him, "I don't know where I put them." He came in front of Rav Nachman, [who] said to him, "Any, 'I don't know' is negligence. Go and pay." He did not pay. [So] Rav Nachman went and seized his house from him. In the end, the nose-rings were found and they had appreciated. Said Rav Nachman, "Let the nose-rings be returned to their owner, and the house returned to its owner."
  Said Rava, "I was sitting in front of Rav Nachman and it was [during the time of the study] of our chapter [entitled] Hamafkid, and I said to him, '"He paid and did not want to swear, [...If (the thief) butchered or sold the object, he must pay four or fivefold. To whom does he pay? To him who the deposit is with." So why would the guardian in Rav Nachman's case not keep the appreciation?]' And he did not answer me.
  And it is well that he did not answer me. What is the reason? Over there, he did not burden the court; here he burdened the court."
  Is this to say, that Rav Nachman holds that that which is evaluated [as compensation for an unpaid debt] must be returned [once the debtor produces the money]? It is different over there, since it was a mistaken evaluation, as the nose-rings were there from the beginning. 
  Said the Nehardeans, "An evaluation must be returned for up to twelve months of a year." But said Ameimar, "I am from Nehardea and I hold that an evaluation must always be returned." And the law is [that] an evaluation must always be returned, on account of that which is stated (Deuteronomy 6:18), "And you will do the straight and the good."
  It is obvious [that] if they evaluated [and seized property to repay] a creditor and he went and had it evaluated [and gave it to repay] his creditor, we say to [that creditor], "You are not better than the man that you came from."   [But if the first creditor] sold it, bequeathed it or gave it as a gift, these came to it with the intention of [acquiring] land and did not come to it with the intention of [acquiring] money.
  [And] if they appraised a debt [and accordingly seized property] for a woman of if they appraised a debt [and accordingly seized property] from a woman and she married and died, the husband is [considered] a purchaser [of this property] - he does not return it and they do not return it to him. 
  Since Rabbi Yose bar Chaninah had said,  "In Usha, they ordained, 'If a woman sold her usufrucht (<i>melog</i>) properties during the lifetime of her husband and she dies, the husband can extract them from the hand of purchasers.'"
  
  Daf 35b
  
  If [the debtor, however,] ceded [property to repay] his debt, about this Rav Acha and Ravina disagreed: One said, "It must be returned [when he produces money]" and one said, "It must not be returned."
  The one that said it must not be returned reasons  that this is a fine sale, as he ceded it of his own volition. And the one that said it must be returned reasons  that this is not a fine sale,  and that which he ceded it of his own volition and did not come to court was on account of his embarrassment - [that's why] he ceded it.
  And from when can [the creditor] eat the fruits [of the land seized]? Rabbah said, "From when the bill of expropriation comes to his hand." Abbaye said, "His witnesses acquire it for him with their signing it."
  Rava said, "When the days of [the bill's] announcement are completed."
  Mishnah: If one rented a cow from his fellow, and loans it to another, and the cow dies naturally; the one who rented [the cow] should swear that it died naturally, and the borrower should pay the renter.  Said Rabbi Yose, "How shall he do business with his fellow's cow?  Rather, the cow [or its value] must be returned to the owners."
  Gemara: Said Rav Idi bar Avin to Abbaye, "Because of what - with what did the renter acquire this cow? With an oath. And let the owner say to the renter, 
  'Drop yourself and drop your oath, and I will make the claim against the renter.'" He said [back] to him, "Do you hold that it is with the oath that the renter acquires it? It is from the time of death that he acquires it and the oath is to ease the mind of the owner."
  Said Rav Zera,   "There are times when the owners pay for several cows to the renter." How so? If he rented it from him for a hundred days and [the owner] went back and borrowed it for ninety days; [and now the renter] went back and rented it for eighty days and [the owner] went back and borrowed if for seventy days, and it died during the days of its [last] borrowing - [this is such a case,] since he is obligated [to pay the value of] one cow for each borrowing. 
  Rav Acha of Difti said to Ravina,  "Because of what - it is one cow! It went in and it went out: it went out from being rented and went into being borrowed, [then] it went out from being borrowed and went into being rented." He said [back] to him, "And does the cow exist intact that he can say thus?"
  Mar bar Rav Ashi said, "He only has [a claim for] two cows on them - one is for borrowing and one is for renting, [as] there is one classification for borrowing and one classification for renting. The [cow] of borrowing he has completely acquired; the [cow] of renting, he works with it (or its replacement) for the days of its rental and he returns it to its owner."
  Said Rav Yirmiyah, "There are times that both of them are [obligated to sacrifice] a sin offering;
  
  Daf 36a
  
  there are times that both of them are [obligated to sacrifice] a guilt offering; there are times when the renter [is obligated to sacrifice] a sin offering and the borrower a guilt offering; [and] there are times when the renter [is obligated to sacrifice] a guilt offering and the borrower a sin offering."
  Behold, how is this? The [false] denial of [a debt requires] a guilt offering, a [false] utterance of the lips [requires] a sin offering:
  "There are times that both of them are [obligated to sacrifice] a sin offering" - for example, it died naturally, and they said it was [the result] of an accident. The renter - that [whether] it is this or that is exempt [from paying] - [needs to sacrifice] a sin offering; the borrower - that [whether] it is this or that is obligated [to pay] - [needs to sacrifice] a sin offering. 
  "There are times that both of them are [obligated] a guilt offering" - for example, it was stolen and they said that it died on account of work. As both of them are denying [a debt], since behold they are obligated [to pay] and they have exempted themselves.
  "The renter [is obligated] a sin offering and the borrower a guilt offering" - for example, it died naturally, and they said, it died on account of work. The renter - that [whether] it is this or that is exempt [from paying] - [needs to sacrifice] a sin offering; the borrower, that is obligated [to pay] when it dies naturally, and exempted himself [with the claim] that it died on account of work [is obligated] a guilt offering. 
  "The renter [is obligated] a guilt offering and the borrower a sin offering" - for example, it was stolen and they said that it died naturally. The renter, who is obligated [to pay] for theft and loss and exempted himself [with the claim] that it died naturally [is obligated] a guilt offering. The borrower - that [whether] it is this or that is obligated [to pay] - [is obligated] a sin offering. 
  What do we learn from here? To exclude [the opinion] of Rabbi Ami, who said, "Any oath that the judges make one swear, we do not obligate [a sin offering] on account of an oath of utterance, as it is stated (Leviticus 5:4), 'or a person, if he swears to utter with the lips' - 'if he swears' on his own." We learn from [the cases above] that [the law] is not like Rabbi Ami.
  It was stated, "A guardian that passes on [what he is guarding] to a guardian: Rav said, '[The first guardian] is exempt [from any liability that he did not originally have].' But Rabbi Yochanan said, 'He is liable.'"
  Said Abbaye, "According to the reasoning of Rav, it is not necessary [to say] an unpaid guardian who passes it on to a paid guardian, as he raises [the level of] its guarding; but rather even a paid guardian who passes it on to an unpaid guardian, [and so] lowers [the level of] its guarding, is exempt.  What is his reason? That, behold, he gave it to a mentally competent one.
  And according to the reasoning of Rabbi Yochanan, it is not necessary [to say] a paid guardian who passes it on to an unpaid guardian, as he lowers [the level of] its guarding; but rather even an unpaid guardian who passes it on to a paid guardian, [and so] raises [the level of] its guarding, is liable. As he [could have told] him, 'It is not my wish that my deposit be in the hand of another.'"
  Said Rav Chisda, "Behold [the opinion just attributed to] Rav was not stated explicitly, but rather [only] implied: For these gardeners would deposit their hoes with this elderly woman. One day one [of the gardeners] deposited them with [another] one of them. [The latter then] heard the sound of a wedding party - [so] he went out and deposited them with the elderly woman.  Before he went and came back, the hoes were stolen.
  He [then] went in front of Rav and [Rav] exempted him. The one who saw [this] reasoned [that it was] on account of a guardian who passed it on to a guardian that he was exempt, but it was not [on account of that]. It was different over there, as also every [other] day, they themselves would deposit [the hoes] with the elderly woman.
  Rabbi Ami sat and recounted this discussion. Rav Abba bar Mammel objected to Rabbi Ami [about Rabbi Yochanan's position],  [The mishnah, however, states,] "If one rented a cow from his fellow, and loans it to another, and the cow dies naturally; the one who rented [the cow] should swear that it died naturally, and the borrower should pay the renter." He said [back] to him, "What are we dealing with here [in the mishnah]?" In [a case] that they gave him (the permission of the owners) to lend it out."
  If so, [the borrower] needs to pay the owners. [It is a case] that they said to him, "It is according to your judgment [to decide who to lend it to]."
  Rami bar Chama objected [from another mishnah], "'The one who deposited coins with his neighbor, and he tied them up [in a package] and carried it over his shoulder, or he entrusts them to his minor son or daughter, and locked it up before them [in a way] that was not satisfactory, he is liable, because he did not guard [them] in the manner of guardians.'
  The reason is that they were minors. [But according to Rabbi Yochanan,] why [should that be]? [Even if they were not minors,] let [the owner] say to him, ''It is not my wish that my deposit be in the hand of another!'"
  Said Rava, "Any one who deposits,
  
  Daf 36b
  
  deposits with the intention [that it can also be guarded by the guardian's] wife and children."
  Said the Nehardeans, "[Rava's teaching] is also precise, as it is taught [in the mishnah],  'or he entrusts them to his minor son or daughter[...], he is liable.' Behold [it can be inferred], to his adult son or daughter, he is exempt. [So] it is implied that to others, there is no difference if they are adults or minors, he is liable. Since if [it did make a difference with others as well], let it teach 'minors' without differentiation. We learn from this [that the mishnah is only making the allowance for (adult) children]."
  Said Rava, "The law is that a guardian that passes it on to a guardian is liable - it is not necessary [to say] a paid guardian who passes it on to an unpaid guardian, as he lowers [the level of] its guarding;  but rather even an unpaid guardian who passes it on to a paid guardian is liable. What is the reason? It is that [the owner] can say to him, 'I believe you with an oath; I do not believe that one with an oath.'"
  It was stated, "If [the guardian] is negligent and [the animal in his charge] goes out to the marsh and dies naturally: Abbaye said in the name of Rabbah, 'He is liable.' Rava said in the name of Rabbah, 'He is exempt.'"
  Abbaye said in the name of Rabbah, "He is liable - any judge that does not judge like this law is not a judge. It is not necessary [to say that] according to the one that says if its beginning is negligent but its end is accidental he is liable, that he is liable. But rather even according to the one that says he is exempt, here he is liable.  What is the reason? The vapors of the marsh killed it."
  Rava said in the name of Rabbah, 'He is exempt - any judge that does not judge like this law is not a judge. It is not necessary [to say that] according to the one that says if its beginning is negligent but its end is accidental he is exempt, that he is exempt. But rather even according to the one that says he is liable, here he is exempt.  What is the reason? [For] the angel of death, what [difference is it] if he is here or there?"
  And Abbaye concedes that if it came back to the house of its master and died, he is exempt. What is the reason? That behold, it came back and one cannot say, the vapors of the marsh killed it. And Rava concedes, in any case that a thief steals it in the marsh and it dies naturally in the thief's home that he is liable. What is the reason? [Even] if the angel of death would leave it, it is sitting in the house of the thief.
  Said Abbaye to Rava, "According to you, who said, '[For] the angel of death, what [difference is it] if he is here or there;' that which Rav Abba bar Mammel objected to Rabbi Ami, and he answered him, 'It is in [a case] that they gave him the permission of the owners to lend it out.' Let him rather say,    '[For] the angel of death, what [difference is it] if he is here or there?'"
  He said [back] to him, "To you, who taught [that the reason for Rabbi Yochanan's ruling was that the owner could say,] 'It is not my wish that my deposit be in the hand of another,' there is what to object to it; [but] to me, since I say [the reason is that the owner could say,] 'I believe you with an oath; I do not believe that one with an oath,' there is nothing to object at all."
  Rami bar Chama objected [to Abbaye's ruling from a mishnah], "'If he brought it up to the top of the cliffs and it fell and died, it is not an accident,' and he is liable. Behold [it can be inferred], if it died naturally [on the top of the cliffs], it is an accident, and he is exempt. And why? Let him say, 'it is the air of the mountain that killed it.' And also 'the exertion of the mountain killed it.'"
  What are we dealing with here [in the mishnah]? That he took it up [the mountain] to a rich and good pasture [and so the beginning was not negligent]. If so, when it fell [he should] also [be exempt]! He should have controlled it and he did not control it.
  If so, I will say the beginning [of the mishnah], "If it went up to the top of the cliffs and fell, this constitutes an accident." [But according to you, he should have controlled it.] No, it was needed [to be understood as a different case] - [the animal] overpowered him and went up, it overpowered him and went down.  
  [Said Rabbi Yose,"How shall he do business with the cow of, etc."] Said Rav Yehuda, "Said Shmuel,  'The law is like Rabbi Yose.'" Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said to Rav Yehuda, "You have told us in the name of Shmuel, 'Rabbi Yose was in disagreement 
  
  Daf 37a
  
  also in the first [case of the chapter].' Is the law like him [there] or is the law not like him?" He said to him, "Rabbi Yose was in disagreement also in the first [case] and the law is like him also in the first [case]."
  It was also stated, "Said Rabbi Elazar,  'Rabbi Yose was in disagreement also in the first [case] and the law is like him also in the first [case].' but Rabbi Yochanan said, 'Rabbi Yose conceded in the first [case], as [the renter] had already paid.'"
  If he paid, yes; [but] if he had not paid, no? And did Rabbi Chiya bar Abba not say that Rabbi Yochanan said,  '[It doesn't mean] paid, [as in] actually paid, but rather once he said, "Behold, I will pay," even though he has not [yet] paid.'" I will [then] say [that what was actually meant was], "Rabbi Yose conceded in the first [case], as [the renter] had already said, 'Behold, I will pay.'"
  Mishnah: If someone said to two people, "I robbed a maneh (one hundred zuz) from one of you, but I don't know which one of you;" or, "The father of one of you deposited a maneh with me, but I don't know which one;" he must give this one maneh and this one maneh, as he admitted [it] with his own mouth. 
  If two [people] deposited money with one; one has deposited a maneh and the other two hundred zuz, [and afterwards] one says, "The two hundred zuz are mine," and the other one says: "The two hundred zuz are mine," [the guardian] shall give a maneh to one and a maneh to the other, and the balance shall be put aside until Eliyahu comes. 
  Said Rabbi Yose, "If so, what did the deceiver lose?  Rather, everything shall be put aside until Eliyahu comes.
  And also [in a case of] two vessels, the value of one is a maneh, and the value of the other is a thousand zuz. One says, "The [more] valuable is mine," and the other one says, "The [more] valuable is mine." He shall give the small [vessel] to one of them, and from the large [vessel], he shall give the value of the small [vessel] to the other, and the balance shall be put aside until Eliyahu comes. Said Rabbi Yose, "If so, what did the deceiver lose?  Rather, everything shall be put aside until Eliyahu comes."
  Gemara: Apparently, then, [from the first part of the mishnah, we see that] we extract money [based on] a doubt, and we do not say, "let the money stand in the possession of its [current] owner."
  But they raised an objection [from another part of the mishnah], "If two [people] deposited money with one; one has deposited a maneh and the other two hundred zuz, [and afterwards] one says, "The two hundred zuz are mine," and the other one says: "The two hundred zuz are mine," [the guardian] shall give a maneh to one and a maneh to the other, and the balance shall be put aside until Eliyahu comes." 
  [One] said to [another], "You are objecting from a [case of] theft to a [case of] deposit! A theft, wherein he violated a prohibition, the rabbis penalized; a deposit, wherein he did not violate a prohibition, the rabbis did not penalize!"
  But [rather] raise an objection from a deposit to a deposit and raise an objection from a theft to a theft. From a deposit to a deposit, as it was taught in the beginning [of the mishnah], "'The father of one of you deposited a maneh with me, but I don't know which one;' he must give this one maneh and this one maneh;"  and they raised an objection [from the mishnah, as above], "If two [people] deposited, etc."
  Said Rava, "[In the case at] the beginning [of the mishnah], [the guardian] becomes like someone who had deposits made in two bundles, wherein he should have checked; [In the case at] the end, he becomes like someone who had deposits made in one bundle, wherein he did not have to check - for example, if both of them deposited together at one time, such that he will say to them, 'You yourselves were not particular with each other, [if so,] should I be particular?'"
  And raise an objection from [the case of] a theft to a theft: We learned here [in the mishnah],  "If someone said to two people,'I robbed a maneh from one of you, but I don't know which one of you;' or, 'The father of one of you deposited a maneh with me, but I don't know which one;' he must give this one maneh and this one maneh;"
  and they raised an an objection [from another mishnah],  "[If] an individual stole from one of five people but does not know from which [of them] he stole, [and] each one says, 'He robbed me' - he places the stolen object among them and withdraws, these are the words of Rabbi Tarfon." Apparently, then, [from this last mishnah, we see that] we do not extract money [based on] a doubt, and we say,  "let the money stand in the possession of its [current] owner."
  And from what [do you know] that the mishnah of here is [also the position of] Rabbi Tarfon [and so can be challenged by a mishnah authored by Rabbi Tarfon]? Since it was taught about [that mishnah], "Rabbi Tarfon concedes when someone said to two people, 'I robbed a maneh from one of you, but I don't know which one of you,' that he must give this one maneh and this one maneh;"
  [The resolution of the objection is that in the case wherein he places the stolen money among them and withdraws], it is that they sued him. Here (in our mishnah), he has come to fulfill [his obligation] to the Heavens. [This answer] is also precise, as [in our mishnah, the reason for the verdict that] is taught [is], "as he admitted [it] with his own mouth." It is inferred from this [that this is a case wherein he was willing to do more than just his obligation].
  Said the Master, "There they sued him, but the other (the thief), what did he claim?" Rav Yehuda [said], "said Rav, 'The other was silent.'" Rav Matena [said], "said Rav, 'The other
  
  Daf 37b
  
  yelled out.'" [According to] the one that says he yelled out, [in a case where he was quiet] however, 'silence is like admission.' And [according to] the one that says he was silent, the silence of here is not 'like admission;' as he is able to say to him, That which I was silent to each and every one is because I said, "Maybe this one is he [to whom it actually belongs]."
  Said Rav, "'He places the stolen object among them and withdraws;' and [so] they all take it and go away. And did not Rabbi Abba bar Zivda say that Rav said, 'Any possessions in doubt placed [somewhere that makes it appear that it may belong to someone]; ab initio, he should not take; and if he took [it], he should not return [without clear proof of ownership]?'" Said Rav Safra, "[The mishnah meant] that 'he should place it' [somewhere for safekeeping]."
  Said Abbaye to Rava, "Did Rabbi Akiva [not] say, "This is not the way to prevent him from sin, rather he must pay [the value of] the stolen object to each one?" Apparently, then,  [from here we see that] we extract money [based on] a doubt, and we do not say,  "let the money stand in the possession of its [current] owner."
  But they raised an objection [from another mishnah], "A house fell upon a man and upon his mother. The son's heirs  say, 'The mother died first,' but the mother's heirs say,  'The son died first.' Both these [Beit Shammai] and these [Beit Hillel] concede that they split [the property]. But said Rabbi Akiva, 'I concede here [to Beit Hillel's view in most situations of this type] that the property remains in its current status.'"
  He said [back] to him, "There it is [a case of the claims having a basis of] maybe and maybe, [but in the case of] 'one stole from five,' it is certain and maybe."  But behold, our mishnah from here said, "I robbed a maneh from one of you, but I don't know which one of you;'" [and] that is a [case of] maybe and maybe, and it was taught, "He must give this one maneh and this one maneh!"
  And from where [do you know that our mishnah is] of Rabbi Akiva? Since it was taught about [the mishnah], "Rabbi Tarfon concedes when someone said to two people, 'I robbed a maneh from one of you, but I don't know which one of you,' etc.;" To who is he conceding? Is it (not) to Rabbi Akiva his opponent?
   And from where [do you know that our mishnah is a case of] maybe and maybe? [For] one, since it was not taught, " they sue him." [And also,] behold, Rabbi Chiya taught [in a parallel bereita], "This one says, 'I do not  know' and this one says, 'I do not know.'"
  [The resolution of the standing objection on the position of Rabbi Akiva is,] behold, you have established [that the case in our mishnah] is [when] he has come to fulfill [his obligation] to the Heavens.
  Said Ravina to Rav Ashi, "And did Rava say [that in] all [cases of] two bundles, he should check? And behold, said Rava - and if you want to say [it was] Rav Pappa - "Everyone concedes in [a case of] two that deposited [sheep] with a shepherd, that the shepherd places it among them and withdraws."  He said [back] to him, "There, it is when they deposited [their sheep] into the flock of the shepherd without his knowledge."
  
  Daf 38a
  
  
  One who deposits produce by his friend- even if they are becoming ruined- he shall not touch them. Rabbi Shimon, son of Gamliel, says: [he shall] sell them [before the court], because he is like one who returns a lost object to [its] owners.
  ...What is the reason? Rav Kahana said, "a person would rather his own kav than nine of his friend's kavs.
  
  Daf 38b
  
  
  
  Daf 39a
  
  
  
  Daf 39b
  
  
  
  Daf 40a
  
  
  
  Daf 40b
  
  
  
  Daf 41a
  
  
  
  Daf 41b
  
  
  
  Daf 42a
  
  
  
  Daf 42b
  
  
  
  Daf 43a
  
  
  
  Daf 43b
  
  
  
  Daf 44a
  
          
   
     
    
    
      
  
  We learned [in the Mishnah]: Gold acquires silver, but silver does not acquire gold.
  Copper acquires silver, but silver does not acquire copper. Cancelled coins acquire current ones, but current coins do not acquire cancelled coins.  Uncoined metal acquired coined metal, but coined metal does not acquire uncoined metal.
  Moveable properties acquire coins, but coins do not acquire moveable properties.
  (This is the general rule:) All moveable properties acquire each other. How so? If one drew into his possession produce without yet paying him, he cannot retract.  If he paid him the money, but did not yet draw into his possession his produce, he can withdraw.  
  But they said:  He who punished the generation of the Flood and the generation of the Division will take vengeance upon one who does not stand by his word.
  Rabbi Shimon says: He who has the money in his hand has the advantage.
  
  Daf 44b
  
  
  
  Daf 45a
  
  
  
  Daf 45b
  
  
  
  Daf 46a
  
  
  
  Daf 46b
  
  
  
  Daf 47a
  
  
  
  Daf 47b
  
  
  
  Daf 48a
  
  
  
  Daf 48b
  
  
  
  Daf 49a
  
  
  
  Daf 49b
  
  
  
  Daf 50a
  
  
  
  Daf 50b
  
  
  
  Daf 51a
  
  
  
  Daf 51b
  
  
  
  Daf 52a
  
  
  
  Daf 52b
  
  
  
  Daf 53a
  
  
  
  Daf 53b
  
  
  
  Daf 54a
  
  
  
  Daf 54b
  
  
  
  Daf 55a
  
  
  
  Daf 55b
  
  
  
  Daf 56a
  
  
  
  Daf 56b
  
  
  
  Daf 57a
  
  
  
  Daf 57b
  
  
  
  Daf 58a
  
  
  
  Daf 58b
  
  He who embarrasses his fellow is as if he has shed blood (killed him).
  
  Daf 59a
  
  It is better for a man to have relations with a doubtfully married woman than to embarrass your friend in public. From where does he get this? From the interpretation of Rava Rava interpreted  What can be derived from this biblical source: “But when I halt they rejoice, and gather themselves together; The abjects gather themselves together against me, and those whom I know not; They tear me, and cease not; (Psalms 36:15)” David said in front of the Holy One "If they tore my flesh, my blood would not spill on the land,
  and not only that, but also in a time when we were dealing with the laws of צרעת and corpses they asked me,  “The one who committed adultery, in what is his death?”  I say to them,  “His death is in strangulation. He has a spot in עולם הבא, but the one who embarrasses does not have a place."
  Mar Zutra bar Tuvia said in the name of Rav, and some quote it thus: Rav Chana bar Bizna said in the name of Rabbi Shimon Chasida, and some quote it thus: Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai “It is better for a man to throw himself into a fiery furnace, and to not embarrassed their fellow in public.” What is the source for this? From Tamar, and it says, “When she was brought forth, she sent to her father in law.” (Genesis 38:25)
  Rav Chinenah son of Rav Idi said, “What can be derived from this verse, ‘You shall not wrong your fellow’ (Leviticus 25:17)? A people who is with you in the Torah and in Mitzvot, you shall not wrong” Rav said, "A person should always be careful regarding [the prohibition of] causing אונאה to his wife, because her tears - being frequent - [mean that the punishment for] causing her אונאה is close."
  Rabbi Elazar said,  “From the day that the Temple was destroyed, the gates of prayer closed, as it says ‘Yea, when I cry and call for help, He shuts out my prayer.’ (Lamentations 3:8)  And even though the gates of prayer are closed, the gates of tears are not closed, as it says ‘Hear my prayer, O LORD, and give ear unto my cry; you will not be silent at my tears.’ (Psalms 39:13)” 
  Rav said  “Everyone who follows the advice of his wife will go to Gehenom, as it says ‘But there was none like Ahab who sold himself over to do that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, because Jezebel persuaded him.’”  Rav Papa said to Abaye,  “But surely people say,  ‘If your wife is short bend down and listen to your wife, and whisper to her.’”  This is not a difficulty, this applies to words of the Earth, and this applies to words of the house.   Another version:  This applies to words of G-d, and this applies to words of the Earth.
  Rav Hisdah said, All the gates are closed except for the gates of אונאה, as it says, “behold, the Lord stood beside a wall made by a plumbline, with a plumbline in His hand. (Amos 7:7)” Rabbi Elazar said,  "All is punished through a messenger, except for fraudulent overcharging, as it is said, 'And in his hand, a measuring line (Amos 7:7).'"
  Rabbi Abbahu said, "[Regarding] three [sins], the curtain [of mercy; which figuratively blocks G-d from punishing the evil] is not locked for them [and thus punishment can get through]: Fraudulent overcharging, robbery, and idol worship. Fraudulent overcharging, as it is written, 'And in his hand, a measuring line (Amos 7:7).' Robbery, as it is written, 'Violence and spoil shall be heard in [Jerusalem]- in front of me forever (Jeremiah 6:7).' Idol worship, as it is written, "The nation that is vexing me- in front of me forever, etc. (Isaiah 65:3).'"
  Rabbi Yehudah [of Babylon] said, "A person should always be careful with produce, for arguments are only found in the house because of produce [ie. sustenance, or rather the lack of it], as it is said, 'He who makes your borders peaceful, [with] cream of wheat he shall sustain you (Psalms 147:14).'"   
    
  And Rabbi Chelbo said, "A man should always be vigilant with the honor of his wife, for blessing is only found in the home of a man because of his wife, as it is said, 'And to Abram, he was good for her sake (Genesis 12:15).'" And this is [similar to] what Rava said to the people of Mechoza: "Give honor to your wives, so that you may be enriched."
  It was taught elsewhere, If he cut it into sections (lit. vertebrae), and placed sand between every section, Rabbi Eliezer rules it pure and the Sages rule it impure.
  
  Daf 59b
  
  This is the “oven of Achnai.”  What is Achnai? Said Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Shmuel: That they surrounded it with words [of debate] like an Achnai snake, and declared it impure. It was taught: On that day R. Eliezer answered all the answers on earth and they did not accept it from him.
  He said, “If the law is like me, the carob tree will prove it”; the carob tree was uprooted from its place one hundred Amah, some say four hundred Amah. They said: “We do not bring proof from a carob tree.”... He went and said “If the law is like me the water channel will prove it”; the water channel flowed in reverse direction. They said: “We do not bring proof from a water channel.”
  He went and said “If the law is as I say the walls of the House of Study will prove it”; the walls of the House of Study inclined to fall. R. Yehoshua protested at them, saying to them “If scholars defeat each other in the law, how does it better you?” They did not fall because of the honor of R.Yehoshua and they did not straighten, because of the honor of R. Eliezer, and they still incline and stand....
  [R. Eliezer] went and said, “If the law is like me, from Heaven they will prove it”; a heavenly voice came out and said, “What have you with R. Eliezer, who the law is like him in every place?”
  R. Yehoshua stood on his feet and said “[The Torah] is not in heaven,” (Deuteronomy 30:12). What does "[The Torah] is not in heaven" mean? R. Yirmiyah said: “That the Torah was already given at Sinai, we do not pay attention to a heavenly voice, since You already wrote at Sinai in the Torah, “After the majority to incline,” (Exodus 23:2). R. Natan met the prophet Elijah and said to him, “What did the Holy One Blessed be He do in that hour?” He said to him: “He smiled and said, “My sons have defeated Me, My sons have defeated Me.”
  They said: On that day they burned all the pure things R. Eliezer had declared pure; they voted upon him and excommunicated him. They asked “Who will go and inform him?” R. Akiva said, “I will go, lest an improper person inform him and all the earth will be destroyed.”
  What did R. Akiva do? He dressed in black and sat before him at a distance of four Amot. R. Eliezer said: “Akiva, what is today from all days?” He said, “My master, it appears to me your friends distanced themselves from you.” R. Eliezer too tore his clothes, removed his shoes and sat on the ground
  his eyes flowed tears. The earth was stricken, a third in olives, a third in wheat, a third in barley.  Some say: even dough in a woman’s hand spoiled.... It was taught: Great was that day that every place R. Eliezer put his eyes was burned....
  And even R. Gamliel was on a ship; a wave stood upon him to drown him. He said: It appears to me this is only because of R.Eliezer b. Hyrkanos. He stood on his feet and said, “Master of the world, it is revealed and known before You that not for my honor I did nor for the honor of my father’s house but for Your honor that controversies not multiply in Israel.” The sea rested from its anger.
  Ima Shalom, wife of R. Eliezer, was R. Gamliel’s sister; from then she did not allow R. Eliezer to fall on his face in prayer. One day the New Moon became miscalculated for her between a twenty-nine or thirty day month. Some say: a poor man came and stood at the gate, she brought out bread to him.
  She found R. Eliezer fallen in prayer and said, “Get up, you have killed my brother.” Meanwhile a ram’s horn blast went out from R. Gamliel’s house [to announce] that he died. [R. Eliezer] asked, “How did you know?” She said, “So I have received a tradition from the house of my father’s father: “All gates are closed but the gates of deception.”
  Our rabbis taught Someone who wrongs a convert [verbally] transgresses three prohibitions and someone who oppresses him transgresses two
  What is different about someone who wrongs a convert which three prohibitions are writte... "and you shall not wrong a convert;" "and if a convert lives with you in your land, you shall not wrong him;" "and a man shall not wrong his fellow," and a convert is included under "his fellow"? Also regarding someone who oppresses [a convert], three are written "nor shall you oppress him," "and you shall not oppress a convert;" and: "you shall not be to him as a creditor," and a convert is included rather, both this and that with three prohibitions.
  It was taught in a Baraisa: Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: For what reason does the Torah warn in thirty-six places, and some say in forty-six places, about a convert? Because his inclination is bad.
  What is that which is written: "And you shall not wrong a convert, nor shall you oppress him; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt"? Rabbi Nathan said When you have a fault, don't talk about it to your fellow. That is the reason people say: One who has someone who was hung in his [family] record, let him not say, "Hang me a fish [on the grill]."...
  Mishnah: We do not mix fruit (for sale), even if both are fresh
  
  Daf 60a
  
  Let alone fresh fruit with older (fruit)
  Truthfully it is sais When it comes to wine it is permitted to mix hard [high alcohol content] in soft [low alcohol content], because that is an improvement. We do not add dregs to wine, but when you give [sell] wine, it includes that wind's dregs.
  Whoever had water mixed with his wine may not sell it at a store without informing [the buyer] And not to a wholesaler even if he informed him, because [the wholesaler may] use it to cheat. Where it is the custom to mix water with wine [for sale] they can do so.
  The wholesaler may take from five barns into one, and from five wine presses into one barrel, as long as he doesn't try to mix [to mislead his customers].
   Gmara: Our rabbis taught
  
  Daf 60b
  
  
  
  Daf 61a
  
  
  
  Daf 61b
  
  
  
  Daf 62a
  
  
  
  Daf 62b
  
  
  
  Daf 63a
  
  
  
  Daf 63b
  
  
  
  Daf 64a
  
  
  
  Daf 64b
  
  
  
  Daf 65a
  
  
  
  Daf 65b
  
  
  
  Daf 66a
  
  
  
  Daf 66b
  
  
  
  Daf 67a
  
  
  
  Daf 67b
  
  
  
  Daf 68a
  
  
  
  Daf 68b
  
  
  
  Daf 69a
  
  
  
  Daf 69b
  
  
  
  Daf 70a
  
  
  
  Daf 70b
  
  
  
  Daf 71a
  
  
    
   (Exodus 22:24) "If you lend my people money, even the poor with you..." My people and strangers, my people have precedence, a poor person and a rich one, the poor have precedence.  Your poor and the poor of your city, your poor have precedence, the poor of your city and the poor of another city, the poor of your city have precedence.
  
  Daf 71b
  
  
  
  Daf 72a
  
  
  
  Daf 72b
  
  
  
  Daf 73a
  
  
  
  Daf 73b
  
  
  
  Daf 74a
  
  
  
  Daf 74b
  
  
  
  Daf 75a
  
  
  
  Daf 75b
  
    
        
    
    
   
    
     
   
   
    
           
    
      
  
  ...One who hires skilled laborers and they misled each other, they only have a complaint against each other. One who hired a donkey driver or a wagon driver to transport Chuppah poles or musical instruments for a wedding or a funeral, or laborers to remove flax from the soak, or any form of loss [if not done in a timely manner], and the laborers backed out, if there is no one [else to hire] he can hire at the laborers expense or mislead them.
  One who hires skilled laborers and they back out, they have the lower hand   
  
  Daf 76a
  
   
  [The Mishna] doesn't teach "they backed out" rather that they misled each other. [This means] that the laborers misled each other. What's the scenario? That the employer said to him go and hire laborers for me, and he went and misled them.
  What's the scenario?  If the employers said to him [he'd pay] four, and he went and told them [he'd pay] three, why can they have a complaint? They considered [the offer of three] and accepted it. If the employer siadto him [he'd pay] three and he went and told them [he'd pay] four, what's the case? If he told them "I will pay your wages", he gives them of his own.
  As we learned [in a Braita] One who hires a laborer to work for him but led him to someone else's field, he pays his entire wage.  Thereafter he can charge the property owner what he benefited. 
  Only this [teaching] is needed if he told them "the employer will pay your wages".
  Now, let us see what the going rate for labor is. Only, this is needed if some laborers get hired for four and some get hired for three. So they can say to him [the broker]: If you had not told us [he'd pay] four, we would have toiled to get hired for four [elsewhere].
  If you'd prefer we can say: Here we are dealing with a home owner and they say to him [the broker]. If you hadn't said [he'd pay] four it would be beneath us to be hired.
  If you'd prefer we can say: In fact we are dealing with laborers.  They say to him [the broker]: Since you said [he'd pay] four, we toiled and did a superior work. Now, let us see their work. [We're dealing with a case that they built] a ditch. A ditch can also be assessed.  [We're dealing with a case that] it filled with water and we cannot know [if they did superior work].
  If you'd prefer we can say: In fact the employer said [he'd pay] four and he went and told them [he'd pay] three. and what you said that they considered and accepted [the wage], yet they can say to him [the broker]: do you not follow[this verse]: "Do not withhold good from [its rightful] owner."?
  
  Daf 76b
  
     
     
     
  
    
   
    
   How does he mislead them? He says to them I stipulated a 'sela' for you, come and receive two. And up to how much may he hire (other workers) at their expense? Up to 40 or 50 zuz.
  In what case are those things said? When there are no other workers there to hire. But if there are workers there to hire and they said 'Go out and hire from those' he has nothing but resentment against them.
  
  Daf 77a
  
  
  
  Daf 77b
  
  
  
  Daf 78a
  
  
     
  "If someone hires an ass driver or a wagon driver etc.  he may hire workers on their expense or mislead them. Up to what cost m he hire at their expense? Rav Nachman said Up to their payment/wage
  Rava objected Rav Nachman 'Up to 40 or 50 zuz' He said to him When that was taught it was when the bundle had reached his hand.
  
  Daf 78b
  
  
  
  Daf 79a
  
  
  
  Daf 79b
  
  
  
  Daf 80a
  
  
  
  Daf 80b
  
  
  
  Daf 81a
  
  
  
  Daf 81b
  
  
  
  Daf 82a
  
  
  
  Daf 82b
  
  
  
  Daf 83a
  
  
  
  Daf 83b
  
  
  
  Daf 84a
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Die Gemara bezieht sich darauf: Eines Tages badete Rabbiner Jochanan im Jordan Fluss. Reisch Lakisch sah ihn, sprang in den Jordan und verfolgte ihn. Zu dieser Zeit war Reisch Lakisch der Anführer einer Bande von Plünderern. Rabbiner Jochanan sagte zu Reisch Lakisch: "Deine Kraft ist für das Tora-Studium geeignet". Reisch Lakisch sagte zu ihm: "Deine Schönheit ist für Frauen geeignet." Rabbiner Jochanan sagte zu ihm: "Wenn du zur Verfolgung der Tora zurückkehrst, werde ich dir meine Schwester zur Frau geben, die schöner ist als ich. Reisch Lakisch akzeptierte, die Tora zu studieren. Danach wollte Reisch Lakisch wieder aus dem Fluss springen, um seine Kleider zurückzubringen, aber er konnte nicht zurückkehren, da er seine körperliche Kraft verloren hatte, als er die Verantwortung für das Tora-Studium auf sich genommen hatte.
  
  Daf 84b
  
  
  
  Daf 85a
  
  
  
  Daf 85b
  
     
       
    
      
  Whenever Rabbi Hanina and Rabbi Hiyya were in a dispute, Rabbi Hanina said to Rabbi Hiyya:  'Would you dispute with me?  If, Heaven forfend! the Torah were forgotten in Israel, I would restore it by my argumentative powers.'  To which Rabbi Hiyya rejoined:  'Would you dispute with me,  who achieved that the Torah should not be forgotten in Israel? 
  What did I do? I went and sowed flax, made nets [from the flax cords], trapped deer, whose flesh I gave to orphans, and prepared scrolls [from their skins], upon which I wrote the Five Books [of Torah]. Then I went to a town [where there were no teachers] and taught the Five Books to five children, and the six orders [of the Mishnah] to six children. And I bade them:  "Until I return, teach each other the Pentateuch and the Mishnah;" and thus I preserved the Torah from being forgotten in Israel.' 
  This is what Rabbi [Yehuda haNasi meant when he] said,  'How great are the works of Hiyya!'
  
  Daf 86a
  
  
  
  Daf 86b
  
      
      
         
  
        
     
      
     
      
         
    
  
   
  
   
    
      
      
  But on seeing him tying and untying [the bandages of his circumcision], He said,  'It is not well that I stand here'; hence it is written, "And he lifted up his eyes and looked, and lo, three men stood by him, and when he saw them, he ran to meet them." (Genesis 18:2) At first they came and stood over him, but when they saw him in pain, they said, 'It is not seemly to stand here.'
  Who were the three men? — Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael. Michael came to bring the tidings to Sarah [of Isaac's birth]; Raphael, to heal Abraham; and Gabriel, to overturn Sodom. But is it not written, "And there came the two angels to Sodom at even?" (Genesis 19:1) Michael accompanied him to rescue Lot. Scripture supports this too, for it is written, "And he overthrew those cities," (Genesis 19:25) not, "and they overthrew": this proves it.
  
  Daf 87a
  
  
  
  Daf 87b
  
  
  
  Daf 88a
  
  
  
  Daf 88b
  
  
  
  Daf 89a
  
  
  
  Daf 89b
  
  
  
  Daf 90a
  
  
  
  Daf 90b
  
  
  
  Daf 91a
  
     
       
   
      
   
  Rabbi Papa said
  
  Daf 91b
  
  
  
  Daf 92a
  
  
  
  Daf 92b
  
  
  
  Daf 93a
  
  
  
  Daf 93b
  
  
  
  Daf 94a
  
  
  
  Daf 94b
  
  
  
  Daf 95a
  
  
  
  Daf 95b
  
  
  
  Daf 96a
  
  
  
  Daf 96b
  
  
  
  Daf 97a
  
  
  
  Daf 97b
  
  
  
  Daf 98a
  
  
  
  Daf 98b
  
  
  
  Daf 99a
  
  
  
  Daf 99b
  
  
  
  Daf 100a
  
  
  
  Daf 100b
  
  
  
  Daf 101a
  
  
  
  Daf 101b
  
  
  
  Daf 102a
  
  
  
  Daf 102b
  
  
  
  Daf 103a
  
  
  
  Daf 103b
  
  
  
  Daf 104a
  
  
   
       
      
     
    Hillel the Elder made an exegesis of the ordinary language [of legal documents and not merely of the text of the Torah].
  
  Daf 104b
  
  
  
  Daf 105a
  
  
  
  Daf 105b
  
  
  
  Daf 106a
  
  
  
  Daf 106b
  
  
  
  Daf 107a
  
  
  
  Daf 107b
  
  
  
  Daf 108a
  
  
  
  Daf 108b
  
  
  
  Daf 109a
  
  
  
  Daf 109b
  
  
  
  Daf 110a
  
  
  
  Daf 110b
  
  
  
  Daf 111a
  
  
  
  Daf 111b
  
  
  
  Daf 112a
  
  
  
  Daf 112b
  
  
  
  Daf 113a
  
  
  
  Daf 113b
  
  
  
  Daf 114a
  
  
    
    
    
    
    
   
  [Necessary items that have been seized by the Beis Hamikdash because of an outstanding vow of Erchin] ought to be returned when needed, kal vachomer from one who owes money to one's fellow: If one who owes money, the court does not seize their property, but [if he gave a collateral] it must be returned when needed, how much more so in the case of Hekdesh, which does seize property. [But]the verse states; "he (the debtor) shall sleep in his robe (which was a collateral, to be returned each night) and he will bless you" - this does not include Hekdesh, which does not need a brachah
  Does [Hekdesh] not need a brachah? for the verse (Deut. 8:1) states: "you shall eat, and be satiated, and bless the Lord your God..." rather, the verse (Deut. 24:13) continues "and to you it shall be counted as charity"- referring to one who needs [the merit of giving] charity this does not include Hekdesh, which does not require [the merit of giving] charity.