Talmud do Szewuot 6:7
הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן וְאָבַד הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן, אָמַר לוֹ סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו וְשֶׁקֶל הָיָה שָׁוֶה, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו וְסֶלַע הָיָה שָׁוֶה, פָּטוּר. סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו וְשֶׁקֶל הָיָה שָׁוֶה, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו וּשְׁלשָׁה דִינָרִים הָיָה שָׁוֶה, חַיָּב. סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו וּשְׁתַּיִם הָיָה שָׁוֶה, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו וְסֶלַע הָיָה שָׁוֶה, פָּטוּר. סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו וּשְׁתַּיִם הָיָה שָׁוֶה, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו וַחֲמִשָּׁה דִינָרִים הָיָה שָׁוֶה, חַיָּב. וּמִי נִשְׁבָּע, מִי שֶׁהַפִּקָּדוֹן אֶצְלוֹ, שֶׁמָּא יִשָּׁבַע זֶה וְיוֹצִיא הַלָּה אֶת הַפִּקָּדוֹן:
Ten, który pożyczył swojemu drugiemu pod zastaw, a on stracił zabezpieczenie, i powiedział do niego: Pożyczyłem ci na nią sela [srebrną monetę], a była ona warta jednego szekla [pół sela ], a ten jeden mówi, nie, pożyczyłeś mi sela na to, i to było warte sela , on jest zwolniony. Pożyczyłem ci sela , a to było warte jednego szekla , a ten mówi: nie, pożyczyłeś mi sela , a był wart trzech dinarimów [trzy czwarte sela ], on jest odpowiedzialny. Pożyczyłem ci sela , a był wart dwa, a ten mówi: nie, pożyczyłeś mi sela , i to było warte sela , jest zwolniony. Pożyczyłem ci sela , a był wart dwa, a ten mówi: nie, pożyczyłeś mi na to sela , i był wart pięciu dinarimów , jest odpowiedzialny. A kto przysięga? Ten, w którego posiadaniu jest depozyt, aby on [pożyczkobiorca] nie przysiągł, a ten [pożyczkodawca] wyjmie [przedstawi] depozyt.
Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim
“If the people of a city sent their sheqalim and these were stolen or lost.” 15Since ג and the Babli version M confirm the text of the original scribe, the corrector’s additions have to be considered as a conflation with the text of B. Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, since Rebbi Simeon said, sancta for whose alienation he is responsible are like his own property16Mishnah Ševuot6:7 (Note 97). The majority opinion is that there can be no (biblical) oath for sancta; so it seems that for them the carriers of the sheqalim could not swear.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion, because of an instituted oath17In his opinion the Mishnah Ševuot is irrelevant here. The oath is not biblical, and it is not a question whether the sheqalim are sancta or not; the oath is the general rabbinic oath imposed on all persons who cannot be forced to pay damages and on whom no biblical oath can be imposed.. Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion is understandable; “they have to swear to the city dwellers who have to replace them by new sheqalim.” Is that Rebbi Simeon’s? Even though the city dwellers agreed to pay, Temple property cannot be released without an oath18Even if the city dwellers believe the trustees and do not require an oath that they are innocent of the loss, it is a rabbinic requirement that the Temple trustees insist on such an oath..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma
New paragraph. “Properties not subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta.84,Missing here: “Properties not subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta,” i. e., the laws of restitution only apply to profane objects.107The laws of torts are “between a man and his neighbor,” which exludes all Temple property and those sacrifices which do not remain the owner’s property.” As it was stated: “These properties108Since this baraita is not quoted elsewhere, it is not known what “these properties” are. Some commentators want to read הַנְּכָסִים שֶּׁחִלְּלוֹ “properties which he redeemed” (from the Temple administrator). This is very farfetched. are acquired together with properties subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta109Since the Temple acquires and sells property by monetary transaction without any other act of acquisition (Qiddušin 1:6), other property can be acquired together with Temple property under the same rules. For example, if the Temple treasurer sold some Temple property together with his own, the entire transaction is legal if done under Temple rules. Similarly, if a person acquires two animals, one dedicated as “Heaven’s property” (elevation, purification, or reparation offering) subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta, the other as “simple sacrifice” (well-being sacrifice) which remains private property, the holier sacrifice determines the rules..” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: This110He disagrees with the interpretation given and holds that the Mishnah means what it says; only sacrificial animals not under the laws of misappropriation of sancta are subject to the laws of torts. follows Rebbi Yose the Galilean, as it was stated111Sifra Wayyiqra Dibbura Deḥoba Pereq 22(3); Babli Bava qama 12b–13a, Temurah 8a; a related text in Tosephta 7:21. Partial quotes in Bava batra123b, Qiddušin 52b, Sanhedrin 112a, Zebaḥim 114a, Bekhorot 53b.: “ ‘He commits larceny before the Eternal112Lev. 5:21.,’ Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, this includes simple sancta113In the Babli: “Simple sancta which are his property.” The question raised is the status of firstlings and animal tithe, which are Heaven’s property in the hands of the rancher. Since Lev. 5:21 reads: “If a person sins, commits fraud against the Eternal, and lies against his fellow …” it perfectly describes wrongdoing involving simple sancta which in one action represents wrong both against the Eternal and one’s fellow man.. Ben Azzai says, this includes well-being sacrifices114And all sacrifices following rules of well-being sacrifices, firstlings, and animal tithe. The firstling has to be given to a Cohen, the animal tithe is eaten by the rancher and his family in Jerusalem; in both cases the altar only receives the blood but no part of the meat.. Abba Yose ben Dosai125Since this statement is already implied by the preceding one. says, Ben Azzai said this only for the firstling116Animal tithes..” What is between them? He who says well-being sacrifices certainly include tithes117It seems that in the entire argument one should read “tithes” instead of “firstling” and vice versa. While the unblemished firstling at some time has to be handed over to a Cohen, as long as it is in the rancher’s hand it is his property and can be sold; but the unblemished animal tithe by its count becomes Heaven’s property and cannot be sold. The blemished firstling may be sold as food.. But he who says tithes117It seems that in the entire argument one should read “tithes” instead of “firstling” and vice versa. While the unblemished firstling at some time has to be handed over to a Cohen, as long as it is in the rancher’s hand it is his property and can be sold; but the unblemished animal tithe by its count becomes Heaven’s property and cannot be sold. The blemished firstling may be sold as food. excludes the firstling117It seems that in the entire argument one should read “tithes” instead of “firstling” and vice versa. While the unblemished firstling at some time has to be handed over to a Cohen, as long as it is in the rancher’s hand it is his property and can be sold; but the unblemished animal tithe by its count becomes Heaven’s property and cannot be sold. The blemished firstling may be sold as food.. “Rebbi Simeon says, both most holy and simple sancta; about any sancta for which he is responsible if alienated118If a person vows “an animal” as sacrifice and anything happens to the animal designated as sacrifice, he is obligated to provide a replacement; he is responsible for its alienation. But if he vows “this animal” and anything happens to it, he is not obligated to provide a replacement; he is not responsible for its alienation. In Lev., the first kind of vow is called נֶדֶר “vow”, the second kind is נְדָבָה “free offering”., I am reading ‘against his neighbor and he lied112Lev. 5:21.’; but about any sancta for which he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading ‘against the Eternal and he lied’ ”119An anonymous baraita in the Babli, Bava meṣi‘a 58a/b. Debts towards Heaven have to be discharged at the rate of 125%; those towards one’s fellow man by the rate of 100%.. Rav Huna said, both qualified and disqualified sancta120Which for some reason are not accepted by the altar., if he is responsible if alienated, even if they are for the Eternal121Most holy sacrifices which either are holocausts on the altar or whose meat is eaten by male Cohanim within the Temple precinct., I am reading “against his fellow and he denied”, but if he is not responsible if alienated122Even for well-being sacrifices, most of which is eaten by the donor’s family., I am reading “against the Eternal and he lied” but not “against his fellow and he lied”.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy