Bava Metzia

viz., that even less than the standard of overreaching [a sixth] is returnable. An objection is raised: [The prohibitions of] usury and overreaching apply to a layman, but not to hekdesh? — Is this then stronger than our Mishnah, which we interpreted as referring to the provisions of overreaching! So here too, [the prohibition of] usury and the provisions of overreaching apply to a layman, but not hekdesh.  If so, how can the second clause state, In this respect the case of a layman is more stringent than that of hekdesh?  — That refers to usury. Then it should also teach: In this respect the case of hekdesh is more stringent than that of a layman, viz., overreaching? — How compare? As for saying, 'In this respect the case of a layman is more stringent than that of hekdesh,' it is well, for there are no other [instances].  But [with respect to] hekdesh: is this [the only] stringency, and are there not others? How is usury by hekdesh possible? Shall we say that the treasurer [of hekdesh] lent one hundred zuz for one hundred and twenty? But he thereby committed a trespass,  and that being so, the money passes out into hullin and is a layman's!  — Said R. Hoshaia: What is meant here is, e.g., if one [a layman] contracted to supply flour  at four se'ahs per sela', whilst it subsequently stood at three se'ahs per sela']. As we learnt: If one contracts to supply flour at four [se'ahs per sela'], and it [subsequently] stood at three, he must supply it at four; at three, and it [subsequently] stood at four, he must supply it at four, because hekdesh [always] has the upper hand.  R. papa said: This refers to bricks for building entrusted to the treasurer, in accordance with Samuel's dictum. For Samuel said: We build with unconsecrated material, and then consecrate it. NEITHER THERE IS DOUBLE REPAYMENT etc. Whence do we know this? — For our Rabbis taught: For all manners of trespass  — this is a general proposition: for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment  — this is a specialization; for every manner of lost thing which another challengeth [etc.]  — this is another general proposition. Now, in a general proposition followed by a specialization followed again by a general proposition, you must be guided by the specialization alone: just as the specialization is clearly defined as a movable article which is intrinsically valuable, so everything movable which is intrinsically valuable [is included]; thus real estate is excluded, not being movable; slaves are excluded, being assimilated to real estate;  bills [too] are excluded, for though movables, they are not Intrinsically valuable. As for sacred objects, Scripture saith, [he shall pay double to] his neighbour: his neighbour, but not [to] hekdesh. NOR FOURFOLD OR FIVEFOLD REPAYMENT etc. Why so? — The Divine Law decreed fourfold and fivefold, not threefold and fourfold repayment. [FURTHERMORE] A GRATUITOUS BAILEE DOES NOT SWEAR etc. How do we know this? — For our Rabbis taught: If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour — this is a general proposition;  money or stuff — that is a specialization; and it be stolen out of the man's house  is again a general statement: now in a general proposition followed by a specialization and again by a general proposition you must be guided by the peculiarities of the specialization. Just as the specialization is clearly defined as something movable and of value in itself, so everything movable and intrinsically valuable [is included]. Thus real estate is excluded, not being movable; slaves are excluded, being assimilated to real estate; bills [too] are excluded, for though movables, they are not intrinsically valuable. As for sacred objects, Scripture writes, [and if a man shall deliver unto] his neighbour,  but not hekdesh. NOR DOES A PAID BAILEE MAKE IT GOOD [etc.]. How do we know this? — For our Rabbis taught: If a man deliver unto his neighbour  — that is a general proposition; an ass, or an ox, or a sheep — that is a specialization; or any beast to keep — that is again a general proposition. Now, in a general proposition followed by a specialization followed again by a general proposition you must be guided solely by the specialization. Just as the specialization is clearly defined as a movable article which is intrinsically valuable, so everything movable which is intrinsically valuable [is included]. Thus real estate is excluded, not being movable; slaves are excluded, being assimilated to real estate; bills [too] are excluded, for though movables, they are not intrinsically valuable. As for sacred objects, Scripture saith, [If a man deliver unto] his neighbour; 'his neighbour', but not hekdesh. [FURTHERMORE,] A GRATUITOUS BAILEE DOES NOT SWEAR etc. But the following contradicts this: If townspeople sent their shekels  and they were stolen or lost,  — if [this happened] after the separation of the funds,