בבא מציעא 99:2 — Soncino English Talmud

real estate is acquired by means of money, a deed, or hazakah, so is hiring effected by the same means. But what has hiring to do [with these]? — R. Hisda said: It refers to the renting of real estate. Samuel said: If a man robbed his neighbour of a cake of pressed dates containing fifty dates, which, sold together, bring fifty [perutahs] less one; whilst, sold separately, realise fifty perutahs, — in the case of secular property, he must repay forty nine [perutahs]; in the case of hekdesh he must pay fifty, plus the fifth thereof. This, however, is not so in the case of one who injures [property belonging to] hekdesh, for such a one does not add a fifth. For a Master stated: And if a man eat of the holy thing [unwittingly, then he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it etc.]: this excludes one who injures [the holy thing]. To this R. Bibi b. Abaye demurred: In the case of secular property, why must he pay [only] fifty less one? Can he not say, 'I would have sold them singly'? — R. Huna the son of R. Joshua replied: We learnt, The area of a se'ah in that field is assessed. Shall we say that in Samuel's opinion the law appertaining to secular property is not the same as that of the [Most] High? But we learnt: If he [the steward in charge of the sanctuary] took a stone or beam of hekdesh, he is not guilty of trespass. If he gave it to his neighbour, he [the steward] is guilty of trespass, but not the latter. If he built it into his house, he is not liable for trespass unless he dwells in [and enjoys the use of] it to the value of a perutah. Now, R. Abbahu sat before R. Johanan and said in Samuel's name: This proves that if a man dwells in his neighbour's courtyard without his permission, he must pay him rent! — Did not R. Johanan observe to him, Samuel retracted from that [inference]? But how do you know that he retracted from the latter; perhaps he retracted from the former? — No: [he must have retracted from the latter,] in accordance with Raba's dictum; for Raba said: Hekdesh without [its owner's] knowledge is as secular property with [its owner's] knowledge. Raba said: If carriers broke a shopkeeper's barrel of wine, which on a market day is sold for five [zuz], but on other days for four, if they make a return on the market day, they return a barrel of wine; but if on other days, they must return five [zuz]. That, however, holds good only if he had no [other] wine for sale; but if he had [some left after the market], then he should have sold that. And they deduct the payment for his trouble and the value of the tapping. ^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ

^ᵃnote:V. Glos.
^ᵇnote:It was assumed that it refers to the hiring of movable property, in respect of which money, etc., does not effect possession.
^ᶜnote:Lit., 'hiring.'
^ᵈnote:Lit., 'to an ordinary man.'
^ᵉnote:V. Glos. I.e., if he stole them from the sanctuary.
^ᶠnote:Lev. XXII, 14.
^ᵍnote:V. Glos.
^ʰnote:v. B.K. 55b. If an animal enters a field and eats part of the crops, the value of the crops themselves are not assessed for the purpose of damages, but the decrease in the sale value of the se'ah area in which the damage was done, — an assessment which is obviously less than the former. This shews that in respect to repayment a lenient attitude is taken, and the same applies here.
^ⁱnote:I.e., hekdesh.
^ʲnote:Intending to put it to secular use.
^ᵏnote:The steward is guilty of having removed it from the possession of hekdesh; for which very reason his neighbour is not guilty, since it is no longer hekdesh. Cf. p. 566, n. 5.
^ˡnote:Me'ii. 19b; v. B.K. 20b.
^ᵐnote:Just as one is guilty of trespass in living under that beam, though the beam is so built in as to leave it unaltered, which shews that there is a debt due to hekdesh for this. Now, this inference of Samuel proves that he regards hekdesh and secular property on a par.
^ⁿnote:[This is the reading of BaH; cur. edd.: 'R. Johanan said to him,' which Rashi omits; cf. B.K. 20b.]
^ᵒnote:I.e., the law of stealing dates.
^ᵖnote:Var. lec.: Rabbah's.
^ᵠnote:I.e., if one makes use of hekdesh, even if the steward is ignorant thereof, he is just as liable as when one makes use of secular property and its owner knows and demands repayment. The reason is that the real owner of hekdesh is God, Who always knows. This proves that the two are not equal, and therefore Samuel is more likely to have retracted from the latter.
^ʳnote:After the market day.
^ˢnote:But he can refuse a barrel of wine, since he could have obtained a higher price on market day.
^ᵗnote:The cost of making a bung hole for the wine to be drawn. According to another reading, the crier's fee, who announced that he had wine for sale, v. supra 40b.