Bava Metzia

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.