Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Mezi'a

Baba Mezi'a 52a

EIGHT PUNDIONS, WHICH IS TWO PUNDIONS PER DENAR.¹  UNTIL WHAT TIME IS HE [THE DEFRAUDED PARTY] PERMITTED²  TO RETRACT? IN TOWNS, UNTIL HE CAN SHEW [THE COINS] TO A MONEY-CHANGER; IN VILLAGES,³  UNTIL [THE FOLLOWING] SABBATH EVE.⁴  IF HE RECOGNISED IT, HE MUST ACCEPT IT BACK FROM HIM EVEN AFTER A TWELVE MONTH; AND HE HAS NOTHING BUT RESENTMENT AGAINST HIM.⁵  AND ONE MAY REDEEM⁶  THE SECOND TITHE THEREWITH AND HAVE NO FEAR,⁷  BECAUSE IT IS MERE CHURLISHNESS.⁸

GEMARA. Now, the following is opposed [to the Mishnah]: To what extent is the sela' to be deficient to involve overreaching?⁹  — Said R. Papa. There is no difficulty: Our Tanna reckons in an ascending fashion,¹⁰  whilst the Tanna of the Baraitha reckons in a descending fashion.¹¹  Wherein do a sela' and a garment differ, that there is a dispute on the former but not the latter?¹²  — Said Raba: Which Tanna is the authority for [one-sixth in the case of] a garment? R. Simeon.¹³  Abaye said: In the case of a garment, one forgives [overreaching] up to a sixth, because people say, 'overpay for your back, but [give] only the exact worth for your stomach.'¹⁴  But as for a sela', since it does not [readily] circulate,¹⁵  one does not forgive [a deficiency].

[To turn] to the main text: To what extent is the sela' to be deficient to involve overreaching? R. Meir said, Four issars, which is one issur per denar; R. Judah said: Four pundions, which is one pundion per denar; R. Simeon said: Eight pundions, which is two pundions per denar. Above that, it may be sold at its [intrinsic] worth — By how much may it depreciate that it shall still be permissible to keep it? In the case of a sela', [it can depreciate] as far as a shekel;¹⁶  in the case of a denar, as far as a quarter.¹⁷  If it is an issar less, it is forbidden.¹⁸  One may not sell it to a merchant, highwayman, or murderer,¹⁹  because they cheat others with it, but should pierce and suspend it around the neck of his son or daughter.²⁰

The Master said: 'In the case of a sela', as far as a shekel; in the case of a denar, as far as a quarter.' Wherein does a sela' differ from a denar, that [the permitted deficiency of] a sela' is [only] as far as a shekel [i.e., half its value], whereas [that of] a denar is 'as far as a quarter? — Said Abaye: What is meant by 'a quarter?' A quarter shekel.²¹  Said Raba: This may be proved too, since he [the Tanna] teaches. 'as far as a quarter',²²  and not a fourth part;²³  this proves it. But why should the denar be correlated to the shekel?²⁴  — He [the Tanna] thereby incidentally informs us that there is a kind of denar which is derived from a shekel.²⁵  This supports R. Ammi. For R. Ammi said: A denar which is derived from a shekel may be kept; from a sela', it may not be kept.²⁶

'If it is an issar less, it is forbidden.' What does this mean? — Abaye said, It means this: if the sela' depreciated by an issar more than the standard for overreaching,²⁷  it may not be [expended].²⁸  Raba demurred: If so, even [if the depreciation exceeds it but] slightly, it is likewise so!²⁹  But, said Raba, if the sela' depreciated an issar to the denar, it is forbidden [to offer it as a sela'], this anonymous ruling agreeing with R. Meir.

We learnt elsewhere: If a sela' became unfit,³⁰  and it was prepared³¹  for use as a weight, it is [liable to become] unclean.³²  How much may it depreciate that it shall still be permissible to keep it? In the case of a sela', up to two denarii.³³  [When it is worth] less than this, it must be cut up.³⁴  What if [it is worth] more than this? R. Huna said: if worth less, it must be cut up, and if worth more than this, it must [also] be cut up.³⁵  R. Ammi said: If worth less, it must be cut up; but if worth more than this, it may be kept [as it is].

An objection is raised:

1. I.e., 1/6; thus R. Simeon assimilates this to overreaching in general.
2. V. P. 295, n. 11.
3. Which contain no money-changers.
4. When he goes shopping for the Sabbath, and so learns their value.
5. This is discussed in the Gemara.
6. Lit., 'give it for'.
7. Of invalid redemption.
8. To refuse a coin as unfit on account of a slight depreciation.
9. And the Baraitha then gives the same figures as in the Mishnah, which shews that these cases do constitute overreaching.
10. Thus the Mishnah states, How far can it go on increasing its deficiency without involving overreaching? Until four issars etc., but when that point is reached, overreaching is involved. Whilst the Baraitha means, How far can the deficiency of a sela' go on decreasing and still involve overreaching? Until four issars etc. Hence, in the Mishnah 'until' is exclusive, whereas in the Baraitha it is inclusive.
11. Lit., 'from bottom to top.'
12. In the case of goods, here expressed by 'a garment', all agree (with the exception of R. Tarfon) that one-sixth constitutes overreaching, whereas the percentage for money is disputed.
13. Who gives one-sixth for money too. Though the Mishnah on 49b states one-sixth as a general opinion, it is actually only R. Simeon's view.
14. If one needs a garment, he should even overpay for it, clothing being virtually necessary to uphold one's dignity. For food, however, one should not pay more than its worth.
15. When it becomes very deficient — the exact percentage of deficiency needed to impede circulation is disputed in the Mishnah.
16. A shekel is half a sela'. Now, as the sela' depreciates, there is no fear that it may be passed off as a full sela', because its decreased thickness is obvious. But when it is reduced to less than a shekel, there is the danger that it may be passed off as a shekel, the extent of the depreciation not being so noticeable in view of the larger size in width which it would still retain as a depreciated sela', and which would appear to compensate for its reduction in thickness. (The size of the sela' was larger than that of the shekel, both in width and thickness.) Therefore it may not be kept at all. The Baraitha states further on what is to be done with it.
17. A quarter denar was a separate coin, and the depreciated denar might likewise be passed off as a quarter.
18. This is discussed infra.
19. A robber who is prepared to commit murder.
20. Tosef. B. M. III.
21. Which is half a denar.
22. [H], the specific name of a coin, value a quarter shekel.
23. [H]
24. In speaking of a denar, why not say half a denar instead of a quarter of a shekel?
25. I.e., if the shekel becomes deficient to half its value, it is legal tender for a denar.
26. Because owing to its large size it may be passed off as a shekel.
27. According to the respective opinions stated in the Mishnah.
28. As a sela'.
29. Since the limit of overreaching is passed, no matter by how little, it may surely not be offered as a full weight sela'.
30. To be used as such, owing to its depreciation.
31. By mutilation, so that it could not pass as an ordinary coin.
32. As a coin, it is not subject to uncleanliness; but when employed as a weight, it is regarded as any other article of use, which is liable to become unclean.
33. =a shekel, as stated above.
34. As it might be passed off as a shekel, Kel. XII, 7.
35. I.e., once it depreciates so much that overreaching is involved, even if its value exceeds a shekel, it must be mutilated, so that it shall not be offered as a sela'.

Above that,it may be sold at its [intrinsic] worth.¹  Surely that means that it depreciated by more than the limit for overreaching?²  — No; 'above that' [means it is worth more] not yet having depreciated to an extent involving overreaching: then it may be sold at its intrinsic value.

An objection is raised: By how much may it depreciate that it shall still be permissible to keep it? In the case of a sela', [it can depreciate] as far as a shekel. Surely that means that it depreciated little by little?³  — No; it means that it fell into a fire and so lost in value all at once.

The Master said: 'He should pierce and suspend it around the neck of his son or daughter.' But the following contradicts it: One must not employ it⁴  as a weight,⁵  cast it amongst his scrap-metal nor pierce and suspend it around the neck of his son or daughter; but must either pound it [to dust], melt it down, mutilate or cast it into the salt sea! — Said R. Eleazar — others state, R. Huna in R. Eleazar's name: There is no difficulty; the former refers to the middle [of the coins], the latter to its edge.⁶

UNTIL WHAT TIME IS HE [THE DEFRAUDED PARTY] PERMITTED TO RETRACT? IN TOWNS, UNTIL HE CAN SHEW [THE COINS] TO A MONEY-CHANGER; IN VILLAGES, UNTIL [THE FOLLOWING] SABBATH EVE. Why is a distinction [between towns and villages] made in respect to a sela' but not to a garment? — Abaye answered: Our Mishnah too, when it treats of a garment, refers to towns — Raba said: As for a garment, everyone has expert knowledge therein;⁷  whereas in regard to a sela', since not every man can value it save a money-changer alone, it follows that in towns, where a money-changer is available, [he can retract] only until he shews it to a money-changer; whereas in villages, where none is available, [the period is] until Sabbath eve, when they [the villagers] go up to market.⁸

IF HE RECOGNISED IT, HE MUST ACCEPT IT BACK FROM HIM EVEN AFTER A TWELVEMONTH etc. Where [is this]? If in towns? But you have said, UNTIL HE CAN SHEW [THE COINS] TO A MONEY-CHANGER! Again, if in villages? But you have said, UNTIL [THE FOLLOWING] SABBATH EVE! — Said R. Hisda: Here a measure of piety was taught.⁹  If so, consider the second clause: AND HE HAS NOTHING BUT RESENTMENT AGAINST HIM. To whom does this refer? If to the pious man,¹⁰  let him neither accept it nor bear resentment against him!¹¹  But if to the one from whom he accepted it, then after having had it accepted from him, should he bear resentment? — It means thus: but as for another person,¹²  even if he does not re-accept it from him, he [to whom it was given as a full coin] HAS NOTHING BUT RESENTMENT AGAINST HIM.

AND ONE MAY REDEEM THE SECOND TITHE THEREWITH AND HAVE NO FEAR, BECAUSE IT IS MERE CHURLISHNESS. R. Papa said: This proves that he who is exacting in respect to coins¹³  is dubbed a churl;¹⁴  providing, however, that they [still] circulate.

This [the Mishnah] supports Hezekiah, for Hezekiah said: When he comes to exchange it, he must exchange it as its intrinsic value; if he comes to redeem therewith, he estimates it at a proper [coin].¹⁵  What does he mean?¹⁶ — He means this: Though when he comes to exchange it, he exchanges it at its present value,¹⁷  yet when he redeems [second tithe] therewith, he may estimate it as a good [coin].¹⁸  Shall we say that Hezekiah holds that the second tithe may be treated disparagingly?¹⁹  But did not Hezekiah say: With respect to second tithe [produce] worth less than a perutah, one may declare, 'It, together with its fifth,²⁰  is redeemed with the first money [of redemption];'²¹  because it is impossible for a person to calculate his money exactly!²²  — What is meant by 'a proper [coin]'? On the basis of the proper value [of the coin], because it [the second tithe] may not be lightly treated in two respects.²³

The [above] text stated: 'Hezekiah said: With respect to second tithe [produce] worth less than a perutah, one may declare, "It, together with its fifth, is redeemed by the first money [of redemption];" because it is impossible for a person to calculate his money exactly.' An objection is raised: For terumah and the first fruits²⁴  one is liable to death and [the addition of] a fifth;²⁵

1. Quoted from the Baraitha cited supra.
2. Which proves that it may be kept.
3. In which case it passes the standard of overreaching long before it drops to a shekel, thus refuting R. Huna.
4. Sc. the worn coin which may no longer be kept owing to its deficient value.
5. Lit., 'must not make it a weight amongst his (other) weights.'
6. When the coin is pierced in the middle, it cannot be circulated; hence this is permissible. But if it is pierced at the edge, one may file it round until the hole is gone and then use it as a coin: hence it is forbidden.
7. Therefore even in a village one can readily find a person to value it.
8. In the town.
9. I.e., though he is not legally bound to take it back, yet as a measure of piety he should do so.
10. I.e., who does not insist upon the letter of the law, but is guided by piety.
11. v.p. 437, n. 1.
12. One who insists upon his legal right not to take it back.
13. Refusing to accept them even if slightly worn.
14. Lit., 'a malevolent soul.'
15. If one exchanges a worn sela' for perutahs, he must estimate it at its metallic, intrinsic value. If, however, he redeems second tithe produce with such coins, he gives the coins their nominal value, as though unworn.
16. 'When he comes…intrinsic value:' but surely that is already stated in the Mishnah, that, when a coin depreciates to the extent that overreaching is involved, it may not be passed off at full value!
17. When coming to change a sela', which has depreciated, though not to the extent involving overreaching with which the second tithe was redeemed, into perutahs in Jerusalem, he naturally receives from money-changers perutahs only for its depreciated value (cf. Tosaf.).
18. Thus Hezekiah informs us that when the Mishnah states that the second tithe may be redeemed therewith, it means that the coin is reckoned at its full nominal value, because to be exacting in regard to coins that are slightly worn is a mark of churlishness.
19. As above, estimating the deficient sela' at its full value, thus minimising that of the second tithe.
20. V. p. 272, n. 9.
21. I.e., money which has already been used in redeeming other second tithe produce.
22. When one redeems the second tithe, he does not calculate its exact value, lest he underestimate it, and so redeems it at slightly more than its true worth. This slight excess may now be regarded as the redemption money of second tithe produce worth less than a Perutah, the smallest possible coin. This proves that in the first place it is liberally calculated, which contradicts his former statement that even deficient coins may be reckoned at their full value for this purpose.
23. The defective coin is computed only at the proper value it possesses now, i.e., not only is full allowance made for its deficiency, but its valuation is slightly lowered even beyond that, so as to make quite certain that it does possess the value attributed to it. On this interpretation, Hezekiah asserts that we are stricter in respect to the redemption of the second tithe than in ordinary secular transactions. And the reason is, 'because it may not be lightly treated in two respects' — for the mere fact that it may be redeemed with a defective coin, which some might refuse as a coin at all, is considered a light treatment of the second tithe; we may certainly not subject it to the further indignity, as it were, of computing the value of this coin in a liberal spirit (Rashi). The statement in the Mishnah that the second tithe can be redeemed with it means, accordingly, 'at its present intrinsic value,' for to refuse to accept it thus is a mark of churlishness.
24. V. Num. XXVIII. 26; Deut. XXVI, 1-4.
25. If a zar (q.v. Glos.) or an unclean priest wantonly eats them, he is liable to 'death at the hands of Heaven'; whilst If a zar eats them in ignorance of their true character, he must make restoration, adding a fifth to their value (Lev. XXII, 14). These laws were stated primarily with respect to terumah, but by Biblical exegesis they were extended to the first fruits too.