Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Ami asked whether the four things in our Mishnah which are not subject to Ona'ah, are subject to Bitul Mekach. If they are - this means that if the excess charge amounts to more than a sixth, the sale will be void.

(b) The reason for saying that they are, is because they are not included in "Al Tonu", the Pasuk which precludes them (but fall under the independent category of Mekach Ta'us). On the other hand, they might they be not - because seeing as it is neither a case of Davar she'be'Minyan, nor did the one deliberately mislead the other, Bitul Mekach is merely an extension of Ona'ah.

(c) Rav Nachman, quoting Rav Chasa, informs us that Rav Ami himself later resolved the She'eilah. He decided - 'Ona'ah Ein Lahem, Bitul Mekach Yesh Lahem'.

(a) Rebbi Yonah quoting Rebbi Yochanan says 'Ona'ah Ein Lahem, Bitul Mekach Yesh Lahem' with regard to Hekdesh. Rebbi Yirmiyah quoting Rebbi Yochanan, says it - with regard to Karka.

(b) We say that ...

1. ... Rebbi Yonah certainly agrees with Rebbi Yirmiyah - because if Bitul Mekach applies to Hekdesh, which is not subject to error, then it will certainly apply to a Hedyot, who is.
2. ... Rebbi Yirmiyah will not agree with Rebbi Yonah - because he only says it ('Bitul Mekach Yesh Lahem') by a Hedyot, but not by Hekdesh, on account of Shmuel, who said 'Hekdesh Shaveh Manah she'Chilelo al Shaveh P'rutah, Mechulal'.

(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah's opinion is based on Shmuel, who said 'Hekdesh Shaveh Manah she'Chilelo al Shaveh P'rutah, Mechulal'. Shmuel's reason is - because, firstly, Hekdesh is not subject to Ona'ah, and secondly, Ta'us does not apply either, because who will have erred?

(a) The Mishnah in Temurah say about someone who declares on a blemished Hekdesh animal 'Harei Zu Mechulal al Zu', Yotzei le'Chulin, ve'Tzarich La'asos Lo Damim'. The latter statement means - that if the Chulin animal is worth less than the Hekdesh one, he remains obligated to make up the difference to Hekdesh.

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan, 've'Tzarich La'asos Lo Damim' is only mi'de'Rabbanan. Resh Lakish says - that it is d'Oraysa.

(c) Their Machlokes is based on the interpretation of "Erk'cha" - whether the Torah means the full value (Resh Lakish) or whatever one pays for it (Rebbi Yochanan).

(d) They cannot be arguing over ...

1. ... 'bi'Ch'dei Ona'ah - because everyone agrees that Hekdesh is not subject to Ona'ah min ha'Torah, and how can Resh Lakish say otherwise.
2. ... 'Yoser mi'Ch'dei Ona'ah - because, according to Rebbi Yonah, Rebbi Yochanan holds of Bitul Mekach by Hekdesh, so why does he say here that 've'Tzarich La'asos Lo Damim' is only mi'de'Rabbanan?

(a) According to Rebbi Yonah therefore - we switch the opinions, Rebbi Yochanan holds 've'Tzarich La'asos ... ' is d'Oraysa, and Resh Lakish, de'Rabbanan. Note, since we are now speaking about Bitul Mekach, 've'Tzarich La'asos ... ' must be a matter (not of adding money to make up the difference, but) of ensuring that the Chulin animal is of equal value to start off with.

(b) Initially, we base the Machlokes on Shmuel. Consequently ...

1. ... Resh Lakish - will holds like Shmuel, whereas ...
2. ... Rebbi Yochanan - will not.

(c) Assuming that both opinions hold like Shmuel - they will argue over whether Shmuel even permits Yoser mi'Ch'dei Ona'ah Lechatchilah (Resh Lakish), or only Bedi'eved (Rebbi Yochanan [based on their respective interpretations of "Erk'cha"]).

(a) Alternatively, they argue over bi'Ch'dei Ona'ah, and it is not necessary to switch their opinions. And we answer the original Kashya (that Hekdesh is not subject to Ona'ah) by establishing the Machlokes like Rav Chisda - who explains 'Ein Lahem Ona'ah' to mean 'Einan be'Toras Ona'ah', meaning that Hekdesh can retract even for the slightest discrepancy in price, even if it is less than a sixth.

(b)

1. Resh Lakish - will then hold like Rav Chisda.
2. Rebbi Yochanan - will learn 'Ein Lahem Ona'ah' literally.

(c) It is not even possible to switch Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, according to this opinion - because Rebbi Yochanan said 'Ona'ah Ein Lahem, Bitul Mekach Yesh Lahem', clearly indicating that he does not learn 'Ona'ah Ein Lahem' like Rav Chisda (according to whom 'Bitul Mekach Yesh Lahem' would be meaningless).

6)

(a) Rav Chisda explains ...

1. ... the Reisha of the Beraisa 'Ribis ve'Ona'ah le'Hedyot, ve'Ein Ribis ve'Ona'ah le'Hekdesh' - like he explained our Mishnah 'Ein Ribis ve'Toras Ona'ah le'Hekdesh'.
2. ... the Seifa 'Zeh Chomer be'Hedyot mi'be'Hekdesh' - to refer to Ribis only.

(b) The Tana did not add 'Zeh Chomer be'Hekdesh mi'be'Hedyot' with regard to Ona'ah (despite the fact that Hekdesh there is more stringent than Hedyot) - because 'Zeh' implies that this case is unique, whereas in reality, there are numeroous cases where that is so.

(a) The problem with establishing Ribis by Hekdesh when the treasurer lent someone a hundred Zuz for a hundred and twenty is - that then the money would go out to Chulin, and would indeed be subject to Ribis as the property of the Gizbar (the treasurer).

(b) Me'ilah is only be'Shogeg, and what makes that a Shogeg - is the fact that the Gizbar thought that such a transaction is permitted in order to make money for Hekdesh.

(c) The Gizbar will have to pay Hekdesh the principal plus a fifth. (a hundred and twenty five Zuz).

(a) We establish the case of Ribis by someone who undertook to supply flour for the Menachos and the price rose from four Sa'ah per Sela to three, or dropped from three to four. Either way - the supplier is obligated to supply four Sa'ah (because we have a principle that Hekdesh is never the loser).

(b) Despite the fact that no loan took place, the Tana refers to it as Ribis - because the Chachamim forbade lending a Sa'ah of fruit for a Sa'ah of fruit before the price has been fixed since it looks like Ribis) as we will see in the following Perek.

(a) Rav Papa establishes the case when the Gizbar lent someone stones for building, on interest. He is not Mo'el because Shmuel said - 'Bonin be'Chol, ve'Achar-Kach Makdishin' (which means that they would obtain all building materials on credit, and not declare them Hekdesh until the work was complete. Only then, would they pay for the materials which then became sanctified.

(b) They employed this method - to avoid the workers and the people from being Mo'el, as they would inevitably sit on the Hekdesh articles and use them.

(c) Rav Papa prefers this explanation to the previous one - because this way 'Ribis' pertains to a loan, which is Ribis d'Oraysa, and not just to Ribis de'Rabbanan, as in the first explanation.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah also precluded the four things (Karka'os, Avadim, Sh'taros and Hekdesh) from the Din of Kefel, and he learns the first three from a 'K'lal u'Prat u'K'lal', from the Pasuk in Mishpatim. (in connection with To'en Ta'anas Ganav or Ganav himself). "al Kol D'var Pesha" is the first 'K'lal', and "al Kol Aveidah Asher Yomar" is the second. The Tana learns from the P'rat "al Shor, al Chamor, al Seh al Salmah" to preclude ...

1. ... Karka'os - because the P'rat is movable, whereas they are not.
2. ... Sh'taros - because the P'rat has intrinsic value, whereas they do not?

(b) He precludes Avadim - because they are compared to Karka (as we explained earlier).

(c) From the Pasuk there "Ki Yiten Ish el Re'eihu" - he precludes Hekdesh from the Din of Kefel.

(d) And he precludes all of the above from the Din of Arba'ah va'Chamishah - from the fact that they are Patur from Kefel, because the Torah writes "Arba'ah va'Chamishah", and not 'Sheloshah ve'Arba'ah'.

(a) The Tana learns from ...

1. ... a 'K'lal u'Prat u'K'lal' from the Pasuk (also in Mishpatim, in connection with a Shomer Chinam) "Ki Yiten Ish el Re'eihu (K'lal) Kesef O Keilim (P'rat) Li'shmor (P'rat)" - that a Shomer Chinam is Patur from swearing on Karka'os, Sh'taros and Avadim.
2. ... "el Re'eihu" - that he does not swear on Hekdesh either.

(b) And he learns from a 'K'lal u'Prat u'K'lal' from the Pasuk (also in Mishpatim, in connection with a Shomer Sachar) "Ki Yiten Ish el Re'eihu (K'lal), "Chamor O Shor O Seh" (P'rat), ve'Chol Beheimah Li'shmor" (K'lal) - that a Shomer Sachar is exempt from paying in all four cases.