דַּאֲפִילּוּ פָּחוֹת מִכְּדֵי אוֹנָאָה חוֹזֵר.

in that even if the difference in price is less than the measure of exploitation, the exploited party may renege on the transaction. Rabbi Yoḥanan does not accept the opinion of Rav Ḥisda and Reish Lakish does.

מֵיתִיבִי: רִבִּית וְאוֹנָאָה לַהֶדְיוֹט, וְאֵין רִבִּית וְאוֹנָאָה לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ! מִי אַלִּימָא מִמַּתְנִיתִין דְּאוֹקֵימְנָא בְּתוֹרַת אוֹנָאָה? הָכִי נָמֵי: רִבִּית וְדִין אוֹנָאָה לַהֶדְיוֹט, וְאֵין רִבִּית וְדִין אוֹנָאָה לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Ḥisda’s opinion from a baraita: Dealings with a layman are subject to the halakhot of interest and exploitation, but dealings with consecrated property are not subject to the halakhot of interest and exploitation. The Gemara answers: Is the objection from the baraita stronger than that from the mishna, which was defused when we established it to be referring to the principle of exploitation, i.e., that the principle that up to one-sixth is not considered exploitation does not apply to consecrated property? So too the baraita should be understood: The halakhot of interest and the principle of exploitation apply to dealings with a layman, but the halakhot of interest and the principle of exploitation do not apply to dealings involving consecrated property.

אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: זֶה חוֹמֶר בַּהֶדְיוֹט מִבַּהֶקְדֵּשׁ? אַרִבִּית! לִיתְנֵי נָמֵי: זֶה חוֹמֶר בַּהֶקְדֵּשׁ מִבַּהֶדְיוֹט, אַאוֹנָאָה!

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, is that consistent with that which is taught in the latter clause of that baraita: This is the stringency with regard to the layman, in contrast to the halakha with regard to consecrated property? According to this explanation, the halakha with regard to consecrated property is more stringent than the halakha with regard to a layman. The Gemara answers: This stringency is only in the case of interest, as it is permitted to collect interest from consecrated property. The Gemara asks: If so, let the tanna also teach: This is the stringency with regard to consecrated property, in contrast to the halakha with regard to the layman in the case of exploitation.

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? בִּשְׁלָמָא, זֶה חוֹמֶר בַּהֶדְיוֹט מִבַּהֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְתוּ לָא. אֶלָּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ, זֶה חוֹמֶר וְתוּ לָא?

The Gemara rejects this question: How can these cases be compared? Granted, the mishna states: This is the stringency with regard to the layman, in contrast to the halakha with regard to consecrated property, and nothing further, i.e., there are no other cases where the halakha is more stringent for the layman than it is for consecrated property. But with regard to consecrated property, can one say: This is the stringency, and nothing further, there are no other stringencies? There are many halakhot in which consecrated property is treated more stringently than non-sacred property.

רִבִּית דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּאוֹזְפֵיהּ גִּזְבָּר מֵאָה בְּמֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים – וַהֲלֹא מָעַל הַגִּזְבָּר, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁמָּעַל הַגִּזְבָּר, יָצְאוּ מְעוֹתָיו לְחוּלִּין, וְהָווּ לְהוּ דְּהֶדְיוֹט!

§ The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of interest in cases of consecrated property? If we say that the Temple treasurer lent one hundred consecrated dinars in exchange for repayment of one hundred and twenty dinars, didn’t the treasurer thereby misuse consecrated property? And once the treasurer misused the money by giving it to a layman, his money immediately leaves its consecrated state and assumes non-sacred status. And it is then money of a layman, and the halakhot of interest apply to it.

אָמַר רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו לְסַפֵּק סְלָתוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע, וְעָמְדוּ מִשָּׁלֹשׁ. כִּדְתַנְיָא: הַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לְסַפֵּק סְלָתוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע וְעָמְדוּ מִשָּׁלֹשׁ – מְסַפֵּק מֵאַרְבַּע; מִשָּׁלֹשׁ וְעָמְדוּ מֵאַרְבַּע – מְסַפֵּק מֵאַרְבַּע, שֶׁיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה.

Rav Hoshaya said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where one accepts upon himself to supply fine flour to the Temple at the price of four se’a for a sela, and the market price rose and stood at three se’a for a sela, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who accepts upon himself to supply fine flour at four se’a for a sela, and their market price stood at three se’a for a sela, he is required to fulfill his commitment and supply fine flour at four se’a for a sela. If one committed to supply fine flour at three se’a for a sela, and their market price decreased until it stood at four se’a for a sela, he must supply fine flour at four se’a for a sela. This is a form of interest, as the result is that the Temple treasury is at an advantage. Although an arrangement of that kind is prohibited in transactions involving laymen, in dealings of the Temple treasury it is permitted.

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: הָכָא בְּאַבְנֵי בִנְיָן הַמְּסוּרוֹת לְגִזְבָּר עָסְקִינַן, כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בּוֹנִין בַּחוֹל, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַקְדִּישִׁין.

Rav Pappa said that there is a less complicated case of interest involving consecrated property: Here we are dealing with building stones that are entrusted to the Temple treasurer, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: One builds the structures in the Temple with non-sacred materials to avoid misuse of consecrated property during construction, and one consecrates those materials thereafter. The treasurer has provisional possession of property that will ultimately belong to the Temple treasury. The stones are non-sacred and can be loaned to others, but nevertheless they are not subject to the halakhot of interest.

אֵין בָּהֶן תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְכוּ׳. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עַל כׇּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע״ – כְּלָל, ״עַל שׁוֹר עַל חֲמוֹר עַל שֶׂה עַל שַׂלְמָה״ – פְּרָט, ״עַל כׇּל אֲבֵדָה אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל.

§ The mishna teaches: Slaves, documents, land, and consecrated property are not subject to the halakhot of payment of double the principal. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse that discusses double payment: “For any matter of trespass, whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garment, or for any manner of lost thing about which one shall say: This is it, the claims of both of them shall come before the judges, the one whom the judges convict shall pay double to the other” (Exodus 22:8). “For any matter of trespass” is a generalization; “whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garment” is a detail. And when the verse states: “Or for any manner of lost thing,” it then generalizes again.

כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט; מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן.

Consequently, this verse contains a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, and one of the thirteen rules of exegesis states that in such a case you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Therefore, just as each of the items mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as an item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value, so too double payment is practiced with regard to any item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value.

יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת, שֶׁאֵינָן מִטַּלְטְלִין. יָצְאוּ עֲבָדִים, שֶׁהוּקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת. יָצְאוּ שְׁטָרוֹת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּטַּלְטְלִין, אֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן. הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת – אָמַר קְרָא: ״רֵעֵהוּ״ – רֵעֵהוּ וְלֹא הֶקְדֵּשׁ.

Land is excluded, as it is not movable property. Canaanite slaves are excluded, as they are compared to land in many areas of halakha. Financial documents are excluded, as, although they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary value. The value of the material on which the document is written is negligible; documents are valuable only because they serve as proof for monetary claims. Finally, consecrated property is excluded because it is written in the verse that the one found liable shall pay double to the other, i.e., to another person, but not to the Temple treasury.

וְלֹא תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה וְכוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא? תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא תַּשְׁלוּמֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה וְאַרְבָּעָה.

The mishna teaches: Nor payment of four and five times the principal, as these payments to do not apply to consecrated animals. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this exclusion? The Gemara explains: The Merciful One states a payment of four or five times the principal, but not payment of three and four times the principal. It has already been established that there is no double payment in the cases in the mishna. The fourfold or fivefold payment in the case of the slaughter or sale of a stolen sheep or cow comprises the principal, the double payment, and then an additional two or three times the principle, respectively. Consequently, once the double payment is subtracted, the total paid would be three or four times the principal, and the verse makes no allowance for such a payment.

שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְכוּ׳. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ״ – כְּלָל, ״כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵּלִים״ – פְּרָט, ״וְגֻנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל.

The mishna teaches: An unpaid bailee does not take an oath if these items were stolen or lost. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse that discusses an unpaid bailee: “When a man delivers to his neighbor money or vessels to safeguard, and it is stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief is found, he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, then the master of the house shall approach the judge” (Exodus 22:6–7). “When a man delivers to his neighbor” is a generalization; “money or vessels” is a detail. And when the verse states: “And it is stolen out of the man’s house,” it then generalizes again.

כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן.

Consequently, this verse contains a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, and one of the thirteen rules of exegesis states that in such a case you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Therefore, just as each of the items mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as an item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value, so too double payment is practiced with regard to any item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value.

יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת, שֶׁאֵינָן מִטַּלְטְלִין. יָצְאוּ עֲבָדִים, שֶׁהוּקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת. יָצְאוּ שְׁטָרוֹת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּטַּלְטְלִין, אֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן. הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת – אָמַר קְרָא: ״רֵעֵהוּ״ – רֵעֵהוּ, וְלֹא שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ.

Land is excluded, as it is not movable property. Canaanite slaves are excluded, as they are compared to land in many areas of halakha. Financial documents are excluded, as, although they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary value. The value of the material on which the document is written is negligible; documents are valuable only because they serve as proof for monetary claims. Finally, consecrated property is excluded because it is written in the verse that the one found liable shall pay double to the other, i.e., to another person, but not to the Temple treasury.

נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם וְכוּ׳. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ״ – כְּלָל, ״חֲמוֹר אוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה״ – פָּרַט, ״וְכׇל בְּהֵמָה לִשְׁמוֹר״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל.

The mishna continues: A paid bailee does not pay if these items were stolen or lost. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse that discusses a paid bailee: “When a man delivers to his neighbor a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast to safeguard, and it dies, or is hurt, or is driven away, no man seeing it, the oath of the Lord shall be between them both…but if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner” (Exodus 22:9–11). “When a man delivers to his neighbor” is a generalization; “a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep” is a detail. And when the verse states: “Or any beast to safeguard,” it then generalizes again.

כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן.

Consequently, this verse contains a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, and one of the thirteen rules of exegesis states that in such a case you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Therefore, just as each of the items mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as an item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value, so too double payment is practiced with regard to any item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value.

יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת, שֶׁאֵינָן מִטַּלְטְלִין. יָצְאוּ עֲבָדִים, שֶׁהוּקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת. יָצְאוּ שְׁטָרוֹת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּטַּלְטְלִין, אֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן. הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת – אָמַר קְרָא: ״רֵעֵהוּ״ – רֵעֵהוּ, וְלֹא שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ.

Land is excluded, as it is not movable property. Canaanite slaves are excluded, as they are compared to land in many areas of halakha. Financial documents are excluded, as, although they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary value. The value of the material on which the document is written is negligible; documents are valuable only because they serve as proof for monetary claims. Finally, consecrated property is excluded because it is written in the verse that the one found liable shall pay double to the other, i.e., to another person, but not to the Temple treasury.

שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְכוּ׳. וּרְמִינְהוּ, בְּנֵי הָעִיר שֶׁשָּׁלְחוּ אֶת שִׁקְלֵיהֶן וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדוּ,

§ After determining the source of the halakhot in the mishna, the Gemara analyzes those halakhot. The mishna teaches: An unpaid bailee does not take an oath if these items were stolen or lost. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna. Half-shekels were donated by the people during the month of Adar and placed in a special chamber in the Temple, from where, as needed, some of the shekels were taken for use in purchasing public offerings in the coming months. This was done in order to give all of the Jewish people a share in those public offerings. Additionally, from the moment that the money is taken from there, both those shekels that arrived at the Temple and those that did not yet arrive become Temple property. The mishna teaches (Shekalim 5a): With regard to residents of the city who sent their shekels to the Temple, and the coins were stolen from the agent or were lost en route, the halakha depends on the circumstances.

אִם מִשֶּׁנִּתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה –

If this occurred after the contributions of the chamber had already been collected from the chamber,