006a הכל ממירין פרק ראשון תמורה ו ע"א - HAKOL MEMIRIN CHAPTER ONE TEMURAH

(Vayikra 22:23) A freewill offering you shall make it: this is the consecrated property of the Temple repair fund^[1].

נדבה תעשה אותו - We say below (7b) that these are the consecrated property of the Temple repair fund. One may read 'oto' (it) to mean: you dedicate that animal to the repair fund, but you do not dedicate unblemished animals to it.

We learned in a Mishnah: One who consecrates unblemished animals to the Temple repair fund, even though it is a transgression of a negative command, what he did is done^[2].

בלא תעשה - As we expound below, 'And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying' is read as 'saying: do not say', which teaches the negative command.

An objection to Rava. [Rava] could answer you: From where blemished animals were included for the altar, unblemished animals were included for the Temple repair fund^[3].

מהיכא דאיתרבו בעלי מומין למזבח - Blemished animals are sanctified to the altar only after the fact^[4].

איתרבו כו' - Were included: for that verse says 'and for a vow he shall not accept it', and we say below (ibid.) that these are the altar's consecrated animals. The verse says 'he shall not accept', implying that they are not accepted, but if consecrated they are holy. Unblemished animals for the repair fund are compared to blemished animals for the altar, since one verse takes both out of the prohibition, so they are compared also in that 'what he did is done'.

And yet, robbery: the Merciful One said (Vayikra 19:13): You shall not rob.

And we learned in a Mishnah: One who steals wood and makes it into vessels, or wool and makes it into garments, pays as at the time of the robbery^[5].

כשעת הגזילה - At the time of the robbery: this is only for wool and wood. But for vessels and garments he acquires by changing them, so the change is effective.

An objection to Rava: Rava could say, that case is different, because the verse says (Vayikra 5): What he robbed, as he robbed^[6].

אשר גזל כעין שגזל - What he robbed, as he robbed: he shall return it.

And for Abaye, the words 'what he robbed' are needed for another point: he adds a fifth on his own robbery, but does not add a fifth on his father's robbery^[7].

ואביי - Abaye: this is not needed to teach that the change is effective, since I know that. Rather it is needed for the derivation that 'what he robbed' is written about a false oath, where it says he shall add a fifth. This teaches that on his own robbery he adds a fifth, but on his father's robbery he does not add a fifth, even if he swore falsely about it.

And yet a pledge: the Merciful One said (Devarim 24:10): You shall not enter his house to take his pledge^[8].

We learned in a Mishnah: One returns the blanket at night and the plough by day^[9].

מחזיר את הכר בלילה כו' - ...taught in Bava Metzia, chapter Hamekabel (113a), about seizing a pledge against the owner's will. This shows the taking is effective: the plough he acquires as a pledge at night, and the night blanket he acquires by day, so it is effective.

An objection to Rava: Rava could say, that case is different, because the verse says (Devarim 24:13): Return it^[10].

שאני התם דכתיב השב תשיבנו לו - Rava: the verse 'and you shall return it to him' is needed to teach that he returns it several times; the only way is that he returns a day utensil by day and a night utensil by night. From here we learn that he acquires. For Abaye, the verse is needed: otherwise I would say he may return it or not.

ה"ג ל"א אמר לך רבא שאני התם - The correct reading (hagirsa): Rava's proof is from 'until the sun sets you shall return it', which in the case of the taker is the day cover, and from 'you shall return it to him as the sun sets', the night cover. The other reading (lo'a) says Abaye and Rava differ.^[11]

And for Abaye, the verse 'return it' was needed; if it were not written, I would say he could return it or not, so it teaches that he must return it^[12].

And yet the corner: the Torah says (Vayikra 23:22): You shall not finish the corner of your field when you reap^[13].

We learned in a Mishnah: The obligation of pe'ah is to separate it from the standing grain; if he did not separate it from the standing grain, he shall separate it from the sheaves; if not from the sheaves, from the threshing floor; if he did not separate it from the threshing floor, once it is threshed he tithes it and gives it to him^[14].

מירחו - Was threshed: it is then designated for tithe and for terumah.

מעשר - Tithe: first, and afterwards one gives the pe'ah.

Rabbi Yishmael says: one separates also from the dough^[15].

An objection to Abaye: Abaye could say, that case is different, because the verse says (Vayikra 19:10): leave (Vayikra 23:22): leave, superfluous^[16].

תיובתא דאביי - The refutation of Abaye: Abaye held that it is effective; here it is not effective.

תעזוב תעזוב - Leave, leave: it is written twice. For the poor and the stranger leave them; once in Kedoshim and once in Emor, to teach that the superfluous 'leave' means that although it was changed in his hand, he did not acquire it.

Rava could say to you: there is another kind of 'leaving' like this, and which is it? One who abandons his vineyard^[17].

As it was taught: One who abandons his vineyard, and forgot to pick it in the morning and reaped it, is liable for the fallen grapes, the olelot, the forgotten sheaf and the corner, and is exempt from the tithe.

חייב בפרט ובעוללות כו' - ^[18]Even though hefker is exempt from all these, this one is liable, derived from the superfluous 'leave', since in all of them it is written 'leave' as a superfluous word.

ופטור מן המעשר - Exempt from the tithe: the tithe has no superfluous 'leave', and the 'leave' comes to include this hefker, not a change, since change does not help even elsewhere.

Rav Acha son of Rava said to Rav Ashi: now that we have answered all these distinctions of Abaye and Rava, what do they disagree about?^[19]

והשתא דמשנינן כל הני שינויי - 'Now that we have answered all these distinctions': some cases where it helps and some where it does not. In all of them Abaye and Rava agree; what do they disagree about?

They disagree about ribit ketzutza (fixed interest).

As Rabbi Elazar said: fixed interest is taken out through the judges^[20].

משלמין כשעת הגזילה - Because a change acquires, it is clear that it is effective; this is the objection to Rava.

מחזיר את הכר בלילה ואת המחרישה ביום ותיובתא דרבא - For if it were not effective, the taking would not be a taking and he would have to return them to the owners completely. And if you ask how we know the Mishnah does not speak of a taking without permission: it may be a court's agent. Bava Metzia 113a teaches the Mishnah about taking without permission, showing it is effective.

שאני התם דאמר קרא השב תשיב - Tosfos asks from Bava Metzia 31a, and explains the readings of Rava and Abaye, and resolves difficulties from Bava Metzia 116a and Makkot. (Summary translation; see note in report.)

אף מפריש מן העיסה - And change of name does not acquire.

אמר אביי שאני התם דאמר קרא (עזב) תעזוב ורבא אמר לך כו' - Tosfos asks why here Abaye needs the superfluous 'leave' and Rava does not, against Bava Kama. Tosfos answers that here it is according to the Tanna Kama, and Rabbi Yishmael holds that change stays in place. (Summary translation.)

המפקיר כרמו והשכים לבקר ובצרו חייב בפרט ובעוללות ובשכחה ופאה - Rashi: although hefker is exempt from all these, this case is liable, derived from the superfluous 'leave'. Or Zarua: liability depends on whether he acquired the field itself; if only its produce, he is exempt from all. (Summary translation.)

והשתא דשנינן כל הני שינויי אביי ורבא במאי פליגי - Tosfos asks: suppose they differ about a case such as one who swore not to divorce his wife and then did so, which for Abaye is effective and for Rava is not. Rabbenu Barukh asks why the Gemara did not say they differ about the firstborn or the tithe, and Tosfos leaves the question open. (Summary translation.)

Notes

1. 1. Bedek habayit: the Temple repair fund. Property consecrated to it pays for upkeep of the Temple building; it is not offered on the altar.
2. 2. The Mishnah: one who dedicated unblemished animals to the repair fund transgressed a negative command, yet the dedication stands after the fact. The Gemara tests this ruling below.
3. 3. An objection to Rava: blemished animals are holy after the fact for the altar, so unblemished animals for the repair fund are holy after the fact. The Gemara tests this against the Mishnah.
4. 4. After the fact (bedi'avad): it should not have been done, but once it was done the consecration takes effect.
5. 5. Change of form (shinuy): when a thief turns stolen wood into vessels or wool into garments, he acquires it by the change, yet he pays the value at the time of the theft.
6. 6. The verse (Vayikra 5) on a false oath: one who stole, swore falsely and then admitted, repays the principal plus a fifth.
7. 7. A fifth (chomesh): an added fifth of the value, i.e. twenty percent of the principal.
8. 8. Pledge (mashkon): an item a creditor takes from a borrower as security. He may not enter the borrower's house to take it.
9. 9. Kar: a blanket used for bedding; mecharisha: a plough used to work the land. Since the poor man needs them, the blanket is returned at night and the plough by day.
10. 10. "Return it" (Devarim 24:13): the pledge must be returned to the debtor before sunset.
11. 11. Hagirsa (correct reading) and lo'a (others say): Rashi notes two readings of the Gemara and gives his own.
12. 12. For Abaye, the verse obligates the creditor to return the pledge; without it one might think he may choose whether to return it.
13. 13. Pe'ah: the corner of the field left unharvested for the poor (Vayikra 23:22).
14. 14. The Mishnah: pe'ah is separated from the standing grain, the sheaves, or the threshing floor; once threshed (mirchu) the produce is tithed (ma'aser) before eating.
15. 15. Rabbi Yishmael says pe'ah is separated from dough too. The Gemara reads this as showing that a change of form does not free the produce from the obligation.
16. 16. "Leave" appears twice; the Gemara reads the extra word as teaching a separate rule, on which the answers below depend.
17. 17. Hefker: the owner declares his property ownerless, so anyone may take it.
18. 18. Olelot: small or late clusters of grapes; shichah: a forgotten sheaf; peret: fallen grapes. Each is left for the poor.
19. 19. The shinuyim: the different distinctions the Gemara makes to explain why each case differs.
20. 20. Ribit ketzutza: fixed interest agreed in advance; it is taken out through the judges (exact sense is a doubt).