Talmud - Bava Metzia 57a בבא מציעא נ״ז א׳

This is Rava’s dilemma: What is the halakha? Is it permitted for one to take some of the kernels and eat from them? Is their legal status like that of kernels cast into a jug, and the sacrifice of the omer offering rendered their consumption permitted? Or perhaps he subordinated them to the ground, and their legal status is that of seeds that did not take root, and they are therefore forbidden. The Gemara concludes: The dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

§ Rava said that Rav Ḥasa said that Rabbi Ami raises a dilemma with regard to those matters that are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation: Is the halakha that they are not subject to exploitation where the disparity in the price is one-sixth, but they are subject to nullification of the transaction when it is greater than that? Or, perhaps they are not subject to nullification of the transaction either. Rav Naḥman said: Rav Ḥasa then said that Rabbi Ami resolved this dilemma and said: They are not subject to exploitation; they are subject to nullification of the transaction. Rabbi Yona said: This ruling applies to consecrated property. Rabbi Yirmeya said: It applies to land. And both of them said it in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: They are not subject to exploitation; they are subject to nullification of the transaction.

The Gemara comments: The one who states that this ruling applies to consecrated property, all the more so does it apply to land. The one who states that this ruling applies to land states it only with regard to land, but it does not apply to consecrated property, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: Consecrated property worth one hundred dinars that one desacralized upon a coin worth one peruta, is desacralized. Since consecrated property is not subject to the halakhot of exploitation at all, it is desacralized upon coins worth any sum.

We learned in a mishna there (Temura 26b): If the consecrated animal was blemished and another was substituted for it, the blemished animal leaves its consecrated state and assumes non-sacred status, and one is required to calculate the difference in monetary value between the two animals and pay it to the Temple treasury. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It leaves its consecrated state and assumes non-sacred status by Torah law, and one is required to calculate the difference in monetary value and pay it to the Temple treasury by rabbinic law. And Reish Lakish says: Even the halakha that one is required to calculate the difference in monetary value and pay it to the Temple treasury is by Torah law.

The Gemara asks: With what are we dealing? If we say that the difference between the value of the substitute animal and the value of the consecrated animal was the measure of exploitation, does Reish Lakish say in that case: He is required to calculate the difference in monetary value and pay it to the Temple treasury by Torah law? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: These are matters that are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation: Land, slaves, documents, and consecrated property?

Rather, the difference was the measure of nullification of the transaction. In that case, would Rabbi Yoḥanan say: He is required to calculate the difference in monetary value and pay it to the Temple treasury by rabbinic law? But didn’t Rabbi Yona say that this ruling applies to consecrated property, and didn’t Rabbi Yirmeya say it applies to land, and both of them say in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: They are not subject to exploitation; they are subject to nullification of the transaction? The Gemara answers: Actually, the difference was the measure of nullification of the transaction. And reverse attribution of the opinions, so that the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan will be attributed to Reish Lakish, and the opinion of Reish Lakish will be attributed to Rabbi Yoḥanan.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree? They disagree with regard to the halakha of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: Consecrated property worth one hundred dinars that one desacralized upon a coin worth one peruta is desacralized. One Sage, Reish Lakish, accepts the opinion of Shmuel, and therefore the consecrated article is desacralized by Torah law and the requirement to calculate and pay the difference is by rabbinic law. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, does not accept the opinion of Shmuel, and he therefore holds that the requirement to calculate and pay the difference is by Torah law.

If you wish, say instead that everyone accepts the opinion of Shmuel, and here they disagree about this: One Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that yes, consecrated property worth one hundred dinars that one desacralized upon a coin worth one peruta is desacralized after the fact, but ab initio, no, one may not do so. Therefore, one must nevertheless pay the difference to the Temple treasury by Torah law. And one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that the opinion of Shmuel applies even ab initio. Therefore, the requirement to pay the difference to the Temple treasury is by rabbinic law.

If you wish, say instead: Actually, the difference between the actual value of the animal and the amount used to desacralize it was within the measure of exploitation, and do not reverse attribution of the opinions of Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan. And they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, who said: What is the meaning of: They are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation? It means that they are not subject to the principle of exploitation at all. Rather, a more stringent standard applies,

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Bava Metzia 57a explores whether unrooted omer grain may be eaten, plus dilemmas over exploitation laws and voided sales involving consecrated property and land.