Talmud su Levitico 25:14

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “or buying from your neighbor’s hand”⁶⁰Lev. 25:14, containing the prohibition of overcharging or underpaying in commercial transactions., from you neighbor’s hand you need an act of acquisition; you do not need an act of acquisition from the Gentile’s hand⁶¹The principle that in biblical law payment transfers not only ownership but also possession is restricted to transactions involving Gentiles; for transactions between Jews the transfer needs an actual “taking” from the prior owner’s hand; Babli 47b.. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, why does one deliver a person to “Him Who exacted retribution”⁶²Since a deal between Jews is not valid in biblical law without actual transfer, why should the court be involved in a dispute regarding such a deal? E reads here: why does one not deliver a person to “Him Who …”?? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it follows the Tanna who stated: “Nobody dealing in words only may one deliver to “Him Who exacted retribution”^45,Sevi‘it 10:9, Notes 129–130; Babli 49a, Tosephta 3:14. As long as there was no action of acquisition, the person who goes back on his word can be considered untrustworthy but is not subject to judicial censure.⁶³This Tanna holds that taking the money is a “transfer from hand to hand”, which gives the transaction biblical status. The only case which the court will refuse to hear is one where no concrete action has yet taken place..

HALAKHAH: “If a widow’s ketubah was 200,” etc. We understand worth a mina for 200⁷⁸The Babli, 98 ab, does not hold that it is trivial that the widow is not rewarded for getting such a good deal; it concludes that an agent by his office is always required to look for the best possible deal and the widow sells as an agent for the estate. or worth 200 for a mina. In any case, she made the orphans lose a mina⁷⁹That she receives only 100 zuz for her ketubah if she sells real estate too cheaply is not a matter of the laws of ketubah but of torts in general; the person who causes damage has to pay for it.. [If it was worth] a mina [and she sold it] for 200, would the sale not be invalidated as erroneous buy⁸⁰Lev. 25:14: “If you sell a sale to you neighbor or buy from your neighbor’s hand, do not overcharge one another.” Rabbinic interpretation holds that an overcharge of a sixth, 16²/₃%, entitles the injured party to rescind the transaction.? Explain it that the property increased in value⁸¹And the fair value on the date of transaction can no longer be determined.. Rebbi Abin said, this supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, real estate buys are never under the laws of overcharging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the transaction was excessive, it comes under the law of overcharging. The Mishnah⁸²Baba meṣi‘a 4:9. disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “The following do not fall under the laws of overcharging: Slaves, securities, real estate, and redemptions⁸³Real estate is excluded in Lev. 25:14 since it is not bought “from his hand”; slaves are excluded since they are traded under the rules of real estate; securities are excluded since what one buys “from the neighbor’s hand” is the paper, but what is intended are the rights given by the paper and these are immaterial. The Temple is excluded in its transactions since it is not “a neighbor” (Babli Baba meṣi‘a56b)..” He explains it, unless it was excessive⁸⁴He holds that any transaction is void in which the profit margin is 100% of the fair value. Tosaphot (s. v. ,אלמנה 98a) find the same opinion expressed by Rav Naḥman in the Babli, Baba meṣi‘a 57a.. If he redeemed⁸⁵He had donated something (other than a sacrificial animal) to the Temple. The redemption rules are based on Lev. 27:11–25. what was worth a mina by 200, Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is not redeemed, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is redeemed⁸⁶The standard commentators agree to switch the places of “mina” and “200 zuz”. Since the Yerushalmi never quotes Samuel’s statement in the Babli (Baba meṣi‘a 57a and 7 other instances) that a redemption of dedicated items worth a mina by a peruṭa is valid (i. e., in ratio 19200: 1), there is no reason to assume that there should be any difference in the rulesfor overpaying or underpaying.. A baralta disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: If he said, this toga instead of this donkey, the latter becomes profane⁸⁷He substitutes a toga for the dedicated donkey (which is redeemable since it is not a sacrificial animal) and presumably the donkey is worth at least two togas.. And its end disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is necessary to compute the value⁸⁸It is a biblical requirement that dedications can be redeemed only after their value has been determined (Lev. 27:12). The presumption is that the statement means not only that the value has to be determined but also that it has to be paid in full.. Rebbi Yose said, the baraita itself implies that it is necessary to compute the value. Where do they disagree? To bring [a sacrifice to atone for] larceny⁸⁹Unauthorized use of Temple property is sinful and has to be atoned for by a special sacrifice (Lev. 5:14–16). If the redemption of the donkey was valid, no sacrifice is due for using the donkey even if there remains the additional obligation to make up the difference in price between toga and donkey. If the redemption is invalid because the difference in price between the dedicated and the substitute values is too large, a sacrifice is due. The Babli, Baba meṣi‘a57a/b, is not quite sure to whom to attribute which opinion in this dispute.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to bring a sacrifice for larceny; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he does not have to bring a sacrifice for larceny.

MISHNAH: The following are not under the rules of cheating¹²⁵There is no recourse in court for overpaying or underpaying.: Slaves¹²⁶In Lev. 25:45, Gentile slaves are put under the rules of real estate., securities¹²⁷Documents of indebtedness. What one buys is not the paper on which the IOU is written but the future claim. What one buys “from the hand of your neighbor” (Lev. 25:14) is the paper; therefore the IOU is not under the rules of that verse., real estate¹²⁸Lev. 25:14 only refers to movables., and Temple property¹²⁹Lev. 25:14 only refers to “your neighbor,” not to public property.; they are not under the rules of double or quadruple or quintuple restitution¹³⁰If slaves, securities, or Temple property was stolen (e. g., Temple animals).. An unpaid trustee does not have to swear, a paid trustee does not pay. Rebbi Simeon says, sacrifices which he is obligated to warrant¹³¹If one vows to bring “a sacrifice”, he has not fulfilled his obligation until the animal was sacrificed. Before that moment, it remains the personal property of the offerer and is covered by Lev. 25:14. But if he vows to offer “this animal”, he has fulfilled his duty at the moment the animal was delivered to the Temple. After that it is Temple property; cf. Mishnah Bava qamma 7:5. are under the rules of cheating; those for which he is not obligated to warrant are not under the rules of cheating. Rebbi Jehudah says, also he who sells a Torah scroll, an animal, or a pearl is not under the rules of cheating. They told him, they said only these.