שקרקע נקנית בכסף ובשטר ובחזקה כך שכירות נקנה בכסף ובשטר ובחזקה שכירות מאי עבידתיה אמר רב חסדא שכירות קרקע
land is acquired either through the buyer giving money to the seller, or by the seller giving the buyer a bill of sale, or by the buyer performing an act of taking possession, so too, a rental is acquired either through the renter giving money to the owner, or by the owner giving the renter a rental document, or by the renter performing an act of taking possession. Based on the assumption that the baraita is referring to rental of movable property, the Gemara asks: With regard to the case of renting in the baraita, what is its purpose, i.e., why is it mentioned in connection with acts of acquisition that are effective with regard to land? Rav Ḥisda said: The baraita is referring to the rental of land.
אמר שמואל האי מאן דגזיל חביצא דתמרי מחבירו ואית בה חמשים תמרי אגב הדדי מזדבנן בנ' נכי חדא חדא חדא מזדבנן בנ'
§ Apropos the mention in the previous discussion of one who misuses consecrated property, the Gemara cites a related matter. Shmuel says: In the case of one who robs another of a cake [ḥavitza] of pressed dates, and in the cake there are fifty dates, which, when sold together, sell for fifty-less-one perutot and when they are sold one by one, they sell for fifty perutot, the sum that the robber is liable to pay as compensation to the robbery victim depends on who the robbery victim is.
להדיוט משלם חמשים נכי חדא להקדש משלם חמשים וחומשייהו מה שאין כן במזיק דלא משלם חומשא דאמר מר (ויקרא כב, יד) איש כי יאכל קדש פרט למזיק
If one robbed, and is paying compensation to, a common person [hedyot], he pays fifty-less-one perutot. If one robbed another of a cake that was consecrated to the Temple treasury and he is paying compensation to the Temple treasury, he pays fifty perutot and an additional one-fifth of the value as a fine for having misused consecrated property for each one of the cakes. This is not so with regard to one liable for causing damage to consecrated property, who does not pay the additional one-fifth payment, as the Master says: The verse states: “And a man, if he eats sacrificial food in error, he should add its fifth on it” (Leviticus 22:14). By specifying that one who eats consecrated property is liable to pay the one-fifth payment, the verse excludes one who is liable for causing damage from that requirement.
מתקיף לה רב ביבי בר אביי להדיוט אמאי משלם חמשים נכי חדא נימא ליה אנא חדא חדא הוה מזבנינא להו
Rav Beivai bar Abaye objects to this: Why, when he pays compensation to a common person, does he pay fifty-less-one? Let the victim say to the robber: I would have sold them one by one and received fifty perutot for them; you should therefore compensate me for that entire amount.
אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע שמין בית סאה באותה שדה תנן
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: We learned in a mishna (Bava Kamma 55b): If an animal causes damage to another’s field, the court appraises a large piece of land with an area required for sowing one se’a of seed [beit se’a] in that field, including the garden bed in which the damage took place. The court appraises how much it was worth before the animal damaged it and how much is it worth now, and the owner must pay the difference. The court appraises not only the garden bed that was eaten or trampled, but rather the depreciation in value of the bed as part of the surrounding area. This results in a smaller payment, as the damage appears less significant in the context of a larger area. In this case as well, the value of the entire cake is evaluated, not what it would be worth were one to divide it into smaller units.
למימרא דסבר שמואל דין הדיוט לאו כדין גבוה דמי והתנן נטל אבן או קורה מהקדש לא מעל נתנה לחבירו הוא מעל וחבירו לא מעל בנאה בתוך ביתו לא מעל עד שידור תחתיה בשוה פרוטה
The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Shmuel holds that the halakha of compensation paid to a common person is not like the halakha of compensation paid to the Most High, i.e., to the Temple treasury? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Me’ila 19b): One who physically took a stone or a cross beam from among items consecrated to the Temple treasury is not considered to have misused consecrated property. If he gave it to another, he is considered to have misused consecrated property, but that other person is not considered to have misused consecrated property. If, after taking a stone or cross beam that was consecrated property one built it into the structure of his house, he is not considered to have misused consecrated property until he resides underneath it, thereby deriving benefit of the value of one peruta.
ויתיב ר' אבהו קמיה דרבי יוחנן ויתיב וקאמר משמיה דשמואל זאת אומרת הדר בחצר חבירו שלא מדעתו צריך להעלות לו שכר (א"ל רבי יוחנן) הדר ביה שמואל מההיא
And Rabbi Abbahu was sitting before Rabbi Yoḥanan, and he was sitting and saying in the name of Shmuel, in reference to that mishna: That is to say: One who resides in another’s courtyard without his knowledge must pay him rent. Just as one is considered to derive benefit from a cross beam by residing underneath it and must pay for that benefit, so too, one is considered to derive benefit from the courtyard by residing in it, and he must pay for that benefit. It is apparent from this statement of Shmuel that the halakhot of compensating a common person are similar to and can be derived from those of the Temple treasury. This contradicts Shmuel’s previous statement in the Gemara. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him in resolution of this difficulty: Shmuel retracted that statement of his.
וממאי דמההיא הדר ביה דלמא מהא הדר לא מההיא הדר ביה כדרבא דאמר רבא הקדש שלא מדעת כהדיוט מדעת דמי
The Gemara asks: But from where is it apparent that he retracted that statement concerning residing in another’s courtyard; perhaps he retracted this ruling, concerning one who stole a cake of pressed dates? The Gemara answers: No, it must be that statement, concerning residing in another’s courtyard, that he retracted, in accordance with the statement of Rava. As Rava says: Using consecrated property without the Temple treasurer’s knowledge is like using property belonging to a common person with his knowledge. Since, ultimately, the true owner of consecrated property is God, benefit from it is always considered to be have been derived with the owner’s knowledge. Consequently, one cannot derive an inference from the halakha of deriving benefit from consecrated property to a case of deriving benefit from a common person’s property without his knowledge. Accordingly, it is more reasonable that Shmuel retracted his ruling about residing in another’s courtyard.
אמר רבא הני שקולאי דתברו חבית' דחמרא לחנוואה ביומא דשוקא מיזדבנא בה' בשאר יומי מיזדבנא בארבע אהדרו ליה ביומא דשוקא מהדרו ליה חביתא דחמרא בשאר יומי מהדרו ליה ה'
The Gemara cites another ruling concerning differing rates of compensation: Rava says: With regard to these porters who broke a shopkeeper’s barrel of wine, which on market day sells for five dinars and on other days sells for four dinars, if they restore its value to him on market day, then it is sufficient if they compensate him with a barrel of wine, which he could then sell for five dinars. If they wish to repay him on other days, i.e., on a non-market day, they must compensate him with five dinars. They cannot discharge their debt by giving him a barrel of wine, as on those days it is worth only four dinars.
ולא אמרן אלא דלא ה"ל חמרא לזבוני אבל ה"ל חמרא לזבוני הא איבעי ליה לזבוני
The Gemara qualifies Rava’s ruling: And we said that the porters must pay five dinars on a non-market day only in a case in which the shopkeeper did not have other barrels of wine to sell on that market day and consequently lost out on a potential sale worth five dinars. But if he had another barrel of wine to sell, then he should have sold it. The fact he did not sell the wine he had demonstrates that the porters did not cause him to lose out on a sale worth five dinars.
ומנכי ליה אגר טירחיה ודמי ברזנייתא:
The Gemara further qualifies Rava’s ruling: And when the porters pay the five dinars, they deduct from it the usual value of the shopkeeper’s effort in selling a barrel and the usual cost of tapping a barrel, as the shopkeeper was spared these costs.