Study Bava Metzia folio 57B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
in that even if the difference in price is less than the measure of exploitation, the exploited party may renege on the transaction. R' Yoḥanan does not accept the opinion of Rav Ḥisda and Reish Lakish does.
The Talmud 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 Talmud answers: Is the objection from the b
The Talmud 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 conse
The Talmud rejects this question: How can these cases be compared? Granted, the Mishnah 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
§ The Talmud asks: What are the circumstances of interest in cases of consecrated property? If we say that the Temple treasurer lent 100 consecrated dinars in exchange for repayment of 120 dinars, didn’t the treasurer thereby misuse consecrated property? And once the treasurer misused the money by g