Study Bava Metzia folio 58B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The opposite is reasonable. An oath concerning sacrificial animals for which one does not bear responsibility is considered to be a matter related to YHWH even more than an oath concerning a sacrificial animal for which one bears responsibility, as in the latter case it is owned by the person in so
R' Yitzḥak bar Abba said to him: No, this is what the baraita is saying: For an oath taken concerning sacrificial animals for which one bears responsibility, one is liable to bring an offering for a false oath, as it is included due to the phrase “against YHWH, and deals falsely.” It is derived f
§ The Mishnah teaches: R' Yehuda says: Even in the case of one who sells a Torah scroll, a pearl, or an animal, those items are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation. It is taught in a baraita that R' Yehuda says: Even in the case of one who sells a Torah scroll, it is not subject to the hal
The baraita continues: The Rabbis said to him: But isn’t it the case that with regard to every item, a person seeks to pair them with similar items under certain circumstances? According to your explanation, the halakhot of exploitation would never apply. The Talmud asks: And what does R' Yehuda res
It is taught in a baraita that R' Yehuda ben Beteira says: Even in the case one who sells a horse, or a sword, or a helmet [veḥatitom] during wartime, these items are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation, because they then have the capacity to preserve life, and a person is willing to pay a