Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.

@YisroelKatz posted on Thu Jan 17, 230 days ago

Report this


בס"ד
AND THE PROOF IS ACCORDING TO THE DICTUM OF RAVA, FOR RAVA SAID - BENEFIT DERIVED FROM THE TEMPLE TREASURY WITHOUT ITS KNOWLEDGE IS LIKE BENEFIT DERIVED FROM A PRIVATE PERSON WITH HIS KNOWLEDGE.
כדרבא דאמר רבא הקדש שלא מדעת כהדיוט מדעת דמי
MAHARSHAL EMENDS THIS TO READ "RABBAH"
THAT IS, THE ALMIGHTY, WHO PROHIBITS THE MISAPPROPRIATING OF HEKDESH PROPERTY, DOES SO KNOWING OF THOSE WHO MISAPPROPRIATE (רש"י RASHI)
AND PROTESTS THEIR ACTIONS WITH HIS PROHIBITION (TOS. HAROSH).
THE EQUIVALENT CASE OF A PRIVATE PERSON, THEN, WOULD BE IF THE OWNER OF HE COURTYARD PROTESTED, IN WHICH CASE THERE IS NO QUESTION, AND WE NEED NO PROOF, THAT HE THEN MUST BE COMPENSATED.
IN HIS INFERENCE, SHMUEL ADDRESSED THE CASE OF UNAUTHORIZED HABITATION WITHOUT THE OWNER'S KNOWLEDGE, WHERE IT IS NOT CLEAR IF ONE WHO DERIVES BENEFIT WITH NO DETRIMENT TO THE BENEFACTOR MUST PAY. THERE IS NO EQUIVALENT CASE VIS-A-VIS HEKDESH, SINCE IT WAS THE OMNISCIENT (ALL-KNOWING) CREATOR WHO ISSUED THE ME'ILAH PROHIBITION AND SO "PROTESTED." HENCE, NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN.
BAVA METZIA 99
DAF YOMI
בבא מציעא צט
דף יומי

Feeling kind?

Buy Me A Coffee at Ko-Fi.com