Talmud for Bava Kamma 9:1

MISHNAH: If somebody hired tradesmen¹Independent contractors. and they backed out they are disadvantaged²⁵The contractor can only claim the difference between the contract sum and what was paid to his substitute..; if the householder backs out, he is disadvantaged²⁶He has to pay the contractor’s claims in full.. Anyone changing the terms of a contract is disadvantaged²⁷Mishnah Bava Qamma 9:5.; anyone backing out of a contract is disadvantaged.

MISHNAH: How much time does one have to return it⁹⁵The defective coin which fails the standards of Mishnah 4.? In walled cities⁹⁶Greek χάραξ, χάρακος “palisade”. until one can show it to a banker, in villages until Sabbath eve. If he recognizes it, he should take it back even after twelve months, but he has only a complaint against him⁹⁷If the person who handed out the defective coin recognizes that it is the coin given out illegally, he has a moral duty to take it back even when the legal period in which he can be forced to take it back has expired. If he refuses, the injured party has the right to complain (i. e., tell about the case to other people) but has no recourse in court.. He may use it for Second Tithe without hesitation since it is only miserly⁹⁴In Temple times, Second Tithe produce was redeemed for coin which was spent on food in Jerusalem, to be eaten there in purity. Since the redemption is a transaction between a person and himself, occasionally deficient coins may be used since he knows the deficiency. But one may not collect deficient coins during the year and then use the collected coins for redemption (Ma‘aśer Šeni 2:7, Note 96).’⁹⁸After the destruction of the Temple and the disappearence of the ashes of the red cow (cf. Berakhot 1:1, Note 3) when food can no longer be eaten in purity, the coin has to be destroyed. For that purpose it even is preferable to use defective coins..
Cheating is by four oboli⁹⁹Mishnah 3., claim is about two oboli, confession is about one peruṭah¹⁰⁰The court will not impose a judicial oath unless it be a case in which the claim is at least 2 oboli and the defendant admits to owing at least 1 peruṭah:, Mishnah Šebuot 6:1.. There are five peruṭot¹⁰¹The peruṭah appears as minimal standard in five legal categories.: Confession is about one peruṭah¹⁰⁰The court will not impose a judicial oath unless it be a case in which the claim is at least 2 oboli and the defendant admits to owing at least 1 peruṭah:, Mishnah Šebuot 6:1.; a woman is preliminarily married by one peruṭah’s worth¹⁰²Mishnah Qiddušin 1:1.; one who used one peruṭah’s worth of Temple property committed larceny¹⁰³He has to pay a 25% fine and bring a sacrifice, Lev. 5:15–16.; one who finds one peruṭah’ s worth has to make it public; one who robbed another of one peruṭah’s worth and swore about it, has to return it to him even in Media¹⁰⁴Mishnah Bava qamma 9:7..
There are five fifths¹⁰⁵Five cases in which a payment of 125% of the amount is due.: He who eats heave, or heave of the tithe¹⁰⁶If he eats in error, Mishnah Terumot 6:1; Lev. 22:14, Num. 18:26., or heave of the tithe of demay¹⁰⁷This only applies to demay(produce of which it is not known whether it was tithed), but not to the heave of its tithe; Mishnah Demay 1:2, Note 67., or ḥallah¹⁰⁸Num. 15:20., or first fruits¹⁰⁹Mishnah Bikkurim 2:1., adds a fifth¹¹⁰All these cases are considered identical since each of them is called “heave” in a verse.. He who redeems his vineyard in the fourth year¹¹¹Lev.19:24, 27:31. or his Second Tithe¹¹²Mishnah Ma‘aśer Šeni 5:5; Deut.14:25., adds a fifth. He who redeems his own gifts to the Temple, adds a fifth¹¹³Lev. 27:19.. He who used one peruṭah’s worth of Temple property, adds a fifth¹⁰³He has to pay a 25% fine and bring a sacrifice, Lev. 5:15–16.. He who robbed another of one peruṭah’s worth and swore about it, adds a fifth¹¹⁴Lev. 5:24..

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan did not go to the assembly. He was standing with Rebbi Mana and asked him, what new was said? He said: So says Rebbi Yose, a person causing impurity does not have the status of a perpetrator¹²⁴Because an outside observer could not notice any change in the food which was made impure., fromthe following¹²⁵Mishnah Baba Qama 9:2. If somebody stole heave and it became impure in his possession, he can hand it back to the owner and tell him, this is yours. But pure heave was food and impure heave can only be used as fuel; the difference in value cannot be claimed in court.: “Heave which became impure.” He answered: Explain it, if it became impure by itself¹²⁶The passive formulation in the Mishnah invites this interpretation.; then you cannot infer anything, because of a Mishnah¹²⁷Bekhorot 4:4. The Mishnah is part of R. Yudan’s argument since it states that if a person who is not duly ordained exercizes the function of a rabbi or judge, he is personally responsible for any damage he causes by a wrong decision. In the Babli, 53b, the same argument is made by Rav Papa.: “If somebody judged, absolved the guilty and obligated the innocent, declared the pure impure and the impure pure.” For Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: If he touched it with his hand¹²⁸The obligation to pay in this case is not by the declaration that something is impure, but by the act of the incompetent judge who handles the material in question when he declares it impure. Since a person can make impure only by an action, either touching or moving, he equally will be responsible under the laws of torts.. Samuel said: If he touched it with his hand. Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi says, it should have been logical that even intentionally he should have been free. Why did they say that he is obligated¹²⁹It is obvious that “free” and “obligated” have to be interchanged. Since the prior argument showed that causing impurity is causing damage under the laws of torts, the person causing unintentional impurity should have to pay. The reason that courts refrain from applying the rules of torts in this case is that the damage is not visible and, in order to guard the owner of the impure food and others from unintentional sin, it is necessary to induce the person causing the damage to come forward and tell by granting him immunity.? That he should tell. And Rebbi Joḥanan said, it should have been logical that even unintentionally he should have been obligated. Why did they say that he is free¹³⁰Here also, it is obvious that “free” and “obligated” have to be interchanged. Since the damage cannot be detected, it cannot be claimed in court. The obligation to pay is not derived from the laws of torts but is a regulation “for the public good” in line with the other rules of this chapter.? Because of a fine. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan comes from this: “If someone causes anything to become impure, or dema‘, or libation wine, if it was unintentional he is free, intentional he is obligated,” and Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays a fine. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “A person who puts a yoke on another’s cow is free in human law but guilty in Heaven’s law.¹³¹In the times of the Temple, a red (probably meaning reddish-brown) cow without any black hair was worth millions (as material for the purification from the impurity of the dead, Num. 19) provided it never was used for work and never wore a yoke. Putting a yoke on such a cow for the shortest of times robs its owner of an enormous sum of money but, since the damage is not visible, it is not claimable in a human court. This follows the doctrine of R. Joḥanan that damages which cannot be observed on the object cannot be claimed in court.”