Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 11, 2016 | 讬壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Metzia 46

Can a coin be used to effect a kinyan chalipin聽(symbolic kinyan) and if it can’t, can a coin be acquired through a kinyan chalipin. 聽These questions are debated and sources are brought to prove or disprove opinions on the matter. 聽In this context an important debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish is raised about whether money can be used by Torah law to acquire items. 聽Both agree that practically it can’t be; however Rabbi Yochanan holds that it is only because of a gezeira from the rabbis.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讞讜讝专 讜讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讛谉 诪讞讜诇诇讬谉 注诇 诪注讜转 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘讘讬转 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬谉 讘讬讚讜 诪注讜转 讛讗 讗诐 讬砖 讘讬讚讜 诪注讜转 诇讬拽谞讬 诇讛讜 诇讗讬讚讱 讘诪砖讬讻讛 讜驻专讬拽 讚讛讻讬 注讚讬祝 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讻专讬

and then he says: This second-tithe produce that now belongs to you is hereby desacralized on coins that I have at home. The Gemara infers: The reason that it is necessary to employ this artifice is that he does not have coins in his hand. But if he has coins in his hand let him transfer ownership of the coins to the other person by means of the transaction of pulling, and then that other person will desacralize the second-tithe produce. The reason for this is that this procedure is preferable, as the one who desacralizes the produce is a stranger, not the owner of the produce. Therefore, it appears less like artifice designed to circumvent paying the additional one-fifth.

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讟讘注 谞拽谞讛 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 谞讬拽谞讜 诇讬讛 诪注讜转 诇讛讬讗讱 讗讙讘 住讜讚专 讜诇驻专讜拽 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 住讜讚专 讜谞拽谞讬谞讛讜 谞讛诇讬讛 讗讙讘 拽专拽注 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 拽专拽注

The Gemara continues to state its objection to the opinion of Rav Pappa. And if you say a coin is acquired by means of a transaction of exchange, then even if the owner of produce has no money in his hand, let the owner transfer ownership of the coins, wherever they are, to the other person by means of a cloth, as he can perform a transaction of symbolic exchange with a cloth; and then let the other person desacralize the produce. The Gemara answers: The case in the baraita is one in which he does not have a cloth. The Gemara challenges: And let the owner transfer ownership of the coins to the other person by means of land, i.e., perform an act of transaction concerning the land and include the coins in the transaction. The Gemara answers: The case in the baraita is one in which he does not have land.

讜讛讗 注讜诪讚 讘讙讜专谉 拽转谞讬 讘讙讜专谉 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讜 讜讗讬讻驻诇 转谞讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讙讘专讗 注专讟讬诇讗讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 诪讟讘注 谞拽谞讛 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in the baraita that he is standing on the threshing floor? The Gemara answers: He is standing on a threshing floor that is not his. The Gemara asks: And did the tanna go to all that trouble just to teach us the case of a naked man, i.e., one who has nothing at all? It is unlikely that a baraita would be devoted to so remote a case. Rather, must one not conclude from it that money is not acquired by means of a transaction of exchange? The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the halakha.

讜讗祝 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 转专讬住专 讗诇驻讬 讚讬谞专讬 讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬 讗拽谞讬谞讛讜 诇专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗讞讗 讗讙讘 讗住讬驻讗 讚讘讬转讬讛 讻讬 讗转讗 谞驻拽 诇讗驻讬讛 注讚 转讜讜讱

The Gemara relates: And even Rav Pappa retracted his previous statement that coins are acquired by means of a transaction of exchange, as in this incident in which Rav Pappa had twelve thousand dinars that he lent to another in Bei 岣zai. He transferred ownership of the dinars to his agent, Rav Shmuel bar A岣, by means of granting acquisition of the threshold of his house to him, to enable the agent to demand repayment of the loan on his own behalf. This obviated the need for him to consult Rav Pappa in the case of every contingency, which would complicate matters. It is apparent from the fact that the transaction was effected by means of granting acquisition of the threshold that Rav Pappa concedes that coins are not acquired by means of a transaction of exchange. When Rav Shmuel bar A岣 came after repayment of the loan, Rav Pappa was so pleased that he went out as far as Tevakh to meet him.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗讬谉 诪讟讘注 谞注砖讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗讬谉 诪讟讘注 谞注砖讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讟讘注 谞注砖讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉

The Gemara adds: And likewise, Ulla says: Money cannot be the item used to effect a transaction by means of exchange. And likewise, Rav Asi says: Money cannot be the item used to effect a transaction by means of exchange. And likewise, Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Money cannot be the item used to effect a transaction by means of exchange.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇注讜诇讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讜 讞诪专讬讜 讜驻讜注诇讬讜 转讜讘注讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘砖讜拽 讜讗诪专 诇砖讜诇讞谞讬 转谉 诇讬 讘讚讬谞专 诪注讜转 讜讗驻专谞住诐 讜讗谞讬 讗注诇讛 诇讱 讬驻讛 讚讬谞专 讜讟专讬住讬转 诪诪注讜转 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘讘讬转讬 讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 诪注讜转 诪讜转专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗住讜专 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗讬谉 诪讟讘注 谞注砖讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讛诇讜讗讛 讜讗住讜专 讗砖转讬拽

Rabbi Abba raised an objection to the opinion of Ulla from a baraita: With regard to one whose donkey drivers or laborers were demanding payment of their wages from him in the marketplace, and he said to the money changer: Give me coins worth a dinar and I will provide for them, and later I will give you coins worth a dinar and a tereisit, a coin of lesser value, from money that I have at home, then if he has money at home at that time it is permitted, as it is not considered a loan and therefore the additional payment is not interest. But if he does not have money at home at that time, it is a loan and the additional payment is forbidden as interest. And if it enters your mind that money cannot be the item used to effect a transaction by means of exchange, then even in the case where the employer had money at home, since the money changer does not acquire the employer鈥檚 money at home by means of exchange, it is a loan and the additional payment is forbidden as interest. Ulla was silent.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘驻专讜讟讟讜转 砖谞讜 讚诇讬讻讗 注诇讬讬讛讜 讟讘注讗 讜讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 驻讬专讗 讛讜讜 讜诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 谞拽谞讜 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讬驻讛 讚讬谞专 讜讟专讬住讬转 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讚讬谞专 讬驻讛 讜讟专讬住讬转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rabbi Abba then said the following suggestion to Ulla: Perhaps the Sages taught this halakha in a case where both these coins that are in his house and those coins that he took from the money changer are perotetot, small perutot that are unminted, and the legal status of both these coins and those coins is that of a commodity; and due to that status they are acquired by means of a transaction of exchange. Ulla said to him: Yes, that is the case in the baraita, and the language of the baraita is also precise, as it teaches: I will give you coins worth a dinar and a tereisit, and it does not teach: I will give you an unflawed dinar and a tereisit. Evidently, the baraita is not referring to his giving an actual dinar coin but to other coins of lesser value that equal that value. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the case.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讘讚诪讬诐 讜讘驻专讜讟讟讜转 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 谞注砖讛 讻讗讜诪专 讛诇讜讬谞讬 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讘谞讬 讗讜 注讚 砖讗诪爪讗 诪驻转讞

Rav Ashi said: Actually, it can be explained that there is no transaction by means of exchange in this case. Rather, it is a purchase with money and the tanna is referring to perotetot, and nevertheless there is no violation of the prohibition against interest. Since he has money at home, it is tantamount to saying: Lend me money until my son comes or until I find the key. That is not a loan, and the halakhot of interest do not apply.

转讗 砖诪注 讻诇 讛谞注砖讛 讚诪讬诐 讘讗讞专 讻讬讜谉 砖讝讻讛 讝讛 谞转讞讬讬讘 讝讛 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 讻诇 讛谞注砖讛 讚诪讬诐 讘讗讞专 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诪讟讘注 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讟讘注 谞注砖讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a mishna (Kiddushin 28a): With regard to all items used as monetary value for another item, i.e., instead of a buyer paying money to the seller, they exchange items of value with each other, once one party in the transaction acquires the item he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it. The Gemara analyzes this mishna: With regard to all items used as monetary value for another item, what does the mishna mean in this phrase? It means a coin, and learn from the mishna that a coin can be an item used to effect exchange.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专

Rav Yehuda said: This is what the mishna is saying:

讻诇 讛谞讬砖讜诐 讚诪讬诐 讘讗讞专 讻讬讜谉 砖讝讻讛 讝讛 谞转讞讬讬讘 讝讛 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉

With regard to all items that can be appraised when used as monetary value for another item, i.e., their value can be appraised relative to the value of another item, excluding a coin, whose value is apparent, once one party in the transaction acquires the item he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it. The novelty of the mishna is that all items, not only vessels, can be used to perform the act of acquisition of exchange. Therefore, one should not infer that the halakha is the same with regard to coins.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讻讬爪讚 讛讞诇讬祝 砖讜专 讘驻专讛 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讘砖讜专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to interpret the mishna in that manner, from the fact that the latter clause of that mishna teaches: How so? If one exchanges an ox for a cow, or a donkey for an ox, once this party acquires the animal that he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it. This clause apparently explains the previous clause, and employs the example of animals, not coins. The Gemara concludes: Learn from it that the reference in the mishna is to movable property, not to coins.

讜诇诪讗讬 讚住诇讬拽 讗讚注转讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讟讘注 诪讗讬 讻讬爪讚 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜驻讬专讬 谞诪讬 注讘讚讬 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讻讬爪讚 讛讞诇讬祝 砖讜专 讘驻专讛 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讘砖讜专

The Gemara asks: And with regard to what entered our minds initially, that a coin effects symbolic exchange, what is the meaning of the clause: How so; if one exchanges an ox for a cow, once this party acquires the animal that he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it? This example does not involve a coin. The Gemara explains that it was assumed that this is what the mishna is saying: Not only can a coin be used in the act of acquisition of exchange, but produce, i.e., movable property, can also effect exchange. How so? If one exchanged the meat of an ox for a cow, or the meat of a donkey for an ox, once this party acquires the item that he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘 砖砖转 讚讗诪专 驻讬专讬 注讘讚讬 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇讬 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 驻讬专讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讞诇讬驻讬谉 诪讗讬 讻讬爪讚

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the opinion of Rav Sheshet, who said: Produce effects a transaction of exchange. But according to the opinion of Rav Na岣an, who said: A vessel, yes, it effects a transaction of exchange, but produce does not effect a transaction of exchange, what is the meaning of the continuation of the mishna beginning with the question: How so?

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬砖 讚诪讬诐 砖讛谉 讻讞诇讬驻讬谉 讻讬爪讚 讛讞诇讬祝 讚诪讬 砖讜专 讘驻专讛 讗讜 讚诪讬 讞诪讜专 讘砖讜专

The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: There is a purchase with money where one acquires the purchase item without pulling it that is like a transaction of exchange. How so? It is in a case where one exchanged the monetary value of an ox for a cow, or the monetary value of a donkey for an ox. In this case, one sold his ox to another for an agreed sum of money, and after the buyer acquired the ox by pulling it, he then offered to give the seller his cow in exchange for the money that he owes him. In this case the cow is acquired without the seller having to pull it. Although this acquisition initially was to be an exchange, it is ultimately a purchase for money, as the second animal is acquired as a result of the forgiving of the monetary debt.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 转讜专讛 诪注讜转 拽讜谞讜转 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 诪砖讬讻讛 拽讜谞讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专 诇讜 谞砖专驻讜 讞讟讬讱 讘注诇讬讬讛

The Gemara inquires: What is the reason for the opinion of Rav Na岣an? The Gemara explains: Rav Na岣an holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says: By Torah law money effects acquisition, i.e., when one pays money he acquires the item, even if he has not yet performed another act of acquisition. And for what reason did the Sages say that pulling acquires an item and money does not? This is a rabbinic decree lest the seller say to the buyer after receiving the money: Your wheat was burned in the upper story. If a fire breaks out or some other mishap occurs after a seller receives the money, he will not bother to save the goods in his house because they no longer belong to him, and the buyer may incur a loss.

讜诪诇转讗 讚砖讻讬讞讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 诪诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉

The Sages therefore decreed that acquisition takes effect only when a buyer pulls the item. The mishna allows a transaction that indicates that one can effect acquisition using only money because that case of the mishna as explained by Rav Na岣an is an uncommon occurrence. It is rare for one who has sold his animal in exchange for money to change his mind and request an animal from the purchaser instead. And it is only with regard to a common matter that the Sages issued a decree, whereas with regard to an uncommon matter, the Sages did not issue a decree. Consequently, the Sages did not apply their decree to this situation.

讜诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 诪砖讬讻讛 诪驻讜专砖转 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘 砖砖转 诪转专抓 诇讛 讻专讘 砖砖转

The Gemara asks: And how is the mishna explained according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, who disagrees with Rabbi Yo岣nan and says that pulling is explicitly stated in the Torah? Reish Lakish maintains that the acquisition of movable property cannot be performed with money by Torah law, and therefore there can be no distinction between common and uncommon cases. This works out well if Reish Lakish holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet, who says that produce effects exchange. If so, he can explain the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet.

讗诇讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 驻讬专讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讜诪讟讘注 诇讗 拽谞讬 讛讬讻讬 诪转专抓 诇讛 注诇 讻专讞讱 讻专讘 砖砖转 诪转专抓 诇讛

But if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, who says that produce does not effect exchange and a coin does not effect acquisition by Torah law or by rabbinic law, how does he explain the mishna? The Gemara answers: Perforce Reish Lakish explains the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet.

转谞谉 讻诇 讛诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 拽讜谞讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讬住 诪诇讗 诪注讜转 讘讻讬住 诪诇讗 诪注讜转 转专讙诪讗 专讘 讗讞讗 讘讚讬谞专 讗谞拽讗 讜讗谞讬讙专讗 讗讞讚 砖驻住诇转讜 诪诇讻讜转 讜讗讞讚 砖驻住诇转讜 诪讚讬谞讛

We learned in the mishna: With regard to those who exchange all forms of movable property, each acquires the property of the other. And Reish Lakish says: The expression: All forms of movable property, includes even a case where they exchange a money pouch full of coins for a money pouch full of coins. Apparently, coins effect exchange and are acquired by means of a transaction of exchange. The Gemara rejects this: Rav A岣 interpreted that the exchange of coins is referring to the exchange of a money pouch filled with anka dinars and a money pouch filled with anigera dinars. One is a coin that the kingdom invalidated, as the king decreed that the coin will no longer be used, and one is a coin that the residents of a province invalidated, as they no longer use it as currency.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 驻住诇转讜 诪诇讻讜转 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 住讙讬 讻诇诇 讗讘诇 驻住诇转讜 诪讚讬谞讛 讚住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讗讞专讬转讬 讗讬诪讗 讗讻转讬 诪讟讘注 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 诪讟讘注 谞拽谞讛 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉

And it is necessary to teach the halakha in both cases, as, if the tanna taught us this halakha only with regard to a coin that the kingdom invalidated, I would have said it is not a coin due to the fact that it does not circulate at all, as the king banned its use. But with regard to a coin that the residents of a province invalidated, which circulates in a different state, say that its legal status is still that of a coin, and money cannot be acquired by means of a transaction of exchange.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 驻住诇转讜 诪讚讬谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 住讙讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 讘爪谞注讗 讜诇讗 讘驻专讛住讬讗 讗讘诇 驻住诇转讜 诪诇讻讜转 讚住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘爪谞注讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讻转讬 诪讟讘注 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 诪讟讘注 谞拽谞讛 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 爪专讬讻讗

And if the tanna taught us this halakha only with regard to a coin that the residents of a province invalidated, I would have said it is not a coin due to the fact that in that place it neither circulates in private nor in public, as the local residents do not use it as currency. But with regard to a coin that the kingdom invalidated, which could circulate in private, say that its legal status is still that of a coin, and money cannot be acquired by means of a transaction of exchange. Therefore, it was necessary to teach the halakha in both cases.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讻讜专 诇讬 讘讗诇讜 拽谞讛

Rabba says that Rav Huna says: If one said to another: Sell me your item for these coins that are in my hand, and when taking the money the owner of the item did not determine the sum, the buyer acquired the article and the transaction is complete, and neither can renege on the deal.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 46

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 46

讜讞讜讝专 讜讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讛谉 诪讞讜诇诇讬谉 注诇 诪注讜转 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘讘讬转 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬谉 讘讬讚讜 诪注讜转 讛讗 讗诐 讬砖 讘讬讚讜 诪注讜转 诇讬拽谞讬 诇讛讜 诇讗讬讚讱 讘诪砖讬讻讛 讜驻专讬拽 讚讛讻讬 注讚讬祝 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讻专讬

and then he says: This second-tithe produce that now belongs to you is hereby desacralized on coins that I have at home. The Gemara infers: The reason that it is necessary to employ this artifice is that he does not have coins in his hand. But if he has coins in his hand let him transfer ownership of the coins to the other person by means of the transaction of pulling, and then that other person will desacralize the second-tithe produce. The reason for this is that this procedure is preferable, as the one who desacralizes the produce is a stranger, not the owner of the produce. Therefore, it appears less like artifice designed to circumvent paying the additional one-fifth.

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讟讘注 谞拽谞讛 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 谞讬拽谞讜 诇讬讛 诪注讜转 诇讛讬讗讱 讗讙讘 住讜讚专 讜诇驻专讜拽 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 住讜讚专 讜谞拽谞讬谞讛讜 谞讛诇讬讛 讗讙讘 拽专拽注 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 拽专拽注

The Gemara continues to state its objection to the opinion of Rav Pappa. And if you say a coin is acquired by means of a transaction of exchange, then even if the owner of produce has no money in his hand, let the owner transfer ownership of the coins, wherever they are, to the other person by means of a cloth, as he can perform a transaction of symbolic exchange with a cloth; and then let the other person desacralize the produce. The Gemara answers: The case in the baraita is one in which he does not have a cloth. The Gemara challenges: And let the owner transfer ownership of the coins to the other person by means of land, i.e., perform an act of transaction concerning the land and include the coins in the transaction. The Gemara answers: The case in the baraita is one in which he does not have land.

讜讛讗 注讜诪讚 讘讙讜专谉 拽转谞讬 讘讙讜专谉 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讜 讜讗讬讻驻诇 转谞讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讙讘专讗 注专讟讬诇讗讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 诪讟讘注 谞拽谞讛 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in the baraita that he is standing on the threshing floor? The Gemara answers: He is standing on a threshing floor that is not his. The Gemara asks: And did the tanna go to all that trouble just to teach us the case of a naked man, i.e., one who has nothing at all? It is unlikely that a baraita would be devoted to so remote a case. Rather, must one not conclude from it that money is not acquired by means of a transaction of exchange? The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the halakha.

讜讗祝 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 转专讬住专 讗诇驻讬 讚讬谞专讬 讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬 讗拽谞讬谞讛讜 诇专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗讞讗 讗讙讘 讗住讬驻讗 讚讘讬转讬讛 讻讬 讗转讗 谞驻拽 诇讗驻讬讛 注讚 转讜讜讱

The Gemara relates: And even Rav Pappa retracted his previous statement that coins are acquired by means of a transaction of exchange, as in this incident in which Rav Pappa had twelve thousand dinars that he lent to another in Bei 岣zai. He transferred ownership of the dinars to his agent, Rav Shmuel bar A岣, by means of granting acquisition of the threshold of his house to him, to enable the agent to demand repayment of the loan on his own behalf. This obviated the need for him to consult Rav Pappa in the case of every contingency, which would complicate matters. It is apparent from the fact that the transaction was effected by means of granting acquisition of the threshold that Rav Pappa concedes that coins are not acquired by means of a transaction of exchange. When Rav Shmuel bar A岣 came after repayment of the loan, Rav Pappa was so pleased that he went out as far as Tevakh to meet him.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗讬谉 诪讟讘注 谞注砖讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗讬谉 诪讟讘注 谞注砖讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讟讘注 谞注砖讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉

The Gemara adds: And likewise, Ulla says: Money cannot be the item used to effect a transaction by means of exchange. And likewise, Rav Asi says: Money cannot be the item used to effect a transaction by means of exchange. And likewise, Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Money cannot be the item used to effect a transaction by means of exchange.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇注讜诇讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讜 讞诪专讬讜 讜驻讜注诇讬讜 转讜讘注讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘砖讜拽 讜讗诪专 诇砖讜诇讞谞讬 转谉 诇讬 讘讚讬谞专 诪注讜转 讜讗驻专谞住诐 讜讗谞讬 讗注诇讛 诇讱 讬驻讛 讚讬谞专 讜讟专讬住讬转 诪诪注讜转 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘讘讬转讬 讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 诪注讜转 诪讜转专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗住讜专 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗讬谉 诪讟讘注 谞注砖讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讛诇讜讗讛 讜讗住讜专 讗砖转讬拽

Rabbi Abba raised an objection to the opinion of Ulla from a baraita: With regard to one whose donkey drivers or laborers were demanding payment of their wages from him in the marketplace, and he said to the money changer: Give me coins worth a dinar and I will provide for them, and later I will give you coins worth a dinar and a tereisit, a coin of lesser value, from money that I have at home, then if he has money at home at that time it is permitted, as it is not considered a loan and therefore the additional payment is not interest. But if he does not have money at home at that time, it is a loan and the additional payment is forbidden as interest. And if it enters your mind that money cannot be the item used to effect a transaction by means of exchange, then even in the case where the employer had money at home, since the money changer does not acquire the employer鈥檚 money at home by means of exchange, it is a loan and the additional payment is forbidden as interest. Ulla was silent.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘驻专讜讟讟讜转 砖谞讜 讚诇讬讻讗 注诇讬讬讛讜 讟讘注讗 讜讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 驻讬专讗 讛讜讜 讜诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 谞拽谞讜 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讬驻讛 讚讬谞专 讜讟专讬住讬转 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讚讬谞专 讬驻讛 讜讟专讬住讬转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rabbi Abba then said the following suggestion to Ulla: Perhaps the Sages taught this halakha in a case where both these coins that are in his house and those coins that he took from the money changer are perotetot, small perutot that are unminted, and the legal status of both these coins and those coins is that of a commodity; and due to that status they are acquired by means of a transaction of exchange. Ulla said to him: Yes, that is the case in the baraita, and the language of the baraita is also precise, as it teaches: I will give you coins worth a dinar and a tereisit, and it does not teach: I will give you an unflawed dinar and a tereisit. Evidently, the baraita is not referring to his giving an actual dinar coin but to other coins of lesser value that equal that value. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the case.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讘讚诪讬诐 讜讘驻专讜讟讟讜转 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 谞注砖讛 讻讗讜诪专 讛诇讜讬谞讬 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讘谞讬 讗讜 注讚 砖讗诪爪讗 诪驻转讞

Rav Ashi said: Actually, it can be explained that there is no transaction by means of exchange in this case. Rather, it is a purchase with money and the tanna is referring to perotetot, and nevertheless there is no violation of the prohibition against interest. Since he has money at home, it is tantamount to saying: Lend me money until my son comes or until I find the key. That is not a loan, and the halakhot of interest do not apply.

转讗 砖诪注 讻诇 讛谞注砖讛 讚诪讬诐 讘讗讞专 讻讬讜谉 砖讝讻讛 讝讛 谞转讞讬讬讘 讝讛 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 讻诇 讛谞注砖讛 讚诪讬诐 讘讗讞专 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诪讟讘注 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讟讘注 谞注砖讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a mishna (Kiddushin 28a): With regard to all items used as monetary value for another item, i.e., instead of a buyer paying money to the seller, they exchange items of value with each other, once one party in the transaction acquires the item he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it. The Gemara analyzes this mishna: With regard to all items used as monetary value for another item, what does the mishna mean in this phrase? It means a coin, and learn from the mishna that a coin can be an item used to effect exchange.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专

Rav Yehuda said: This is what the mishna is saying:

讻诇 讛谞讬砖讜诐 讚诪讬诐 讘讗讞专 讻讬讜谉 砖讝讻讛 讝讛 谞转讞讬讬讘 讝讛 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉

With regard to all items that can be appraised when used as monetary value for another item, i.e., their value can be appraised relative to the value of another item, excluding a coin, whose value is apparent, once one party in the transaction acquires the item he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it. The novelty of the mishna is that all items, not only vessels, can be used to perform the act of acquisition of exchange. Therefore, one should not infer that the halakha is the same with regard to coins.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讻讬爪讚 讛讞诇讬祝 砖讜专 讘驻专讛 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讘砖讜专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to interpret the mishna in that manner, from the fact that the latter clause of that mishna teaches: How so? If one exchanges an ox for a cow, or a donkey for an ox, once this party acquires the animal that he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it. This clause apparently explains the previous clause, and employs the example of animals, not coins. The Gemara concludes: Learn from it that the reference in the mishna is to movable property, not to coins.

讜诇诪讗讬 讚住诇讬拽 讗讚注转讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讟讘注 诪讗讬 讻讬爪讚 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜驻讬专讬 谞诪讬 注讘讚讬 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讻讬爪讚 讛讞诇讬祝 砖讜专 讘驻专讛 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讘砖讜专

The Gemara asks: And with regard to what entered our minds initially, that a coin effects symbolic exchange, what is the meaning of the clause: How so; if one exchanges an ox for a cow, once this party acquires the animal that he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it? This example does not involve a coin. The Gemara explains that it was assumed that this is what the mishna is saying: Not only can a coin be used in the act of acquisition of exchange, but produce, i.e., movable property, can also effect exchange. How so? If one exchanged the meat of an ox for a cow, or the meat of a donkey for an ox, once this party acquires the item that he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘 砖砖转 讚讗诪专 驻讬专讬 注讘讚讬 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇讬 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 驻讬专讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讞诇讬驻讬谉 诪讗讬 讻讬爪讚

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the opinion of Rav Sheshet, who said: Produce effects a transaction of exchange. But according to the opinion of Rav Na岣an, who said: A vessel, yes, it effects a transaction of exchange, but produce does not effect a transaction of exchange, what is the meaning of the continuation of the mishna beginning with the question: How so?

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬砖 讚诪讬诐 砖讛谉 讻讞诇讬驻讬谉 讻讬爪讚 讛讞诇讬祝 讚诪讬 砖讜专 讘驻专讛 讗讜 讚诪讬 讞诪讜专 讘砖讜专

The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: There is a purchase with money where one acquires the purchase item without pulling it that is like a transaction of exchange. How so? It is in a case where one exchanged the monetary value of an ox for a cow, or the monetary value of a donkey for an ox. In this case, one sold his ox to another for an agreed sum of money, and after the buyer acquired the ox by pulling it, he then offered to give the seller his cow in exchange for the money that he owes him. In this case the cow is acquired without the seller having to pull it. Although this acquisition initially was to be an exchange, it is ultimately a purchase for money, as the second animal is acquired as a result of the forgiving of the monetary debt.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 转讜专讛 诪注讜转 拽讜谞讜转 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 诪砖讬讻讛 拽讜谞讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专 诇讜 谞砖专驻讜 讞讟讬讱 讘注诇讬讬讛

The Gemara inquires: What is the reason for the opinion of Rav Na岣an? The Gemara explains: Rav Na岣an holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says: By Torah law money effects acquisition, i.e., when one pays money he acquires the item, even if he has not yet performed another act of acquisition. And for what reason did the Sages say that pulling acquires an item and money does not? This is a rabbinic decree lest the seller say to the buyer after receiving the money: Your wheat was burned in the upper story. If a fire breaks out or some other mishap occurs after a seller receives the money, he will not bother to save the goods in his house because they no longer belong to him, and the buyer may incur a loss.

讜诪诇转讗 讚砖讻讬讞讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 诪诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉

The Sages therefore decreed that acquisition takes effect only when a buyer pulls the item. The mishna allows a transaction that indicates that one can effect acquisition using only money because that case of the mishna as explained by Rav Na岣an is an uncommon occurrence. It is rare for one who has sold his animal in exchange for money to change his mind and request an animal from the purchaser instead. And it is only with regard to a common matter that the Sages issued a decree, whereas with regard to an uncommon matter, the Sages did not issue a decree. Consequently, the Sages did not apply their decree to this situation.

讜诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 诪砖讬讻讛 诪驻讜专砖转 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘 砖砖转 诪转专抓 诇讛 讻专讘 砖砖转

The Gemara asks: And how is the mishna explained according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, who disagrees with Rabbi Yo岣nan and says that pulling is explicitly stated in the Torah? Reish Lakish maintains that the acquisition of movable property cannot be performed with money by Torah law, and therefore there can be no distinction between common and uncommon cases. This works out well if Reish Lakish holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet, who says that produce effects exchange. If so, he can explain the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet.

讗诇讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 驻讬专讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讜诪讟讘注 诇讗 拽谞讬 讛讬讻讬 诪转专抓 诇讛 注诇 讻专讞讱 讻专讘 砖砖转 诪转专抓 诇讛

But if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, who says that produce does not effect exchange and a coin does not effect acquisition by Torah law or by rabbinic law, how does he explain the mishna? The Gemara answers: Perforce Reish Lakish explains the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet.

转谞谉 讻诇 讛诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 拽讜谞讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讬住 诪诇讗 诪注讜转 讘讻讬住 诪诇讗 诪注讜转 转专讙诪讗 专讘 讗讞讗 讘讚讬谞专 讗谞拽讗 讜讗谞讬讙专讗 讗讞讚 砖驻住诇转讜 诪诇讻讜转 讜讗讞讚 砖驻住诇转讜 诪讚讬谞讛

We learned in the mishna: With regard to those who exchange all forms of movable property, each acquires the property of the other. And Reish Lakish says: The expression: All forms of movable property, includes even a case where they exchange a money pouch full of coins for a money pouch full of coins. Apparently, coins effect exchange and are acquired by means of a transaction of exchange. The Gemara rejects this: Rav A岣 interpreted that the exchange of coins is referring to the exchange of a money pouch filled with anka dinars and a money pouch filled with anigera dinars. One is a coin that the kingdom invalidated, as the king decreed that the coin will no longer be used, and one is a coin that the residents of a province invalidated, as they no longer use it as currency.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 驻住诇转讜 诪诇讻讜转 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 住讙讬 讻诇诇 讗讘诇 驻住诇转讜 诪讚讬谞讛 讚住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讗讞专讬转讬 讗讬诪讗 讗讻转讬 诪讟讘注 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 诪讟讘注 谞拽谞讛 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉

And it is necessary to teach the halakha in both cases, as, if the tanna taught us this halakha only with regard to a coin that the kingdom invalidated, I would have said it is not a coin due to the fact that it does not circulate at all, as the king banned its use. But with regard to a coin that the residents of a province invalidated, which circulates in a different state, say that its legal status is still that of a coin, and money cannot be acquired by means of a transaction of exchange.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 驻住诇转讜 诪讚讬谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 住讙讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 讘爪谞注讗 讜诇讗 讘驻专讛住讬讗 讗讘诇 驻住诇转讜 诪诇讻讜转 讚住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘爪谞注讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讻转讬 诪讟讘注 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 诪讟讘注 谞拽谞讛 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 爪专讬讻讗

And if the tanna taught us this halakha only with regard to a coin that the residents of a province invalidated, I would have said it is not a coin due to the fact that in that place it neither circulates in private nor in public, as the local residents do not use it as currency. But with regard to a coin that the kingdom invalidated, which could circulate in private, say that its legal status is still that of a coin, and money cannot be acquired by means of a transaction of exchange. Therefore, it was necessary to teach the halakha in both cases.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讻讜专 诇讬 讘讗诇讜 拽谞讛

Rabba says that Rav Huna says: If one said to another: Sell me your item for these coins that are in my hand, and when taking the money the owner of the item did not determine the sum, the buyer acquired the article and the transaction is complete, and neither can renege on the deal.

Scroll To Top