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

Daf Yomi

April 15, 2024 | 讝壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖驻状讚

  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

Bava Metzia 47

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in loving memory of her husband’s friend and chavruta, Avraham ben Shlomo Baime on his 7th yahrzeit. ” A true eved Hashem who founded the Elazar English Kollel which delves into the intricacies of the Talmud. I have the z’chut to be learning with his gemarot which inspire me to reach greater heights through the guidance of our trailblazer R. Michelle who provides clarity and daily introspection to our learning.”

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by the Hadran zoom group for a refuah shleima of Yaakov Yitzchak ben Miriam Esther, the son of our dear friend Miriam.Yitz should have a speedy and full recovery.”

Rav Huna ruled that one can acquire an item through chalipin if the buyer has a pile of coins and says to the seller, “Sell it to me for this pile of money.” Since the seller did not care to count how much money was in the pile, the sale would be final as soon as the seller took the money. Would regular laws of onaah be effective here, if the buyer underpaid by a sixth? There are two different versions of what Rav Huna said regarding onaah in this case. If one sold an item through a chalipin transaction but made it clear that he/she wanted the chalipin item to be valued at the value of the item he/she was selling, would the chalipin item be considered like money and therefore there will be no acquisition by the chalipin item, but only when the sold item is pulled by the buyer, or not? Can one infer from Rav Huna’s ruling that a coin can be used for effecting a chalipin聽transaction? Is it the buyer or the seller that gives the chalipin item? This is both a debate among amoraim and also tannaim. These opinions are derived from Rut 4:7 when Naomi’s relative sells his rights to Boaz to redeem Naomi and Ruth’s property. What is the basis for the debate between Rav Sheshet and Rav Nachman about what items can be used to effect a kinyan chalipin? What is an asimon that is mentioned in the Mishna? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish have a debate, as mentioned previously, does money effect a transaction by Torah law or not. From where in the Torah do they derive their opinions? Two parts of our Mishna are brought to raise a difficulty against Reish Lakish’s position, but are resolved.

讜讬砖 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛


And if the sum of money is one-sixth lower than the value of the item, the seller of the item has a claim of exploitation against the buyer, who must pay the difference to the seller.


拽谞讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 诪砖讱 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 拽驻讬讚 拽谞讛 讚讻讬 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讚诪讬 讜讬砖 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛 讚诪讻讜专 诇讬 讘讗诇讜 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讻讜专 诇讬 讘讗诇讜 拽谞讛 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛


The Gemara elaborates: The buyer acquires the item even though he did not pull it, because since the seller is not particular about the sum, the buyer acquired the item, as it is similar to a transaction effected by means of exchange. And the seller has a claim of exploitation against the buyer because the buyer said to him: Sell me your item for these coins. The use of the language of sale indicates that it will be for an acceptable price. Rav Abba says that Rav Huna says that if the buyer said: Sell me your item for these coins, the buyer acquired the item; and the seller of the item has no claim of exploitation against the buyer, as it is a full-fledged transaction effected by means of exchange.


驻砖讬讟讗 讚诪讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讛谉 讛讗 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讚拽谞讬 讚讻讞诇讬驻讬谉 讚诪讜 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讜诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讛谉 诪讗讬


The Gemara analyzes these halakhot: It is obvious that in a case where there is a sale of an item for money and the seller is not particular about the sum, we say that the buyer acquires the item immediately upon receiving the money, as it is similar to a transaction effected by means of exchange. But if it is a transaction effected by means of exchange and one of the parties is particular that the value of the items is equal, what is the halakha? Is its legal status that of a sale, or that of a transaction effected by means of exchange?


讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 转讗 砖诪注 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 转讜驻砖 驻专转讜 讜注讜诪讚 讜讘讗 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 驻专转讱 诇诪讛 诇讞诪讜专 讗谞讬 爪专讬讱 讬砖 诇讬 讞诪讜专 砖讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 驻专转讱 讘讻诪讛 讘讻讱 讜讻讱 讞诪讜专讱 讘讻诪讛 讘讻讱 讜讻讱


Rav Adda bar Ahava says: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from a baraita: There is a case where one was grasping his cow and standing in place, and another came and said to him: Why is your cow standing here? The owner of the cow replied: I need a donkey, and I hope to exchange this cow for one. The other person said: I have a donkey that I can give you; for how much are you selling your cow? The owner of the cow responded: I am selling it for such and such a price. He then said: For how much are you selling your donkey? The owner of the donkey responded: I am selling it for such and such a price.


诪砖讱 讘注诇 讛讞诪讜专 讗转 讛驻专讛 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 讘注诇 讛驻专讛 诇诪砖讜讱 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 注讚 砖诪转 讛讞诪讜专 诇讗 拽谞讛 讘注诇 讛讞诪讜专 讗转 讛驻专讛


If, after this discussion, the owner of the donkey pulled the cow, but the owner of the cow did not manage to pull the donkey before the donkey died, the owner of the donkey did not acquire the cow, even though ostensibly this was a transaction effected by means of exchange, which is typically complete once one of the parties pulls the item he is acquiring.


砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讜诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讛谉 诇讗 拽谞讛


The Gemara suggests: Learn from it that in a case where there is a transaction effected by means of exchange and one of the parties is particular that the value of the items is equal, he does not acquire the item immediately. In contrast to the standard case of exchange, the owners of the cow and donkey assessed the value of the animals before the transaction. Since they are particular about the price, the acquisition is not completed until each pulls the item he is acquiring.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讟讜 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讘砖讜驻讟谞讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讗诇讗 讻诇 讞诇讬驻讬谉 诪讬拽驻讚 拽驻讚讬 讜拽谞讛 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪讜专 讘驻专讛 讜讟诇讛 讜诪砖讱 讗转 讛驻专讛 讜注讚讬讬谉 诇讗 诪砖讱 讗转 讛讟诇讛 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪砖讬讻讛 诪注诇讬讗


Rava said: Is that to say that in a standard case of exchange we are dealing with fools, who are not particular about the value of the items that they are acquiring? Rather, in every case of exchange, the parties are particular about the value of the items, and when one party pulls an item the other party acquires the other item immediately and pays for it later. And with what are we dealing here? The case in the baraita is where one party said to the other party: Let us exchange a donkey for a cow and a lamb, and the owner of the donkey pulled the cow and did not yet pull the lamb, as in that case he has not performed a proper act of pulling.


讗诪专 诪专 诪讻讜专 诇讬 讘讗诇讜 拽谞讛 讜讬砖 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛 诇讬诪讗 住讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讟讘注 谞注砖讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉


The Master, Rav Huna, said above that if one said to another: Sell me your item for these coins, the buyer acquired the article, and if the sum of money is one-sixth lower than the value of the item, the seller of the item has a claim of exploitation against the buyer. The Gemara suggests: Let us say based on that halakha that Rav Huna holds that a coin can be an item used to effect exchange.


诇讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 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 诪诇转讗 讚砖讻讬讞讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 讜诪诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗转讜谉 讛讻讬 诪转谞讬转讜 诇讛 讗谞谉 讛讻讬 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谉 诪讟讘注 谞注砖讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, Rav Huna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says: By Torah law money effects 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. And it is only with regard to a common matter that the Sages issued a decree, but with regard to an uncommon matter the Sages did not issue a decree. Therefore, in this case there is no decree, and the transaction is governed by Torah law. Mar Huna, son of Rav Na岣an, said to Rav Ashi: You teach this halakha in that manner; we teach it in this manner, not by inference but as an explicit ruling: And likewise, Rav Huna said: Money cannot be the item used to effect a transaction by means of exchange.


讘诪讛 拽讜谞讬谉


搂 Above, the Gemara mentioned a form of exchange in which there are not two items of equal value being exchanged, but rather one person attempts to transfer possession of his item to the buyer by means of a symbolic exchange involving, e.g., a cloth. With regard to that symbolic transaction, the Gemara asks: With what vessel does one acquire the item in question, i.e., whose vessel is used in order to effect this symbolic transaction?


专讘 讗诪专 讘讻诇讬讜 砖诇 拽讜谞讛 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇拽讜谞讛 讚诇讛讜讬 诪拽谞讛 拽讜谞讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讙诪专 讜诇拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 讘讻诇讬讜 砖诇 诪拽谞讛 讻讚讘注讬谞谉 诇诪讬诪专 诇拽诪谉


Rav says: One effects the transaction with the vessels of the one acquiring the item, who effects the transaction by giving the vessels to the owner of the item. The moment that the owner pulls the vessel into his possession, the transaction is complete and ownership of the item in question is transferred to his counterpart. Rav explains that the one acquiring the item is amenable to having the one transferring ownership of the item acquire his vessel, so that he will resolve to transfer ownership to him. And Levi says: One effects the transaction by having the one acquiring the item pull the vessels of the one transferring ownership, as we seek to explain below.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讚住拽专转讗 诇专讘讗 讜诇诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 讘讻诇讬讜 砖诇 诪拽谞讛 讛讗 拽讗 拽谞讬 讗专注讗 讗讙讘 讙诇讬诪讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讜谞拽谞讬谉 注诐 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讜讗谞谉 讗讬驻讻讗 转谞谉 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞拽谞讬谉 注诐 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转


Rav Huna from Diskarta said to Rava: But according to Levi, who says that one effects the transaction with the vessels of the one transferring ownership, there is a difficulty. In a case where one acquires land by means of symbolic exchange where the item used is a cloak, it turns out that he is acquiring land by means of a cloak. If so, this is a case of property that is guaranteed, i.e., land, and it is acquired with movable property that is not guaranteed, by means of a transaction performed on the latter. And we learned the opposite in a mishna (Kiddushin 26a): Property that is not guaranteed is acquired with property that is guaranteed, i.e., land, by means of a transaction performed on the latter.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讜讬 讛讻讗 讛讜讛 诪驻讬拽 诇讗驻讱 驻讜诇住讬 讚谞讜专讗 诪讬 住讘专转 讙诇讬诪讗 诪拽谞讛 诇讬讛 讘讛讛讬讗 讛谞讗讛 讚拽讗 诪拽讘诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讙诪专 讜讗拽谞讬 诇讬讛


Rava said to him: If Levi, whose opinion you questioned, were here, he would take out rods of fire before you and flog you for your unwarranted question. Do you maintain that he said that at the moment he transfers ownership of the cloak he transfers ownership of the land to him? That is not the case; rather, in exchange for that pleasure the owner of the item experiences from the fact that the one acquiring the cloak accepted it from him, he resolves to transfer ownership to him. This is unlike the acquisition of movable items by means of a transaction of land, where both are acquired simultaneously. Here, the transfer of ownership of the cloak effects the subsequent transfer of ownership of the land.


讻转谞讗讬 讜讝讗转 诇驻谞讬诐 讘讬砖专讗诇 注诇 讛讙讗讜诇讛 讜注诇 讛转诪讜专讛 诇拽讬诐 讻诇 讚讘专 砖诇祝 讗讬砖 谞注诇讜 讜谞转谉 诇专注讛讜 讙讗讜诇讛 讝讜 诪讻讬专讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 转诪讜专讛 讝讜 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讞诇讬驻谞讜 讜诇讗 讬诪讬专 讗讜转讜


The Gemara comments: This dispute between Rav and Levi is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. The verse states: 鈥淣ow this was the custom in former time in Israel concerning redemption and concerning substitution, to confirm all matters; a man drew off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbor鈥 (Ruth 4:7). The verse is interpreted: 鈥淩edemption鈥; that is a sale. And likewise it says: 鈥淣either shall be sold nor shall be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:28). 鈥淪ubstitution鈥; that is the transaction of exchange. And likewise it says: 鈥淗e may neither exchange it nor substitute it鈥 (Leviticus 27:10).


诇拽讬诐 讻诇 讚讘专 砖诇祝 讗讬砖 谞注诇讜 讜谞转谉 诇专注讛讜 诪讬 谞转谉 诇诪讬 讘讜注讝 谞转谉 诇讙讜讗诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讙讜讗诇 谞转谉 诇讘讜注讝


With regard to the phrase 鈥淭o confirm all matters; a man drew off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbor,鈥 the baraita asks: Who gave the shoe to whom? Boaz gave his shoe to the redeemer, the closest relative of Elimelech, who had the right of first refusal to the land that Naomi, Elimelech鈥檚 widow, was planning to sell. The redeemer was transferring that right to the land to Boaz, who was acquiring it by means of his shoe. Rabbi Yehuda says: The redeemer gave his shoe to Boaz. The dispute between Rav and Levi is parallel to the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda.


转谞讗 拽讜谞讬谉 讘讻诇讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讻诇讬 讗讘诇 讘驻讬专讬 诇讗 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘驻讬专讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 谞注诇讜 谞注诇 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗


搂 It was taught: One can acquire property through a symbolic exchange by using a vessel, even if it does not have the value of one peruta. Rav Na岣an says: The Sages taught that this symbolic exchange can be effected only by using a vessel, but not by using produce, i.e., any item other than a vessel. Rav Sheshet says: It can be effected even by using produce. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the opinion of Rav Na岣an? The verse states: 鈥淗is shoe鈥 (Ruth 4:7), from which it is derived: With regard to a shoe and any other item similar to a shoe, i.e., a vessel, yes, the symbolic exchange can be effected; with regard to any item other than a vessel, no, it cannot be effected.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇拽讬诐 讻诇 讚讘专 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 诇拽讬诐 讻诇 讚讘专 讛讛讜讗 诇拽讬诐 讻诇 讚讘专 讚谞讬拽谞讬谉 讘诪谞注诇 讜专讘 砖砖转 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 谞注诇讜 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 砖砖转 诪讛 谞注诇讜 讚讘专 讛诪住讜讬讬诐 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 讛诪住讜讬讬诐 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讞爪讬 专诪讜谉 讜讞爪讬 讗讙讜讝 讚诇讗


What is the reason for the opinion of Rav Sheshet? The verse in Ruth states: 鈥淭o confirm all matters,鈥 from which it is derived that all items, even if they are not vessels, can effect the exchange. The Gemara asks: According to Rav Na岣an as well, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭o confirm all matters鈥? The Gemara explains: In his opinion, that phrase: 鈥淭o confirm all matters,鈥 is referring to all items that can be acquired through an exchange effected by using a shoe. The Gemara asks: And according to Rav Sheshet as well, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淗is shoe鈥? The Gemara explains: Rav Sheshet could have said to you that from that term it is derived: Just as his shoe is a complete item, so too, every complete item can effect a symbolic exchange, to exclude half a pomegranate and half a nut, which cannot effect a symbolic exchange. A whole pomegranate or nut can be used for that purpose.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讻诪讗谉 讻转讘讬谞谉 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讘诪谞讗 讚讻砖专 诇诪拽谞讬讗 讘讬讛 讘诪谞讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘 砖砖转 讚讗诪专 拽讜谞讬谉 讘驻讬专讜转 讚讻砖专 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 拽讜谞讬谉


Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: In accordance with whose opinion do we write today in documents that the transaction was effected with a vessel that is fit to acquire items with it? The Gemara explains: The term with a vessel serves to exclude the opinion of Rav Sheshet, who says: One acquires an item through a transaction of symbolic exchange by using produce. The term that is fit serves to exclude the opinion of Shmuel, who says: One acquires an item


讘诪专讜拽讗 诇诪拽谞讬讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 讘讻诇讬讜 砖诇 诪拽谞讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇诪拽谞讬讗 讜诇讗 诇拽谞讜讬讬 讘讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讟讘注 讜专讘 讝讘讬讚 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛


with date pits used for cleaning and smoothing parchment. The term to acquire items serves to exclude the opinion of Levi, who says that the symbolic exchange is effected by means of the vessels of the one transferring ownership of the item. This latter expression teaches us that the vessel is given to acquire and not to transfer ownership to the other. With regard to the term: With it, Rav Pappa said: It serves to exclude a coin, which cannot effect a symbolic exchange. And Rav Zevid, and some say Rav Ashi, said: It serves to exclude items from which deriving benefit is prohibited.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讟讘注 讚讻砖专 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 讗讘诇 诪讜专讬拽讗 诇讗 讗爪讟专讬讱


Some say a different version of the dispute, as follows. With regard to the term: With it, Rav Pappa said: It serves to exclude a coin, which cannot effect a symbolic exchange. With regard to the term: That is fit, Rav Zevid, and some say Rav Ashi, said: It serves to exclude items from which deriving benefit is prohibited. But according to this version, a verse to exclude date pits is not necessary, as they are of no significance at all.


讗住讬诪讜谉 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛诪讟讘注 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讗住讬诪讜谉 讗诪专 专讘 诪注讜转 讛谞讬转谞讜转 讘住讬诪谉 诇讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓


搂 The Gemara returns to an analysis of a passage in the mishna. When one party takes possession of an asimon, the other party acquires the minted coin. The Gemara asks: What is an asimon? Rav said: It is one of the coins given as a token to gain entry into the bathhouse, for which the bathers would pay later.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 注诇 讗住讬诪讜谉 讜诇讗 注诇 诪注讜转 讛谞讬转谞讜转 讘住讬诪谉 诇讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 诪讻诇诇 讚讗住讬诪讜谉 诇讗讜 诪注讜转 讛谞讬转谞讜转 讘住讬诪谉 诇讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 驻专讜砖讬 拽诪驻专砖 讜讛讗 诇讗 转谞讗 讛讻讬 诪讞诇诇讬谉 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 注诇 讗住讬诪讜谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇 诪注讜转 讛谞讬转谞讜转 讘住讬诪谉 诇讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓


The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One desacralizes second-tithe produce neither with an asimon nor with one of the coins given as a token to gain entry into the bathhouse. This proves by inference that an asimon is not one of the coins given as tokens in a bathhouse. And if you would say the tanna is explaining the meaning of the term asimon, there is a difficulty with that explanation. But wasn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita like this: One desacralizes second-tithe produce with an asimon; this is the statement of Rabbi Dosa. And the Rabbis say: One does not desacralize second-tithe produce with an asimon. And they agree that one does not desacralize the second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto one of the coins given as a token to gain entry into the bathhouse. It is clear from this baraita that an asimon is not a token given in a bathhouse.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讗住讬诪讜谉 驻讜诇住讗 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜爪专转 讛讻住祝 讘讬讚讱 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讚讘专 讛谞爪专专 讘讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 爪讜专讛


Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: What is an asimon? It is a blank, i.e., a piece of metal in the shape of a coin that was not yet imprinted. The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yo岣nan follows his standard line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Rabbi Dosa and Rabbi Yishmael said the same thing. Rabbi Dosa, as we stated, said that the legal status of an asimon is that of a coin. With regard to Rabbi Yishmael, what is his statement? It is as it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd you shall bind up [vetzarta] the money in your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:25). This serves to include any type of money that is bound [hanitzrar] in one鈥檚 hand, i.e., that has monetary value; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: It serves to include any type of money that has an imprint [tzura]. Rabbi Akiva requires a minted coin in order to desacralize a second-tithe produce coin, while Rabbi Yishmael says that a blank can be used as well.


讻讬爪讚 诪砖讱 讛讬诪谞讜 驻讬专讜转 讜诇讗 谞转谉 诇讜 诪注讜转 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 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


搂 The mishna teaches: How so? If the buyer pulled produce from the seller, but the buyer did not yet give the seller their value in coins, he cannot renege on the transaction, but if the buyer gave the seller coins, but did not yet pull produce from him, he can renege on the transaction, as the transaction is not yet complete. 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.


住讜祝 住讜祝 诪讗谉 讚砖讚讗 讚诇讬拽讛 讘注讬 砖诇讜诪讬 讗诇讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 转驻讜诇 讚诇讬拽讛 讘讗讜谞住 讗讬 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛讜 讘专砖讜转讬讛 诪住专 谞驻砖讬讛 讟专讞 讜诪爪讬诇 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 诪住专 谞驻砖讬讛 讟专讞 讜诪爪讬诇


The Gemara asks: Ultimately, the one who ignited the fire is required to pay for the damage caused, and the one who purchased the movable items with money will be reimbursed for his loss, so why was there a need to issue this decree? Rather, it is a rabbinic decree lest a fire be ignited spontaneously due to circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control, where no one is liable to pay for the damage caused. If you establish the purchase item in the possession of the seller, he will expend great effort, exert himself, and rescue the item, as it is still his own property. But if you do not establish the purchase item in the possession of the seller, he will not expend great effort, exert himself, and rescue the item. That is the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan.


专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪砖讬讻讛 诪驻讜专砖转 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻讬 转诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专 诇注诪讬转讱 讗讜 拽谞讛 诪讬讚 注诪讬转讱 讚讘专 讛谞拽谞讛 诪讬讚 诇讬讚


Reish Lakish says: The act of acquisition of pulling is explicit in the Torah, and it is not merely by rabbinic decree that payment of money does not effect acquisition of movable property. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Reish Lakish? He derives it from the Torah, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd if you sell to your colleague an item that is sold, or acquire from your colleague鈥檚 hand, you shall not exploit his brother鈥 (Leviticus 25:14), and the reference is to an item that is acquired from hand to hand, i.e., by means of pulling.


讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讬讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 拽专拽注 讚诇讬转 讘讛 讗讜谞讗讛


And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The term 鈥渇rom your colleague鈥檚 hand鈥 is not teaching that an item can be acquired by pulling. Rather, it serves to exclude land, which is not subject to the halakha of exploitation because it is not physically handed over from one to another.


讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讜讻讬 转诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专 诪讬讚 注诪讬转讱 讗诇 转讜谞讜 讗讜 拽谞讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇诪砖讬讻讛


The Gemara asks: And how does Reish Lakish respond to that explanation? The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish agrees that the verse serves to exclude land from the halakha of exploitation. But if it is so that this was its only purpose, let the verse write: And if you sell, from your colleague鈥檚 hand, an item that is sold, you shall not exploit. Why do I need the additional phrase 鈥渙r acquire鈥? Learn from it that acquisition by Torah law is effected by means of pulling.


讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜 拽谞讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讜讻讬 转诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专 讗诇 转讜谞讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖谞转讗谞讛 诇讜拽讞 谞转讗谞讛 诪讜讻专 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 拽谞讛 讗诇 转讜谞讜


The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yo岣nan, what does he do with the phrase 鈥渙r acquire鈥? What halakha does he derive? The Gemara answers: He requires that phrase for that which is taught in a baraita: From the phrase in the verse: 鈥淎nd if you sell to your colleague an item that is sold鈥ou shall not exploit,鈥 I have derived only a case where the buyer was exploited. From where is it derived that the halakha is the same in a case where the seller was exploited? The verse states: 鈥淥r acquire鈥ou shall not exploit,鈥 indicating that it is prohibited for the one who acquires the item to exploit the seller.


讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 转专转讬 讙诪专 诪讬谞讬讛


The Gemara asks: And from where does Reish Lakish derive this halakha? He derives two halakhot from the phrase 鈥渙r acquire from your colleague鈥檚 hand.鈥 He derives that it is prohibited to exploit the seller and that movable items are acquired by means of pulling.


转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讻住祝 讘讬讚讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 诪讜讻专 讛讜讗 讚诪爪讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诇讜拽讞 诇讗 诪爪讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪注讜转 拽讜谞讜转 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪讜讻专 诪爪讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诇讜拽讞 诇讗 诪爪讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪注讜转 讗讬谞谉 拽讜谞讜转 诇讜拽讞 谞诪讬 诇讬讛讚专 讘讬讛


We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: Anyone who has the money in his possession has the advantage. It is the seller who can retract from the transaction; the buyer cannot retract from the transaction. The Gemara asks: Granted, if you say that giving money effects acquisition of movable property, it is due to that reason that the seller can retract from the transaction and the buyer cannot retract from the transaction. Rabbi Yo岣nan explained that the Sages instituted pulling to complete the transaction for the benefit of the buyer so that the seller will expend great effort and rescue the item, as it is still his own property. But the seller acquires the money immediately. But if you say in general that giving money does not effect acquisition of movable property, let the buyer also renege on the transaction.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉


The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish could have said to you: I did not state my opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon; when I stated my opinion it was in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇专讘谞谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讚专讱 砖转拽谞讜 诪砖讬讻讛 讘诪讜讻专讬谉 讻讱 转拽谞讜 诪砖讬讻讛 讘诇拽讜讞讜转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘谞谉 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘 讞住讚讗


The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Reish Lakish, that is the dispute between the opinions of Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis, as Rabbi Shimon holds that money effects acquisition of the item and the Rabbis hold that only pulling the item effects its acquisition. But according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, what difference is there between the opinion of Rabbi Shimon and that of the Rabbis? The Gemara responds: The difference between them is with regard to the statement of Rav 岣sda, as Rav 岣sda says: Just as the Sages instituted pulling for the sellers, likewise, they instituted pulling for the buyers. Until the item is pulled, the buyer can also renege on the transaction. Rabbi Shimon does not hold in accordance with the statement of Rav 岣sda, and the Rabbis hold in accordance with the statement of Rav 岣sda.


转谞谉 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 诪讬 砖驻专注 诪讚讜专 讛诪讘讜诇 讛讜讗 注转讬讚 诇讬驻专注 诪诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜诪讚 讘讚讬讘讜专讜 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪注讜转 拽讜谞讜转 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽讗讬 讘讗讘诇 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪注讜转 讗讬谞谉 拽讜谞讜转 讗诪讗讬 拽讗讬 讘讗讘诇 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专讬诐


We learned in the mishna: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the generation of the dispersion, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement. Granted, if you say that giving money effects acquisition of movable property, it is due to that reason that one who reneges on the transaction after the money is paid stands subject to the curse: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment. But if you say that giving money does not effect acquisition of movable property, why does one who reneges after the money is paid stand subject to the curse: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment? The Gemara answers: It is due to the fact that he reneged on a statement of his committing himself to buy the item.


讜讘讚讘专讬诐 诪讬 拽讗讬 讘讗讘诇 讜讛转谞讬讗


The Gemara asks: And does one who reneged on a statement of commitment stand subject to the curse: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita:


  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Metzia – 43-49 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about cases where money is deposited at a moneychanger and when he has the right...
talking talmud_square

Bava Metzia 47: The Significance of a Handkerchief

Defining "kinyan sudar" - a handkerchief version of halipin. Plus, "kinyan agav," where the act of acquisition is secondary and...

Bava Metzia 47

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 47

讜讬砖 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛


And if the sum of money is one-sixth lower than the value of the item, the seller of the item has a claim of exploitation against the buyer, who must pay the difference to the seller.


拽谞讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 诪砖讱 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 拽驻讬讚 拽谞讛 讚讻讬 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讚诪讬 讜讬砖 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛 讚诪讻讜专 诇讬 讘讗诇讜 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讻讜专 诇讬 讘讗诇讜 拽谞讛 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛


The Gemara elaborates: The buyer acquires the item even though he did not pull it, because since the seller is not particular about the sum, the buyer acquired the item, as it is similar to a transaction effected by means of exchange. And the seller has a claim of exploitation against the buyer because the buyer said to him: Sell me your item for these coins. The use of the language of sale indicates that it will be for an acceptable price. Rav Abba says that Rav Huna says that if the buyer said: Sell me your item for these coins, the buyer acquired the item; and the seller of the item has no claim of exploitation against the buyer, as it is a full-fledged transaction effected by means of exchange.


驻砖讬讟讗 讚诪讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讛谉 讛讗 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讚拽谞讬 讚讻讞诇讬驻讬谉 讚诪讜 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讜诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讛谉 诪讗讬


The Gemara analyzes these halakhot: It is obvious that in a case where there is a sale of an item for money and the seller is not particular about the sum, we say that the buyer acquires the item immediately upon receiving the money, as it is similar to a transaction effected by means of exchange. But if it is a transaction effected by means of exchange and one of the parties is particular that the value of the items is equal, what is the halakha? Is its legal status that of a sale, or that of a transaction effected by means of exchange?


讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 转讗 砖诪注 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 转讜驻砖 驻专转讜 讜注讜诪讚 讜讘讗 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 驻专转讱 诇诪讛 诇讞诪讜专 讗谞讬 爪专讬讱 讬砖 诇讬 讞诪讜专 砖讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 驻专转讱 讘讻诪讛 讘讻讱 讜讻讱 讞诪讜专讱 讘讻诪讛 讘讻讱 讜讻讱


Rav Adda bar Ahava says: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from a baraita: There is a case where one was grasping his cow and standing in place, and another came and said to him: Why is your cow standing here? The owner of the cow replied: I need a donkey, and I hope to exchange this cow for one. The other person said: I have a donkey that I can give you; for how much are you selling your cow? The owner of the cow responded: I am selling it for such and such a price. He then said: For how much are you selling your donkey? The owner of the donkey responded: I am selling it for such and such a price.


诪砖讱 讘注诇 讛讞诪讜专 讗转 讛驻专讛 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 讘注诇 讛驻专讛 诇诪砖讜讱 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 注讚 砖诪转 讛讞诪讜专 诇讗 拽谞讛 讘注诇 讛讞诪讜专 讗转 讛驻专讛


If, after this discussion, the owner of the donkey pulled the cow, but the owner of the cow did not manage to pull the donkey before the donkey died, the owner of the donkey did not acquire the cow, even though ostensibly this was a transaction effected by means of exchange, which is typically complete once one of the parties pulls the item he is acquiring.


砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讜诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讛谉 诇讗 拽谞讛


The Gemara suggests: Learn from it that in a case where there is a transaction effected by means of exchange and one of the parties is particular that the value of the items is equal, he does not acquire the item immediately. In contrast to the standard case of exchange, the owners of the cow and donkey assessed the value of the animals before the transaction. Since they are particular about the price, the acquisition is not completed until each pulls the item he is acquiring.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讟讜 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讘砖讜驻讟谞讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讗诇讗 讻诇 讞诇讬驻讬谉 诪讬拽驻讚 拽驻讚讬 讜拽谞讛 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪讜专 讘驻专讛 讜讟诇讛 讜诪砖讱 讗转 讛驻专讛 讜注讚讬讬谉 诇讗 诪砖讱 讗转 讛讟诇讛 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪砖讬讻讛 诪注诇讬讗


Rava said: Is that to say that in a standard case of exchange we are dealing with fools, who are not particular about the value of the items that they are acquiring? Rather, in every case of exchange, the parties are particular about the value of the items, and when one party pulls an item the other party acquires the other item immediately and pays for it later. And with what are we dealing here? The case in the baraita is where one party said to the other party: Let us exchange a donkey for a cow and a lamb, and the owner of the donkey pulled the cow and did not yet pull the lamb, as in that case he has not performed a proper act of pulling.


讗诪专 诪专 诪讻讜专 诇讬 讘讗诇讜 拽谞讛 讜讬砖 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛 诇讬诪讗 住讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讟讘注 谞注砖讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉


The Master, Rav Huna, said above that if one said to another: Sell me your item for these coins, the buyer acquired the article, and if the sum of money is one-sixth lower than the value of the item, the seller of the item has a claim of exploitation against the buyer. The Gemara suggests: Let us say based on that halakha that Rav Huna holds that a coin can be an item used to effect exchange.


诇讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 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 诪诇转讗 讚砖讻讬讞讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 讜诪诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗转讜谉 讛讻讬 诪转谞讬转讜 诇讛 讗谞谉 讛讻讬 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谉 诪讟讘注 谞注砖讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, Rav Huna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says: By Torah law money effects 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. And it is only with regard to a common matter that the Sages issued a decree, but with regard to an uncommon matter the Sages did not issue a decree. Therefore, in this case there is no decree, and the transaction is governed by Torah law. Mar Huna, son of Rav Na岣an, said to Rav Ashi: You teach this halakha in that manner; we teach it in this manner, not by inference but as an explicit ruling: And likewise, Rav Huna said: Money cannot be the item used to effect a transaction by means of exchange.


讘诪讛 拽讜谞讬谉


搂 Above, the Gemara mentioned a form of exchange in which there are not two items of equal value being exchanged, but rather one person attempts to transfer possession of his item to the buyer by means of a symbolic exchange involving, e.g., a cloth. With regard to that symbolic transaction, the Gemara asks: With what vessel does one acquire the item in question, i.e., whose vessel is used in order to effect this symbolic transaction?


专讘 讗诪专 讘讻诇讬讜 砖诇 拽讜谞讛 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇拽讜谞讛 讚诇讛讜讬 诪拽谞讛 拽讜谞讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讙诪专 讜诇拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 讘讻诇讬讜 砖诇 诪拽谞讛 讻讚讘注讬谞谉 诇诪讬诪专 诇拽诪谉


Rav says: One effects the transaction with the vessels of the one acquiring the item, who effects the transaction by giving the vessels to the owner of the item. The moment that the owner pulls the vessel into his possession, the transaction is complete and ownership of the item in question is transferred to his counterpart. Rav explains that the one acquiring the item is amenable to having the one transferring ownership of the item acquire his vessel, so that he will resolve to transfer ownership to him. And Levi says: One effects the transaction by having the one acquiring the item pull the vessels of the one transferring ownership, as we seek to explain below.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讚住拽专转讗 诇专讘讗 讜诇诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 讘讻诇讬讜 砖诇 诪拽谞讛 讛讗 拽讗 拽谞讬 讗专注讗 讗讙讘 讙诇讬诪讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讜谞拽谞讬谉 注诐 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讜讗谞谉 讗讬驻讻讗 转谞谉 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞拽谞讬谉 注诐 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转


Rav Huna from Diskarta said to Rava: But according to Levi, who says that one effects the transaction with the vessels of the one transferring ownership, there is a difficulty. In a case where one acquires land by means of symbolic exchange where the item used is a cloak, it turns out that he is acquiring land by means of a cloak. If so, this is a case of property that is guaranteed, i.e., land, and it is acquired with movable property that is not guaranteed, by means of a transaction performed on the latter. And we learned the opposite in a mishna (Kiddushin 26a): Property that is not guaranteed is acquired with property that is guaranteed, i.e., land, by means of a transaction performed on the latter.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讜讬 讛讻讗 讛讜讛 诪驻讬拽 诇讗驻讱 驻讜诇住讬 讚谞讜专讗 诪讬 住讘专转 讙诇讬诪讗 诪拽谞讛 诇讬讛 讘讛讛讬讗 讛谞讗讛 讚拽讗 诪拽讘诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讙诪专 讜讗拽谞讬 诇讬讛


Rava said to him: If Levi, whose opinion you questioned, were here, he would take out rods of fire before you and flog you for your unwarranted question. Do you maintain that he said that at the moment he transfers ownership of the cloak he transfers ownership of the land to him? That is not the case; rather, in exchange for that pleasure the owner of the item experiences from the fact that the one acquiring the cloak accepted it from him, he resolves to transfer ownership to him. This is unlike the acquisition of movable items by means of a transaction of land, where both are acquired simultaneously. Here, the transfer of ownership of the cloak effects the subsequent transfer of ownership of the land.


讻转谞讗讬 讜讝讗转 诇驻谞讬诐 讘讬砖专讗诇 注诇 讛讙讗讜诇讛 讜注诇 讛转诪讜专讛 诇拽讬诐 讻诇 讚讘专 砖诇祝 讗讬砖 谞注诇讜 讜谞转谉 诇专注讛讜 讙讗讜诇讛 讝讜 诪讻讬专讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 转诪讜专讛 讝讜 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讞诇讬驻谞讜 讜诇讗 讬诪讬专 讗讜转讜


The Gemara comments: This dispute between Rav and Levi is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. The verse states: 鈥淣ow this was the custom in former time in Israel concerning redemption and concerning substitution, to confirm all matters; a man drew off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbor鈥 (Ruth 4:7). The verse is interpreted: 鈥淩edemption鈥; that is a sale. And likewise it says: 鈥淣either shall be sold nor shall be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:28). 鈥淪ubstitution鈥; that is the transaction of exchange. And likewise it says: 鈥淗e may neither exchange it nor substitute it鈥 (Leviticus 27:10).


诇拽讬诐 讻诇 讚讘专 砖诇祝 讗讬砖 谞注诇讜 讜谞转谉 诇专注讛讜 诪讬 谞转谉 诇诪讬 讘讜注讝 谞转谉 诇讙讜讗诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讙讜讗诇 谞转谉 诇讘讜注讝


With regard to the phrase 鈥淭o confirm all matters; a man drew off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbor,鈥 the baraita asks: Who gave the shoe to whom? Boaz gave his shoe to the redeemer, the closest relative of Elimelech, who had the right of first refusal to the land that Naomi, Elimelech鈥檚 widow, was planning to sell. The redeemer was transferring that right to the land to Boaz, who was acquiring it by means of his shoe. Rabbi Yehuda says: The redeemer gave his shoe to Boaz. The dispute between Rav and Levi is parallel to the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda.


转谞讗 拽讜谞讬谉 讘讻诇讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讻诇讬 讗讘诇 讘驻讬专讬 诇讗 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘驻讬专讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 谞注诇讜 谞注诇 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗


搂 It was taught: One can acquire property through a symbolic exchange by using a vessel, even if it does not have the value of one peruta. Rav Na岣an says: The Sages taught that this symbolic exchange can be effected only by using a vessel, but not by using produce, i.e., any item other than a vessel. Rav Sheshet says: It can be effected even by using produce. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the opinion of Rav Na岣an? The verse states: 鈥淗is shoe鈥 (Ruth 4:7), from which it is derived: With regard to a shoe and any other item similar to a shoe, i.e., a vessel, yes, the symbolic exchange can be effected; with regard to any item other than a vessel, no, it cannot be effected.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇拽讬诐 讻诇 讚讘专 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 诇拽讬诐 讻诇 讚讘专 讛讛讜讗 诇拽讬诐 讻诇 讚讘专 讚谞讬拽谞讬谉 讘诪谞注诇 讜专讘 砖砖转 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 谞注诇讜 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 砖砖转 诪讛 谞注诇讜 讚讘专 讛诪住讜讬讬诐 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 讛诪住讜讬讬诐 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讞爪讬 专诪讜谉 讜讞爪讬 讗讙讜讝 讚诇讗


What is the reason for the opinion of Rav Sheshet? The verse in Ruth states: 鈥淭o confirm all matters,鈥 from which it is derived that all items, even if they are not vessels, can effect the exchange. The Gemara asks: According to Rav Na岣an as well, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭o confirm all matters鈥? The Gemara explains: In his opinion, that phrase: 鈥淭o confirm all matters,鈥 is referring to all items that can be acquired through an exchange effected by using a shoe. The Gemara asks: And according to Rav Sheshet as well, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淗is shoe鈥? The Gemara explains: Rav Sheshet could have said to you that from that term it is derived: Just as his shoe is a complete item, so too, every complete item can effect a symbolic exchange, to exclude half a pomegranate and half a nut, which cannot effect a symbolic exchange. A whole pomegranate or nut can be used for that purpose.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讻诪讗谉 讻转讘讬谞谉 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讘诪谞讗 讚讻砖专 诇诪拽谞讬讗 讘讬讛 讘诪谞讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘 砖砖转 讚讗诪专 拽讜谞讬谉 讘驻讬专讜转 讚讻砖专 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 拽讜谞讬谉


Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: In accordance with whose opinion do we write today in documents that the transaction was effected with a vessel that is fit to acquire items with it? The Gemara explains: The term with a vessel serves to exclude the opinion of Rav Sheshet, who says: One acquires an item through a transaction of symbolic exchange by using produce. The term that is fit serves to exclude the opinion of Shmuel, who says: One acquires an item


讘诪专讜拽讗 诇诪拽谞讬讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 讘讻诇讬讜 砖诇 诪拽谞讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇诪拽谞讬讗 讜诇讗 诇拽谞讜讬讬 讘讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讟讘注 讜专讘 讝讘讬讚 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛


with date pits used for cleaning and smoothing parchment. The term to acquire items serves to exclude the opinion of Levi, who says that the symbolic exchange is effected by means of the vessels of the one transferring ownership of the item. This latter expression teaches us that the vessel is given to acquire and not to transfer ownership to the other. With regard to the term: With it, Rav Pappa said: It serves to exclude a coin, which cannot effect a symbolic exchange. And Rav Zevid, and some say Rav Ashi, said: It serves to exclude items from which deriving benefit is prohibited.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讟讘注 讚讻砖专 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 讗讘诇 诪讜专讬拽讗 诇讗 讗爪讟专讬讱


Some say a different version of the dispute, as follows. With regard to the term: With it, Rav Pappa said: It serves to exclude a coin, which cannot effect a symbolic exchange. With regard to the term: That is fit, Rav Zevid, and some say Rav Ashi, said: It serves to exclude items from which deriving benefit is prohibited. But according to this version, a verse to exclude date pits is not necessary, as they are of no significance at all.


讗住讬诪讜谉 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛诪讟讘注 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讗住讬诪讜谉 讗诪专 专讘 诪注讜转 讛谞讬转谞讜转 讘住讬诪谉 诇讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓


搂 The Gemara returns to an analysis of a passage in the mishna. When one party takes possession of an asimon, the other party acquires the minted coin. The Gemara asks: What is an asimon? Rav said: It is one of the coins given as a token to gain entry into the bathhouse, for which the bathers would pay later.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 注诇 讗住讬诪讜谉 讜诇讗 注诇 诪注讜转 讛谞讬转谞讜转 讘住讬诪谉 诇讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 诪讻诇诇 讚讗住讬诪讜谉 诇讗讜 诪注讜转 讛谞讬转谞讜转 讘住讬诪谉 诇讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 驻专讜砖讬 拽诪驻专砖 讜讛讗 诇讗 转谞讗 讛讻讬 诪讞诇诇讬谉 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 注诇 讗住讬诪讜谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇 诪注讜转 讛谞讬转谞讜转 讘住讬诪谉 诇讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓


The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One desacralizes second-tithe produce neither with an asimon nor with one of the coins given as a token to gain entry into the bathhouse. This proves by inference that an asimon is not one of the coins given as tokens in a bathhouse. And if you would say the tanna is explaining the meaning of the term asimon, there is a difficulty with that explanation. But wasn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita like this: One desacralizes second-tithe produce with an asimon; this is the statement of Rabbi Dosa. And the Rabbis say: One does not desacralize second-tithe produce with an asimon. And they agree that one does not desacralize the second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto one of the coins given as a token to gain entry into the bathhouse. It is clear from this baraita that an asimon is not a token given in a bathhouse.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讗住讬诪讜谉 驻讜诇住讗 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜爪专转 讛讻住祝 讘讬讚讱 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讚讘专 讛谞爪专专 讘讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 爪讜专讛


Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: What is an asimon? It is a blank, i.e., a piece of metal in the shape of a coin that was not yet imprinted. The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yo岣nan follows his standard line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Rabbi Dosa and Rabbi Yishmael said the same thing. Rabbi Dosa, as we stated, said that the legal status of an asimon is that of a coin. With regard to Rabbi Yishmael, what is his statement? It is as it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd you shall bind up [vetzarta] the money in your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:25). This serves to include any type of money that is bound [hanitzrar] in one鈥檚 hand, i.e., that has monetary value; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: It serves to include any type of money that has an imprint [tzura]. Rabbi Akiva requires a minted coin in order to desacralize a second-tithe produce coin, while Rabbi Yishmael says that a blank can be used as well.


讻讬爪讚 诪砖讱 讛讬诪谞讜 驻讬专讜转 讜诇讗 谞转谉 诇讜 诪注讜转 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 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


搂 The mishna teaches: How so? If the buyer pulled produce from the seller, but the buyer did not yet give the seller their value in coins, he cannot renege on the transaction, but if the buyer gave the seller coins, but did not yet pull produce from him, he can renege on the transaction, as the transaction is not yet complete. 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.


住讜祝 住讜祝 诪讗谉 讚砖讚讗 讚诇讬拽讛 讘注讬 砖诇讜诪讬 讗诇讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 转驻讜诇 讚诇讬拽讛 讘讗讜谞住 讗讬 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛讜 讘专砖讜转讬讛 诪住专 谞驻砖讬讛 讟专讞 讜诪爪讬诇 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 诪住专 谞驻砖讬讛 讟专讞 讜诪爪讬诇


The Gemara asks: Ultimately, the one who ignited the fire is required to pay for the damage caused, and the one who purchased the movable items with money will be reimbursed for his loss, so why was there a need to issue this decree? Rather, it is a rabbinic decree lest a fire be ignited spontaneously due to circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control, where no one is liable to pay for the damage caused. If you establish the purchase item in the possession of the seller, he will expend great effort, exert himself, and rescue the item, as it is still his own property. But if you do not establish the purchase item in the possession of the seller, he will not expend great effort, exert himself, and rescue the item. That is the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan.


专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪砖讬讻讛 诪驻讜专砖转 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻讬 转诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专 诇注诪讬转讱 讗讜 拽谞讛 诪讬讚 注诪讬转讱 讚讘专 讛谞拽谞讛 诪讬讚 诇讬讚


Reish Lakish says: The act of acquisition of pulling is explicit in the Torah, and it is not merely by rabbinic decree that payment of money does not effect acquisition of movable property. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Reish Lakish? He derives it from the Torah, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd if you sell to your colleague an item that is sold, or acquire from your colleague鈥檚 hand, you shall not exploit his brother鈥 (Leviticus 25:14), and the reference is to an item that is acquired from hand to hand, i.e., by means of pulling.


讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讬讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 拽专拽注 讚诇讬转 讘讛 讗讜谞讗讛


And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The term 鈥渇rom your colleague鈥檚 hand鈥 is not teaching that an item can be acquired by pulling. Rather, it serves to exclude land, which is not subject to the halakha of exploitation because it is not physically handed over from one to another.


讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讜讻讬 转诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专 诪讬讚 注诪讬转讱 讗诇 转讜谞讜 讗讜 拽谞讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇诪砖讬讻讛


The Gemara asks: And how does Reish Lakish respond to that explanation? The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish agrees that the verse serves to exclude land from the halakha of exploitation. But if it is so that this was its only purpose, let the verse write: And if you sell, from your colleague鈥檚 hand, an item that is sold, you shall not exploit. Why do I need the additional phrase 鈥渙r acquire鈥? Learn from it that acquisition by Torah law is effected by means of pulling.


讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜 拽谞讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讜讻讬 转诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专 讗诇 转讜谞讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖谞转讗谞讛 诇讜拽讞 谞转讗谞讛 诪讜讻专 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 拽谞讛 讗诇 转讜谞讜


The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yo岣nan, what does he do with the phrase 鈥渙r acquire鈥? What halakha does he derive? The Gemara answers: He requires that phrase for that which is taught in a baraita: From the phrase in the verse: 鈥淎nd if you sell to your colleague an item that is sold鈥ou shall not exploit,鈥 I have derived only a case where the buyer was exploited. From where is it derived that the halakha is the same in a case where the seller was exploited? The verse states: 鈥淥r acquire鈥ou shall not exploit,鈥 indicating that it is prohibited for the one who acquires the item to exploit the seller.


讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 转专转讬 讙诪专 诪讬谞讬讛


The Gemara asks: And from where does Reish Lakish derive this halakha? He derives two halakhot from the phrase 鈥渙r acquire from your colleague鈥檚 hand.鈥 He derives that it is prohibited to exploit the seller and that movable items are acquired by means of pulling.


转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讻住祝 讘讬讚讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 诪讜讻专 讛讜讗 讚诪爪讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诇讜拽讞 诇讗 诪爪讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪注讜转 拽讜谞讜转 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪讜讻专 诪爪讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诇讜拽讞 诇讗 诪爪讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪注讜转 讗讬谞谉 拽讜谞讜转 诇讜拽讞 谞诪讬 诇讬讛讚专 讘讬讛


We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: Anyone who has the money in his possession has the advantage. It is the seller who can retract from the transaction; the buyer cannot retract from the transaction. The Gemara asks: Granted, if you say that giving money effects acquisition of movable property, it is due to that reason that the seller can retract from the transaction and the buyer cannot retract from the transaction. Rabbi Yo岣nan explained that the Sages instituted pulling to complete the transaction for the benefit of the buyer so that the seller will expend great effort and rescue the item, as it is still his own property. But the seller acquires the money immediately. But if you say in general that giving money does not effect acquisition of movable property, let the buyer also renege on the transaction.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉


The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish could have said to you: I did not state my opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon; when I stated my opinion it was in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇专讘谞谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讚专讱 砖转拽谞讜 诪砖讬讻讛 讘诪讜讻专讬谉 讻讱 转拽谞讜 诪砖讬讻讛 讘诇拽讜讞讜转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘谞谉 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘 讞住讚讗


The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Reish Lakish, that is the dispute between the opinions of Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis, as Rabbi Shimon holds that money effects acquisition of the item and the Rabbis hold that only pulling the item effects its acquisition. But according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, what difference is there between the opinion of Rabbi Shimon and that of the Rabbis? The Gemara responds: The difference between them is with regard to the statement of Rav 岣sda, as Rav 岣sda says: Just as the Sages instituted pulling for the sellers, likewise, they instituted pulling for the buyers. Until the item is pulled, the buyer can also renege on the transaction. Rabbi Shimon does not hold in accordance with the statement of Rav 岣sda, and the Rabbis hold in accordance with the statement of Rav 岣sda.


转谞谉 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 诪讬 砖驻专注 诪讚讜专 讛诪讘讜诇 讛讜讗 注转讬讚 诇讬驻专注 诪诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜诪讚 讘讚讬讘讜专讜 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪注讜转 拽讜谞讜转 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽讗讬 讘讗讘诇 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪注讜转 讗讬谞谉 拽讜谞讜转 讗诪讗讬 拽讗讬 讘讗讘诇 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专讬诐


We learned in the mishna: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the generation of the dispersion, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement. Granted, if you say that giving money effects acquisition of movable property, it is due to that reason that one who reneges on the transaction after the money is paid stands subject to the curse: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment. But if you say that giving money does not effect acquisition of movable property, why does one who reneges after the money is paid stand subject to the curse: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment? The Gemara answers: It is due to the fact that he reneged on a statement of his committing himself to buy the item.


讜讘讚讘专讬诐 诪讬 拽讗讬 讘讗讘诇 讜讛转谞讬讗


The Gemara asks: And does one who reneged on a statement of commitment stand subject to the curse: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita:


Scroll To Top