עד כאן לא קא מיפלגי אלא דמר סבר חנוני כשולחני ומר סבר חנוני כבעל הבית אבל דכולי עלמא אם הוציא מעל רבי מאיר לדבריו דר' יהודה קאמר לדידי אם הוציא נמי לא מעל אלא לדידך אודי לי מיהא דחנוני כבעל הבית ואמר ליה לא כשולחני
- In the case of purchase too, he replied, he gains no title. Thereupon he raised an objection: A shopkeeper ranks as a private individual: this is R'Meir's view. R'Judah maintained: A shopkeeper is as a money-changer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Me'il. 21b. If the Temple treasurer deposits money of hekdesh with a money-changer and it is bound up, he may not use it; if he does, he is liable for trespass, not the treasurer. If loose, he may use it, for the treasurer knows that he is continually in need of change, and by giving it to him loose he tacitly authorizes him to use it: therefore, if he does, the treasurer is liable. But if he deposits it with a private individual, whether loose or bound up, the bailee may not expend it; therefore if he does use it he is liable. A shopkeeper stands midway between the two.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
R. Hiyya b. Avin raises an objection against R. Hisda. The discussion in this baraita is of a person who deposits some money with someone and does not tell him that the money is sacred. If he deposits money in a bundle with a money-changer, the money-changer may not use the money. If he does use it, and it is sacred, then he has committed trespass, because he should not have been using the money. But if not bundled up, the money-changer may use the money, and therefore, he has not committed trespass. Rather the depositor has. If one deposited it with a homeowner, the homeowner may never use the money, whether it is bundled up or not. The tannaim disagree about the status of a storekeeper—is he treated like a homeowner (R. Meir) or like a money-changer (R. Yehudah). But all agree that if the storekeeper used the money, he has trespassed. This implies that the transaction takes effect, meaning that if hekdesh is used to buy goods, the transaction is successful.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
The Talmud reads R. Meir as only arguing against R. Yehudah, not expressing his own opinion. According to R. Meir’s own opinion, no matter what, the storekeeper has not committed trespass. The money remains holy and the goods are not acquired. In the dispute, he is speaking to R. Yehudah—to you, the shopkeeper should be like a private individual. He should never be allowed to use the money. R. Yehudah responds that he is like a money-changer. If the money was not bundled up, then he may use it and he would not be liable for trespass.
