Commentary for Kiddushin 106:9

אמר רב

Thus, they differ only in so far as one Master holds that a shopkeeper ranks as a money-changer. and the other regards him as a private individual. Yet all [including R'Meir] agree that if he expends it, trespass is committed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now, one is liable for trespass only if the money actually becomes hullin: but that in turn demands that the action shall be effective and the purchase valid.');">¹⁶</span> - He argues on R'Judah's opinion. In my view, even if he expends it there is no trespass;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because his action is invalid. (Consequently R. Meir must hold that trespass is possible only when one eats food of hekdesh.)');">¹⁷</span> but even on your view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That expenditure is trespass.');">¹⁸</span> you should at least agree with me that a shopkeeper is as a private individual. To which he answered him: No; he is as a money-changer. Rab said:

Explore commentary for Kiddushin 106:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.