Bava Metzia 90

Chapter 90

א שמא ישהה עליותיו דזימנין דלא מלו זוזי בדינרא ולא מסיק ובית הלל סברי לא גזרינן שמא ישהה עליותיו דכי לא מלו נמי בדינרא אסוקי מסיק להו אבל בפירות על דינרין דברי הכל מחללינן דכיון דמרקבי לא משהי להו

1 lest one postpone his pilgrimages [to Jerusalem], for he may not have the full number of silver coins1 required for a [gold] denar, and so will not take them up [thither];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A gold denar was a large sum of money, and might exceed the whole value of the second tithe. Hence, if one were permitted to change the silver sela's into gold, he might postpone the pilgrimage altogether until another harvest. ');">2

ב וחד אמר אפילו בפירות על דינרין נמי מחלוקת

2 whilst Beth Hillel are of the opinion that we do not fear that he may postpone his pilgrimages, for even if they are insufficient to change into a denar, he will still take them up.3 But all agree that produce may be redeemed with [gold] denarii, for since it rots [if kept long], he will certainly not keep it back. But the other maintains: The dispute refers even to the exchange of produce for denarii.4

ג בשלמא להך לישנא דאמרת דמדאורייתא משרא שרי ורבנן הוא דגזרו ביה היינו דקתני יעשה ולא יעשה אלא להך לישנא דאמרת דמדאורייתא פליגי מחללינן ולא מחללינן מבעי ליה קשיא

3 Now, according to the version that by Biblical law it [the exchange] is indeed permitted, but that the Rabbis forbade it, it is well: hence he [the Tanna] teaches 'he may turn'…'he may not turn.'5 But according to the version that they differ in Scriptural law, he should have stated, 'One can redeem'…'one cannot redeem!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One may turn, etc., (lit., 'do') implies that such redemption is possible, and the only question is whether it is permitted (by the Rabbis) or not. But if it is a question of Biblical law, then the dispute is whether such a redemption is effective or not, for if e.g.. sela's cannot be redeemed by denarii, they still retain their sanctity even if so redeemed. ');">6

ד איתמר רב ולוי חד אמר מטבע נעשה חליפין וחד אמר אין מטבע נעשה חליפין אמר רב פפא מ"ט דמ"ד אין מטבע נעשה חליפין משום דדעתיה אצורתא וצורתא עבידא דבטלא

4 This difficulty remains. It has been stated: Rab and Levi-one maintains: Coins can effect a barter; the other rules that they cannot — 7 Said R. Papa: What is his reason who maintains that a coin cannot effect a barter? Because his [the recipient's] mind is set on the legend thereof,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the figure which is stamped on the coin, and which gives it its value. Now, when an ordinary object is used as halifin, the recipient accepts its own intrinsic value as symbolical of the whole. But when a man receives a coin, he does not think of the intrinsic value of the metal, but merely of its worth on account of the legend it bears. ');">8

ה תנן הזהב קונה את הכסף מאי לאו בחליפין וש"מ מטבע נעשה חליפין לא בדמים אי הכי הזהב קונה [את] הכסף מחייב מבעי ליה תני הזהב מחייב

5 and the legend is liable to cancellation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The State may cancel that particular coin. In that case, nothing of value has been given at all, since, as stated in the previous note, the value of the metal is disregarded. Symbolical delivery, however, can be effected only by an article that has some intrinsic value. ');">9 We learnt: GOLD ACQUIRES SILVER. Does that not mean, even in virtue of barter, thus proving that a coin may effect a barter? — No; only in virtue of payment.10

ו הכי נמי מסתברא מדקתני סיפא הכסף אינו קונה את הזהב אי אמרת בשלמא בדמים היינו דאמרינן דהבא פירא וכספא טבעא וטבעא פירא לא קני אלא אי אמרת בחליפין תרוייהו לקנו אהדדי

6 If so, instead of stating, GOLD ACQUIRES SILVER, he should have said, 'Gold sets up a liability for silver'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' GOLD ACQUIRES SILVER implies that immediately after the gold coin is delivered, the recipient's silver coin vests in the other party, wherever it be; and that indeed is the effect of a transaction consummated as barter. If, however, the gold coin is legally regarded as payment for the article, its effect is merely to create an obligation upon the recipient of an agreed amount of silver, which then ranks as an ordinary debt. In that case, the Mishnah should have stated, GOLD SETS UP A LIABILITY FOR SILVER. ');">11 — Learn: 'Gold sets up a liability for [etc.].'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though this type of answer frequently means that the text of the Mishnah actually needs emending (v. Weiss, Dor. 111, 6 n. 14) that is probably not so here. The answer simply states that the Mishnaic phrase GOLD ACQUIRES SILVER means, 'Gold sets up a liability for silver.' ');">12

ז ועוד תניא הכסף אינו קונה את הזהב כיצד מכר לו עשרים וחמשה דינר של כסף בדינר של זהב אע"פ שמשך את הכסף לא קנה עד שימשוך את הזהב אי אמרת בשלמא בדמים משום הכי לא קני אלא אי אמרת בחליפין נקני

7 Reason supports this too;13 since the second clause states. SILVER DOES NOT ACQUIRE GOLD. Now, should you agree that it means, 'in virtue of payment.' it is well: thus we say, gold ranks as produce, silver as money, and money cannot effect a title in respect of produce. But should you maintain that the reference is to barter — let each acquire the other!14

ח אלא מאי בדמים אי הכי אימא רישא הזהב קונה את הכסף כיצד מכר לו דינר של זהב בעשרים וחמשה דינר של כסף כיון שמשך את הזהב נקנה כסף בכל מקום שהוא

8 Moreover, it has been taught: Silver does not acquire gold: E.g.. If one sells twenty-five silver denarii for a gold denar, even if the other party takes possession of the silver, he does not acquire it until he [the first] takes possession of the gold. Now, should you agree that the reference is to payment, it is well: therefore he gains no title thereto. But if you maintain that this treats of barter, let him acquire it! — What then: as payment? If so, consider the first clause: Gold acquires silver: e.g. If one sold a gold denar for twenty-five silver denarii, immediately the other party takes possession of the gold, the ownership of the silver vests [in the first] wherever it be. Now, should you agree that the reference is to barter, it is well: hence it is taught, the ownership of the silver vests [in the first] wherever it be.15 But should you maintain that it treats of payment, instead of saying thus, he [the Tanna] should have taught: The man [the recipient of the gold] becomes liable [for the silver]!16

ט אי אמרת בשלמא בחליפין היינו דקתני נקנה כסף בכל מקום שהוא אלא אי אמרת בדמים האי נקנה כסף בכל מקום שהוא נתחייב גברא מיבעי ליה

9 — Said R. Ashi: After all, it refers to payment, and what is meant by 'wherever it be', is 'just as it is,' viz., as he stipulated. [Thus:] If he had stated. 'I will give you [coins] out of a new purse',17 he cannot give him [coins] out of an old purse,18

י אמר רב אשי לעולם בדמים ומאי בכל מקום שהוא כמות שהוא כדאמר ליה אי אמר ליה מארנקי חדשה יהבינא לך לא מצי יהיב ליה מארנקי ישנה אע"ג דעדיפי מינייהו מ"ט דאמר ליה לישנן קא בעינא להו

10 even If they are superior.19 Why? Because he can say, 'I need them to store away.'20

יא אמר רב פפא אפילו למ"ד אין מטבע נעשה חליפין מיעבד הוא דלא עביד חליפין אקנויי מיקנו בחליפין מידי דהוה אפירא לרב נחמן פירא לרב נחמן לאו אע"ג דאינהו לא עבדי חליפין אקנויי מקנו בחליפין טבעא נמי לא שנא

11 R. Papa said: Even on the view that a coin cannot effect a barter, — though indeed it cannot effect a barter, it can nevertheless be acquired through barter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., once the owner of the coin takes possession of an object either delivered to him symbolically or in exchange against it, the ownership of the money vests in the other party. ');">21 For this may be compared to produce, according to R. Nahman's view. Thus, though in R. Nahman's view produce cannot effect a barter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one cannot make a symbolical delivery of fruit and thereby acquire the object that is being bartered. — For this view of R. Nahman, and the opposing view of R. Shesheth v. infra 47a. ');">22

יב מיתיבי היה עומד בגורן ואין בידו מעות אומר לחבירו הרי פירות הללו נתונים לך במתנה

12 yet it can surely be acquired through barter; so coin too is not [in any way] different. An objection is raised: If one is standing in a granary and has no money with him, he may say to his friend, 'Behold, this produce is given to you as a gift;'

Previous Chapter Next Chapter