Bava Metzia 91

Chapter 91

א וחוזר ואומר הרי הן מחוללין על מעות שיש לי בבית טעמא דאין בידו מעות הא אם יש בידו מעות ליקני להו לאידך במשיכה ופריק דהכי עדיף דהוה ליה נכרי

1 then he may say. 'Let it [sc. the produce] be redeemed for the money I have at home.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' M. Sh. IV. 5. The reference is to second tithe produce, which, as stated above, might be redeemed instead of being taken to Jerusalem. Now, when a man redeemed his own second tithe produce, he had to add a fifth of its value, but not if he redeemed produce belonging to another. Cf. Lev. XXVII, 31: And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto a fifth part thereof. But, in order to evade this addition, a legal fiction might be resorted to: one gave his Produce to another and then redeemed it, thus redeeming the produce of another-then received it back. The Mishnah quoted gives an instance of such an evasion, which, as may be seen from the phraseology, was recognised and sanctioned by law. ');">1 Hence it is because he has no money with him;2

ב ואי אמרת מטבע נקנה בחליפין ניקנו ליה מעות להיאך אגב סודר ולפרוק דלית ליה סודר ונקנינהו נהליה אגב קרקע דלית ליה קרקע

2 but if he had money in his hand he should rather give possession thereof to his friend through meshikah,3 who would then redeem [the tithe], which is a preferable [procedure], since he would then be a [real] stranger.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he gave the money to his neighbour, whilst retaining the produce himself, his friend would actually be redeeming a tithe that is not his own! That is not such a glaring evasion as when a person gives the produce to his neighbour and then redeems it himself, and therefore is preferable; and the Tanna obviously permits the other procedure only because the latter is impossible, since the tithe owner has not the money with him. ');">4

ג והא עומד בגורן קתני בגורן שאינו שלו ואיכפל תנא לאשמועינן גברא ערטילאי דלית ליה ולא כלום אלא לאו שמע מינה אין מטבע נקנה בחליפין שמע מינה

3 But if you say that coin may be acquired through barter, let him [the tithe-owner] give possession of the money [he has at home] to his friend by means of a scarf, and then let the latter redeem it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of his gifting the produce to him, let his friend give him a scarf or handkerchief as halifin (v. supra p. 30. n. 3), for the money, and then redeem the tithe with this money (which need not actually be in his hand for the purpose of redemption), since the Tanna prefers this procedure. Hence it follows that money cannot be acquired through barter. ');">5 — The latter has no scarf. Then let him give possession thereof through soil!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the tithe owner should have given him a piece of soil, in virtue of which his friend could acquire the money too, it being a general principle that movables may be acquired by dint of real estate (Kid. 26a). — This is not an objection against the view that money can be acquired through barter, but is a difficulty that arises in this Mishnah itself. Rashi recognises it as such, and though Tosaf. attempts to shew that it is indeed an objection against the opinion just mentioned, the reasoning is not very plausible. It is quite possible that this passage bearing on the acquisition of money by dint of real estate is a later editorial interpolation. V. Kaplan. Redaction of the Talmud. Ch. XIII. ');">6

ד ואף רב פפא הדר ביה כי הא דרב פפא הוו ליה תריסר אלפי דינרי בי חוזאי אקנינהו לרב שמואל בר אחא אגב אסיפא דביתיה כי אתא נפק לאפיה עד תווך

4 — He has no soil. But it is stated, 'If one is standing in a granary!' — It means in a granary not belonging to him.7 And does the Tanna take the trouble of teaching us about a naked man, who possesses nought!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This reverts to the objection that his friend should have acquired the money through barter, to which the answer was given that he had no scarf wherewith to effect the barter. This of course must mean that he had nothing at all, since any object can be used for the purpose, and so the Talmud objects further: surely the Tanna did not take the pains of stating such an exceptional case! ');">8

ה וכן אמר עולא אין מטבע נעשה חליפין וכן אמר רבי אסי אין מטבע נעשה חליפין וכן אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן אין מטבע נעשה חליפין

5 Hence it must surely be that coin cannot be acquired by barter.9 This proves it.

ו איתיביה רבי אבא לעולא הרי שהיו חמריו ופועליו תובעין אותו בשוק ואמר לשולחני תן לי בדינר מעות ואפרנסם ואני אעלה לך יפה דינר וטריסית ממעות שיש לי בביתי אם יש לו מעות מותר ואם לאו אסור ואי סלקא דעתך אין מטבע נעשה חליפין הויא ליה הלואה ואסור אשתיק

6 And R. Papa himself — retracted, as we find that R. Papa had thirteen thousand denarii at Be-Huzae,10 which he transferred to R. Samuel b. Aha along with the threshold of his house.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 273. n. 5. Since he had recourse to this mode, and did not employ the simple means of barter, he must have withdrawn from the view that coin can be acquired by means of barter. His purpose in transferring the money was that R Samuel b. Aba should bring it to him from Be-Huzae; without such transference, the bailee might have refused to let it out of his possession, as he would then have to bear the risks of the road. ');">11

ז א"ל דלמא אידי ואידי בפרוטטות שנו דליכא עלייהו טבעא ואידי ואידי פירא הוו ומש"ה נקנו בחליפין א"ל אין דיקא נמי דקתני יפה דינר וטריסי' ולא קתני דינר יפה וטריסי' ש"מ

7 When he [R. Samuel b. Aha] came [with the money], he [R. Papa] went forth to meet him up to Tauak.12 [To revert to the original discussion:] And 'Ulla said likewise: Coin cannot effect a barter; and R. Assi said likewise: Coin cannot effect a barter; and Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said likewise in R. Johanan's name: Coin cannot effect a barter. R. Abba raised an objection against 'Ulla: If his carters or labourers demanded [their wages] from a man in the market place, and he said to a money-changer, 'Give me copper coins for a denar, and I will pay them,13

ח רב אשי אמר לעולם בדמים ובפרוטטות כיון דאית ליה נעשה כאומר הלויני עד שיבא בני או עד שאמצא מפתח

8 whilst I will return you a denar's worth14 and a tressis15

ט ת"ש כל הנעשה דמים באחר כיון שזכה זה נתחייב זה בחליפין כל הנעשה דמים באחר מאי ניהו מטבע ושמע מינה מטבע נעשה חליפין

9 Out of the coins which I have at home:' then if he has money at home, it is permitted; otherwise, it is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was assumed that the reason is this: If he has money at home, immediately he takes possession of the coins the money-changer acquires the ownership of the money at home by the process of barter; hence there is no usury, since theoretically the banker does not wait for his money. But this cannot operate if he has no money, in which case it is a pure loan upon which the tressis is interest. ');">16 Now, should you think that coin cannot effect a barter, it is a loan, and hence forbidden!17

י אמר רב יהודה ה"ק

10 Thereupon he was silent. Said he to him: Perhaps both18 refer to uncoined metal which bear no imprint.19 so that they rank as produce, and therefore may be acquired by barter? — Even so, he replied. This too follows from the fact that he [the Tanna] states, a denar's worth and a tressis, but does not state. a current denar20 and a tressis. This proves it. R. Ashi said: After all, [the return may be] in the character of repayment, though the reference indeed is to uncoined metal: since he has them [at home], it is as though he said, 'Lend me until my son comes, or until I find the key.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 75a. The preceding discussion has assumed that the only basis upon which the transaction is permissible is barter. R. Ashi, however, points out that since it has been explained that the reference is to uncoined metal, the transaction may be viewed and carried out as a loan, the return being actually in the nature of repayment thereof; nevertheless it is permitted for the reason stated. ');">21 Come and hear: Whatever can be used as payment for another object, as soon as one party takes possession thereof, the other assumes liability, for what is given in exchange.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' l.e., for the halifin, or barter thereof. When A takes possession of the first, B automatically accepts the risks of the barter; e.g., if an ox is being given in exchange, the full risks of anything happening to it are now borne by B, though it has not actually reached his hand. ');">22 'Whatever can be used as payment for another object' — what is that? Coins: which proves that coins can effect a barter!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if the coins are given in the character of payment, they do not consummate the sale to render the purchaser responsible for all risks. Hence they are used as barter, as the passage stated. ');">23 — Said Rab Judah: It means this:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter