Bava Metzia 92

Chapter 92

א כל הנישום דמים באחר כיון שזכה זה נתחייב זה בחליפין

1 Whatever is assessed as the value of another object,1

ב ה"נ מסתברא מדקתני סיפא כיצד החליף שור בפרה או חמור בשור שמע מינה

2 as soon as one party takes possession thereof, the other assumes liability for what is given in exchange. Reason too supports this — For the second clause teaches: How so? If one bartered an ox for a cow, or an ass for an ox. This proves it. Now, on the original hypothesis that coin [is referred to], what is meant by 'How so?'2

ג ולמאי דסליק אדעתיה מעיקרא מטבע מאי כיצד הכי קאמר ופירי נמי עבדי חליפין כיצד החליף שור בפרה או חמור בשור

3 — 'It means this: And produce<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. [H] whilst this term is generally applicable only to objects of the vegetable kingdom, it may also be used, as here, to denote the animal kingdom too, in contradistinction to [H], articles or utensils of use. ');">3

ד הניחא לרב ששת דאמר פירי עבדי חליפין אלא לר"נ דאמר כלי אין אבל פירי לא עבדי חליפין מאי כיצד

4 too can effect a barter. How so? If one bartered an ox for a cow, or an ass for an ox. Now, that is well on the view of R. Shesheth, who maintained that produce can be employed for barter. But according to R. Nahman, who said: Only a utensil, but not produce, can effect a barter, what is meant by 'How so'?-It means this: Money sometimes ranks as [an object of] barter. How so? If one bartered the money of an ox for a cow, or the money of an ass for an ox.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g. A sold an ox to B for a certain sum of money, and B took possession, thereby becoming indebted to A for the purchase price. Then B said, 'I have a cow which I can give you for the purchase price of the ox,' to which A agreed. Now, notwithstanding that this is theoretically a fresh transaction, viz., B sells a cow to A, the money owing by B for the ox being regarded as though delivered to him by A for the cow, and it is a principle that the delivery of money alone does not consummate a purchase, it does so in this case, and neither can retract; i.e., it is barter, not payment. ');">4

ה הכי קאמר יש דמים שהן כחליפין כיצד החליף דמי שור בפרה או דמי חמור בשור

5 What is R. Nahman's reason?5

ו מאי טעמיה דרב נחמן סבר לה כרבי יוחנן דאמר דבר תורה מעות קונות ומפני מה אמרו משיכה קונה גזירה שמא יאמר לו נשרפו חטיך בעלייה

6 He agrees with R. Johanan, who said: Biblically Speaking, [the delivery of] money effects a title. Why then was it said that only meshikah gives possession? As a precautionary measure, lest he say to him, 'Your wheat was burnt in the loft.'6

ז ומלתא דשכיחא גזרו ביה רבנן מלתא דלא שכיחא לא גזרו ביה רבנן

7 Now, the Rabbis enacted a preventive measure only for a usual occurrence, but not for an unusual occurrence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., such a transaction as the one under discussion is unusual; consequently, the Biblical law operates. Hence the delivery of the money effects a title, and neither can withdraw. ');">7

ח ולריש לקיש דאמר משיכה מפורשת מן התורה הניחא אי סבר לה כרב ששת מתרץ לה כרב ששת

8 Now, according to Resh Lakish, who maintains that meshikah is explicitly required by Biblical law: it is well if he agrees with R. Shesheth: then he can explain8

ט אלא אי סבר לה כרב נחמן דאמר פירי לא עבדי חליפין ומטבע לא קני היכי מתרץ לה על כרחך כרב ששת מתרץ לה

9 it as R. Shesheth. But if he holds with R. Nahman, that produce cannot effect a barter, whilst money does not effect a title [at all], how can he explain it?9

י תנן כל המטלטלין קונין זה את זה ואמר ריש לקיש ואפילו כיס מלא מעות בכיס מלא מעות תרגמא רב אחא בדינר אנקא ואניגרא אחד שפסלתו מלכות ואחד שפסלתו מדינה

10 — You are forced to assume that he explains it as R. Shesheth.

יא וצריכא דאי אשמועינן פסלתו מלכות משום דלא סגי כלל אבל פסלתו מדינה דסגי ליה במדינה אחריתי אימא אכתי מטבע הוא ואין מטבע נקנה בחליפין

11 We learnt: ALL MOVABLES ACQUIRE EACH OTHER, whereon Resh Lakish said: Even a purse full of money [when bartered] for a purse full of money.10

יב ואי אשמועינן פסלתו מדינה משום דלא סגי ליה לא בצנעא ולא בפרהסיא אבל פסלתו מלכות דסגי ליה בצנעא אימא אכתי מטבע הוא ואין מטבע נקנה בחליפין צריכא

12 — R. Aha interpreted it as referring to the Bithynian and Ancyrean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bithynia, a district in Asia Minor; Ancyra, a city of Galatia in Asia Minor (Jast.). [Zuckermann, Munzen, p. 33, on basis of variant [H] for [H] renders: victory ([G]) and Nigerian denarii, the former referring to coins of conquered countries recalled by the victorious state; the latter to the coins struck by Pescennius Niger, the rival of Septimius Severus, the currency of which was strictly limited to the province over which he ruled.] ');">11

יג אמר רבה אמר רב הונא מכור לי באלו קנה

13 denarii, one of which was cancelled by the State, and one by local authorities.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The exchange consisted of these coins which, being cancelled, are just the same as any other produce. — Coins repealed by the State might still have a clandestine circulation within a particular province: on the other hand, those cancelled by a local authority would have no currency at all within that province, but a full currency without. ');">12 And both are necessary. For if we were taught this of State cancellation,13 that is because such coins have no [official] currency at all; but in the case of local repeal, since these coins circulate in another province, I might regard them as money, which cannot be acquired through barter. Whilst if it were stated in connection with local repeal, that is because they have neither a secret nor an open circulation [within that province]; but when cancelled by the State, since they circulate clandestinely, I might still regard them as coin, which cannot be acquired through barter. Thus both are necessary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It may be observed that this type of reasoning is generally applied to two Tannaitic statements, as found in a Mishnah or a Baraitha. Here, however, it is applied to an Amoraic (R. Aha's) interpretation of what is itself an Amoraic (Resh Lakish's) comment on a Mishnah. ');">14 Rabbah said in R. Huna's name: [If A said to B,] 'Sell [it] me for these [coins],' he acquires title thereto,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If A was holding an undetermined number of coins in his hand, and suggested that B should sell him an article for them, without stating their value, and B agreed, immediately B takes possession of the coins the transaction is consummated, and neither can retract, though normally the delivery of money does not effect a title. The Talmud proceeds to discuss the reason for this. ');">15

Previous Chapter Next Chapter