יח אמר רב ששת בריה דרב אידי כמאן כתבינן האידנא במנא דכשר למקניא ביה במנא לאפוקי מדרב ששת דאמר קונין בפירות דכשר לאפוקי מדשמואל דאמר קונין
18 with fiery lashes! Do you really think that the garment gives him possession? [Surely not! but] in consideration of the pleasure he [the bestower] experiences in that the receiver accepts it from him, he wholeheartedly transfers it to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that when the bestower gives his garment, it is regarded as though he were actually receiving something. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The controversy between Rab and Levi. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> is disputed by Tannaim: Now this was the manner in former times in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, For to confirm all things; a man drew off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ruth IV, 7. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> 'redeeming' means selling, and thus it is written, It shall not be redeemed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 33. The reference is to the redemption of a consecrated animal. Evidently, such redemption, if permitted, would be by means of money, i.e., buying the animal back (since substitution is separately dealt with, as the Talmud proceeds to shew); thus here too, by 'redeeming' selling for money is meant. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> 'changing' refers to barter, and thus it is written, He shall not alter it, nor change it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 10. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> for to confirm all things; a man drew off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour. Who gave whom? Boaz gave to the kinsman. R. Judah said: The kinsman gave to Boaz.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus we see the same dispute here as between Rab and Levi. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> It has been taught: Acquisition may be made by means of a utensil, even if it is worth less than a <i>perutah</i>. Said R. Nahman: This applies only to a utensil, but not to produce.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., produce cannot be employed as a symbol of acquisition. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> R. Shesheth said: [It may be done] even with produce. What is R. Nahman's reason? — Scripture saith, 'his shoe': implying, only 'his shoe' [i.e., a utensil], but nothing else. What is R. Shesheth's reason? Scripture saith, for to confirm all things.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which he translates, for to confirm with all things — i.e., any article can confirm a transaction. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> But according to R. Nahman too, is it not written, to confirm all things?-That means, to confirm all things the title to which is to be effected by means of a shoe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., both purchase and barter are consummated by the symbolical delivery of a shoe. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> And R. Shesheth too: is it not written, 'his shoe'?- R. Shesheth can answer you: [That is to teach,] just as his shoe is a clearly defined object, so must everything [used in this connection] be a clearly defined object, thus invalidating half a pomegranate or half a nut, which may not be [employed].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Half a pomegranate has no distinctive individuality, which is the idea connoted here by 'clearly defined'. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> R. Shesheth, the son of R. Iddi, said: In accordance with whom do we write nowadays, 'with a utensil that is fit for acquiring possession therewith'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a document recording a transaction by means of halifin. This phrase is also used in a woman's marriage settlement (kethubah). ');"><sup>28</sup></span> 'With a utensil' — that rejects the view of R. Shesheth, who maintains: A title may be effected by means of produce. 'That is valid' — this excludes Samuel's dictum, viz.: Possession can be obtained