Bava Metzia 94

Chapter 94

א במרוקא למקניא לאפוקי מדלוי דאמר בכליו של מקנה קמ"ל למקניא ולא לקנויי ביה רב פפא אמר למעוטי מטבע ורב זביד ואיתימא רב אשי אמר למעוטי איסורי הנאה

1 by means of maroka.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This word is variously translated. Rashi and Asheri: a vessel made of baked ordure; Tosaf. and R. Han.: date-stones used for smoothing parchment, 'fit' implying a wider practicability than the strictly limited use of maroka. ');">1 'For gaining possession' — this rejects Levi's view, that the utensils of the bestower [are required]:2

ב איכא דאמרי ביה אמר רב פפא למעוטי מטבע דכשר אמר רב זביד ואיתימא רב אשי למעוטי איסורי הנאה אבל מוריקא לא אצטריך:

2 therefore it teaches us: to obtain possession, but not to confer possession.3 'Therewith' — R. Papa said: It is to exclude coins. R. Zebid — others state, R. Ashi — said: It is to exclude objects the benefit of which is forbidden.

ג אסימון קונה את המטבע וכו': מאי אסימון אמר רב מעות הניתנות בסימן לבית המרחץ

3 Others state: 'Therewith' excludes coins.4 'That is fit'; R. Zebid — others state, R. Ashi — said: That excludes objects whose use is forbidden.5

ד מיתיבי אין מחללין מעשר שני על אסימון ולא על מעות הניתנות בסימן לבית המרחץ מכלל דאסימון לאו מעות הניתנות בסימן לבית המרחץ וכי תימא פרושי קמפרש והא לא תנא הכי מחללין מעשר שני על אסימון דברי רבי דוסא וחכמים אומרים אין מחללין ושוין שאין מחללין על מעות הניתנות בסימן לבית המרחץ

4 But as for maroka, It Is unnecessary [to exclude that].6 UNCOINED METAL [ASIMON]7

ה אלא אמר רבי יוחנן מאי אסימון פולסא ואזדא רבי יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר ר' יוחנן רבי דוסא ורבי ישמעאל אמרו דבר אחד רבי דוסא הא דאמרן רבי ישמעאל מאי היא דתניא (דברים יד, כה) וצרת הכסף בידך לרבות כל דבר הנצרר ביד דברי רבי ישמעאל רבי עקיבא אומר לרבות כל דבר שיש עליו צורה:

5 ACQUIRES COINED. What IS ASIMON? — Said Rab: Coins that are presented as tokens8 at the baths.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: The bath attendant received checks or tokens from intending patrons, so as to know how many would frequent them and what preparations to make. [According to Krauss, T.A., I, 225, these were received by visitors who in turn presented them to the bath-attendant, the olearius, as token payment.] For this purpose cancelled or defaced coins were used. ');">9

ו כיצד משך הימנו פירות ולא נתן לו מעות אינו יכול לחזור בו וכו': אמר ר' יוחנן דבר תורה מעות קונות ומפני מה אמרו משיכה קונה גזירה שמא יאמר לו נשרפו חטיך בעלייה

6 An objection is raised: The second tithe may not be redeemed by asimon, nor by coins that are presented as tokens at the baths; proving that ASIMON is not coins that are presented as tokens at the baths.10 And should you answer that it is a definition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'coins that are presented etc.' is not a separate clause, but a definition of 'asimon'. Tosaf. observes that on this hypothesis 'or' (coins etc.) would have to be deleted. ');">11

ז סוף סוף מאן דשדא דליקה בעי שלומי אלא גזירה שמא תפול דליקה באונס אי מוקמת להו ברשותיה מסר נפשיה טרח ומציל ואי לא לא מסר נפשיה טרח ומציל

7 surely the Tanna does not teach thus; [for we learnt:] The second tithe may be redeemed by 'asimon', this is R. Dosa's view. The Sages maintain: It may not. Yet both agree that it may not be redeemed with coins that are presented as tokens at the baths.12 But, said R. Johanan. What is 'asimon'? A disk.13

ח ריש לקיש אמר משיכה מפורשת מן התורה מאי טעמא דריש לקיש אמר קרא (ויקרא כה, יד) וכי תמכרו ממכר לעמיתך או קנה מיד עמיתך דבר הנקנה מיד ליד

8 Now, R. Johanan follows his views [expressed elsewhere]. For R. Johanan said: R. Dosa and R. Ishmael both taught the same thing. R. Dosa: the statement just quoted. And what is R. Ishmael's dictum? — That which has been taught: And thou shalt bind up the money in thine hand;14 this is to include everything that can be bound up in one's hand — that is R. Ishmael's view. R. Akiba said: It is to include everything which bears a figure.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a stamped image; [H] is connected with [H], 'to form a figure'. By contrast then, R. Ishmael must refer to metal not bearing this figure: and R. Johanan equates that with R. Dosa's dictum. This then agrees with his interpretation of 'asimon' as an (uncoined) disk. ');">15

ט ורבי יוחנן אמר מיד למעוטי קרקע דלית ביה אונאה

9 E. G., IF [A] DREW INTO HIS POSSESSION [B' s] PRODUCE, WITHOUT PAYING HIM THE MONEY, HE CANNOT RETRACT, etc. R. Johanan said: By Biblical law, [the delivery of] money effects possession. Why then was it said meshikah effects possession? Lest he [the vendor] say to him [the vendee]. 'Your wheat was burnt In the loft.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the delivery of coin should transfer ownership to the vendee even whilst the purchase is in the vendor's possession, the latter will be remiss in attempting to save it, should a fire break out on his premises; therefore actual meshikah was instituted. On the other hand, if it were ruled that both meshikah and payment were necessary, if the purchaser took it into his possession without paying and a fire broke out on his premises, he would be remiss in saving it. Therefore the Rabbis enacted that the entire transfer of ownership depends on meshikah alone (Tosaf.). On meshikah, v. Glos. ');">16 But after all, whoever causes17

י וריש לקיש א"כ לכתוב קרא וכי תמכרו ממכר מיד עמיתך אל תונו או קנה למה לי שמע מינה למשיכה

10 the fire must make compensation! — But [for fear] lest a fire accidentally break out. Now, if the ownership is [still] vested in him [the vendor],18 he will wholeheartedly take pains19

יא ור' יוחנן או קנה מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדתניא וכי תמכרו ממכר אל תונו אין לי אלא שנתאנה לוקח נתאנה מוכר מנין תלמוד לומר או קנה אל תונו

11 to save it; if not, he will not do so. Resh Lakish said: Meshikah is explicitly provided for by Biblical law. What is Resh Lakish's reason? — Scripture saith, And if thou sell aught unto thy neighbour, or acquire aught of thy neighbour's hand20

יב וריש לקיש תרתי גמר מיניה

12 — i.e., a thing 'acquired' [by passing it] from hand to hand.21 But R. Johanan maintains, 'of [thy neighbour's] hand' is to exclude real estate from the law of fraud.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The verse ends, ye shall not defraud one another. As stated infra 49b, a certain percentage of fraud or overcharging annuls the sale; but the word 'hand' implies that the reference is to something that can pass from hand to hand, sc. movables, but not land. ');">22

יג תנן ר"ש אומר כל שהכסף בידו ידו על העליונה מוכר הוא דמצי הדר ביה לוקח לא מצי הדר ביה אי אמרת בשלמא מעות קונות משום הכי מוכר מצי הדר ביה לוקח לא מצי הדר ביה אלא אי אמרת מעות אינן קונות לוקח נמי ליהדר ביה

13 And Resh Lakish?23 — If so,24

יד אמר לך ריש לקיש אליבא דרבי שמעון לא קאמינא כי קאמינא אליבא דרבנן

14 Scripture should have written, 'And if thou sell aught unto thy neighbour's hand, ye shall not defraud:' why state, 'or acquire aught'? This proves that its purpose is to teach the need of meshikah. And R. Johanan: how does he utilise 'or buy'? — He employs it. even as was taught: 'And if thou sell aught … ye shall not defraud:' from this I know the law25 only if the purchaser was defrauded. Whence do I know it if the vendor was cheated? From the phrase. 'or acquire aught…ye shall not defraud.' And Resh Lakish?26

טו בשלמא לריש לקיש היינו דאיכא בין ר' שמעון לרבנן אלא לרבי יוחנן מאי איכא בין ר"ש לרבנן איכא בינייהו דרב חסדא דאמר רב חסדא כדרך שתקנו משיכה במוכרין כך תקנו משיכה בלקוחות ר"ש לית ליה דרב חסדא רבנן אית להו דרב חסדא

15 — He learns both therefrom.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Or acquirest' shows that the law of overreaching holds good when the vendor is the victim, and since 'hand' is written in conjunction with 'acquirest' rather than with 'sell', we learn that the acquisition is made by passing the purchase from hand to hand. ');">27 We learnt, R. SIMEON SAID: HE WHO HAS THE MONEY IN HIS HAND HAS THE ADVANTAGE. [This means,] only the vendor can retract, but not the purchaser.28

טז תנן אבל אמרו מי שפרע מדור המבול הוא עתיד ליפרע ממי שאינו עומד בדיבורו אי אמרת בשלמא מעות קונות משום הכי קאי באבל אלא אי אמרת מעות אינן קונות אמאי קאי באבל משום דברים

16 Now, should you say that [by Biblical law the delivery of] money effects possession, it is well; therefore the vendor can retract, but not the vendee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, when the vendee delivers the money, ownership rests in him according to Biblical law, and it is only to safeguard his interests in case of accidental fire that the vendor is made to bear the risks until the delivery of the goods. Consequently, since the vendor is put at a disadvantage by the Rabbinical measure, in that he must bear the risks of fire or damage, it is equitable that he shall be compensated by being given the power to retract too. The vendee, on the other hand, is the gainer by the Rabbinical enactment of meshikah; therefore there is no need to increase his advantage still farther by permitting him to retract even if no accident befalls the goods. — This explanation follows R. Hananel; Rashi and R. Tam differ somewhat. ');">29 But if you say that [the delivery of] money does not effect a title [even by Biblical law], then the purchaser too should be able to retract!30

יז ובדברים מי קאי באבל והתניא

17 — Resh Lakish can answer you: I [certainly] did not state [my view] on the basis of R. Simeon's opinion, but according to the Rabbis. Now, as for Resh Lakish, it is well: for precisely therein do R. Simeon and the Rabbis differ.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon maintaining that the delivery of money consummates the sale by Biblical law, and therefore the vendee cannot retract, whilst in the view of the Rabbis meshikah is a Scriptural requisite, and therefore both the vendor and the vendee can retract. ');">31 But according to R. Johanan, wherein do R. Simeon and the Rabbis differ? — In respect to R. Hisda's dictum, viz.: Just as they [sc. the Rabbis] enacted the law of meshikah in respect of the vendor, so did they institute it in respect to the vendee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Probably on the score of equitableness. For, notwithstanding the reasoning stated on p. 283. n. II (q.v.), there would be a distinct feeling of unfairness if only one could retract and not the other, e.g. if the price rose or fell. ');">32 Thus, R. Simeon rejects this dictum of R. Hisda, whilst the Rabbis agree therewith. We learnt: BUT THEY [SC. THE SAGES] SAID: HE WHO PUNISHED THE GENERATION OF THE FLOOD AND THE GENERATION OF THE DISPERSION, HE WILL TAKE VENGEANCE OF HIM WHO DOES NOT STAND BY HIS WORD. Now, if you say that the delivery of money effects a title, it is well: hence he is subject to the 'BUT etc.'. If, however, you maintain that money does not effect a title, why is he subject to 'BUT'?33 — On account of his words.34 But is one subject to 'BUT' on account of [mere] words? Has it not been taught:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter