Bava Metzia 87

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מנהני מילי דתנו רבנן (שמות כב, ח) על כל דבר פשע בית שמאי אומרים מלמד שחייב על המחשבה כמעשה ובית הלל אומרים אינו חייב עד שישלח בו יד שנאמר (שמות כב, ז) אם לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו אמרו להן ב"ש לב"ה והלא כבר נאמר על כל דבר פשע אמרו להן ב"ה לב"ש והלא כבר נאמר אם לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. How do we know it? — For our Rabbis taught: [Then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges&nbsp;…] For all manner of trespass:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 8. ');">¹</span>

א"כ מה תלמוד לומר על כל דבר פשע שיכול אין לי אלא הוא אמר לעבדו ולשלוחו מנין תלמוד לומר על כל דבר פשע:

Beth Shammai maintain: This teaches that he is liable on account of [unlawful] intention just as for an [unlawful] act. But Beth Hillel say: He is not liable until he actually puts it to use, for it is said, [to see] whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods. Said Beth Shammai to Beth Hillel: But it is already stated, For any word<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V., 'all manner'. ');">²</span>

הטה את החבית כו': אמר רבה לא שנו אלא נשברה אבל החמיצה משלם את כולה מאי טעמא גירי דידיה הוא דאהנו לה:

of trespass! Whereupon Beth Hillel retorted to Beth Shammai: But it is already stated, [to see] whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods! If so, what is the teaching of, for any word of trespass? For I might have thought: I know it only of himself;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the trustee himself puts the deposit to use. ');">³</span>

הגביהה ונטל הימנה כו': אמר שמואל לא נטל נטל ממש אלא כיון שהגביהה ליטול אע"פ שלא נטל

whence do I know [that he is liable if] he instructed his servant or his agent [to use it]? From the teaching, For any word of trespass.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [He is liable for a mere verbal order (R. Han.).] ');">⁴</span>

לימא קא סבר שמואל שליחות יד אינה צריכה חסרון אמרי לא שאני הכא דניחא ליה דתיהוי הא חבית כולה בסיס להא רביעית

IF HE INCLINES THE BARREL, etc. Rabbah said: This was taught only if it is broken: if, however, it soured, he must pay for the whole of it. Why? It was his arrows that affected it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By taking a small quantity he helped it to sour, because a full barrel does not sour as quickly as one that is not full (R. Han.). ');">⁵</span>

בעי רב אשי הגביה ארנקי ליטול הימנה דינר מהו חמרא הוא דלא מינטר אלא אגב חמרא אבל זוזא מינטר או דלמא שאני נטירותא דארנקי מנטירותא דדינר תיקו:

BUT IF HE LIFTS IT, AND TAKES [A REBI'ITH] FROM IT, etc. Samuel said: 'TAKES' is not meant literally, but once he lifts it up in order to take [he is henceforth responsible] even if he does not take it. Shall we say that in Samuel's opinion [unlawful] use need not involve loss?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For there is no loss if he merely lifts it up. ');">⁶</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך המפקיד</strong></big><br><br>

— I will tell you: That is not so, but here it is different, because he desires that the whole barrel shall be subservient to this rebi'ith.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he lifts the barrel up to take a quantity, he is regarded as having already taken it and put it back, because being in a full barrel it is less likely to sour; thus he makes the whole of the rest subservient to the quantity he desired, and is using the rest in that capacity. This renders him responsible for the whole. ');">⁷</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>הזהב</strong></big> קונה את הכסף הכסף אינו קונה את הזהב

R. Ashi propounded: What then if he lifts up a purse in order to take a <i>denar</i> therefrom? Is it wine alone that can be guarded only by means of other wine,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained on p. 260, n. 7. ');">⁸</span>

הנחשת קונה את הכסף והכסף אינו קונה את הנחשת מעות הרעות קונות את היפות והיפות אינן קונות את הרעות

whereas a <i>zuz</i> can be guarded [by itself]; or perhaps, the care given to a purse is not the same as that of a [single] <i>denar</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He knows that he will give greater care to a whole purse than to one coin, and therefore here too he may be regarded as having actually taken the coin and replaced it, so that it should be better kept, in which case the whole purse is made subservient to the denar. ');">⁹</span>

אסימון קונה את המטבע והמטבע אינו קונה את אסימון מטלטלין קונין את המטבע מטבע אינו קונה את המטלטלין

The question stands.

(זה הכלל) כל המטלטלים קונין זה את זה כיצד משך הימנו פירות ולא נתן לו מעות אינו יכול לחזור בו נתן לו מעות ולא משך הימנו פירות יכול לחזור בו

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. GOLD ACQUIRES SILVER, BUT SILVER DOES NOT ACQUIRE GOLD; COPPER ACQUIRES SILVER, BUT SILVER DOES NOT ACQUIRE COPPER; CANCELLED COINS ACQUIRE CURRENT ONES, BUT CURRENT COINS DO NOT ACQUIRE CANCELLED COINS; UNCOINED METAL ACQUIRES COINED, BUT COINED METAL DOES NOT ACQUIRE UNCOINED METAL; MOVABLES ACQUIRE COINS, BUT COINS DO NOT ACQUIRE MOVABLES. THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is rightly omitted in Alfasi and Asheri, since the passage that follows does not summarize the principle upon which the foregoing is based. ');">¹⁰</span>

אבל אמרו מי שפרע מאנשי דור המבול ומדור הפלגה הוא עתיד להפרע ממי שאינו עומד בדבורו

ALL MOVABLES ACQUIRE EACH OTHER. E.G., IF [A] DREW INTO HIS POSSESSION [B'S] PRODUCE WITHOUT PAYING HIM THE MONEY, HE CANNOT RETRACT. IF HE PAID HIM THE MONEY BUT DID NOT DRAW INTO HIS POSSESSION HIS PRODUCE, HE CAN WITHDRAW. BUT THEY [SC. THE SAGES] SAID: HE WHO PUNISHED THE GENERATION OF THE FLOOD AND THE GENERATION OF THE DISPERSION,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Gen. XI, 1-10. ');">¹¹</span>

רבי שמעון אומר כל שהכסף בידו ידו על העליונה:

HE WILL TAKE VENGEANCE OF HIM WHO DOES NOT STAND BY HIS WORD. R. SIMEON SAID: HE WHO HAS THE MONEY IN HIS HAND HAS THE ADVANTAGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'his hand is uppermost'. The general principle of this Mishnah is this: When one makes a purchase, the delivery of the money does not complete the transaction, and either party can withdraw from the bargain; on the other hand, once the goods are taken, the transaction is absolute and irrevocable, and neither party can withdraw, the purchase price being regarded henceforth as an ordinary debt caused by a loan. Now, in ancient days. when the value of coins depended on their weight and general condition, coins of one metal or denomination might themselves be purchased with other coins. Consequently, in such a transaction, it becomes necessary to determine which is to be regarded as the money and which as the goods. The Mishnah proceeds on the principle that those coins which have greater currency than others rank as money vis a vis the others, which are then regarded merely as movables. Now, silver coin had greater currency than gold coin — probably because the latter represented an unusually large sum of money in an agricultural community where money is generally scarce. Consequently, if one purchase gold denarii for silver denarii, as soon as he takes possession of the gold, the bargain is irrevocable and he is bound to render the silver coins to the vendor, i.e., the gold of the vendor gives him a legal title to the silver. On the other hand, if he first takes possession of the silver, the bargain is not concluded; hence revocable. On the same lines, copper coin rank as money vis a vis silver, so that when the former is taken, the transaction is legally closed; but not the reverse. The same principle operates in the other clauses of the Mishnah dealing with the purchase of money. In the case of barter, however, as soon as one party takes possession of the article that is bartered, the transaction is consummated, and neither party may withdraw. ');">¹²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מתני ליה רבי לרבי שמעון בריה הזהב קונה את הכסף א"ל רבי שנית לנו בילדותיך הכסף קונה את הזהב ותחזור ותשנה לנו בזקנותיך הזהב קונה את הכסף

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Rabbi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Judah the Prince, who compiled the Mishnah. ');">¹³</span>

בילדותיה מאי סבר ובזקנותיה מאי סבר בילדותיה סבר דהבא דחשיב הוי טבעא כספא דלא חשיב הוי פירא וקני ליה פירא לטבעא בזקנותיה סבר כספא

taught his son R. Simeon: Gold acquires silver. Said he to him: Master, in your youth you did teach us, Silver acquires gold; now, advanced in age, you reverse it and teach, Gold acquires silver. Now, how did he reason in his youth, and how did he reason in his old age? — In his youth he reasoned: Since gold is more valuable, it ranks as money; whilst silver, which is of lesser value, is regarded as produce: hence [the delivery of] produce effects a title to the money. But at a later age he reasoned: Since silver [coin]