Kiddushin 56

Chapter 56

א כיון שזכה זה נתחייב בחליפין דיקא נמי דקתני כיצד החליף שור בפרה או חמור בשור ש"מ
1 as soon as one party takes possession, the other assumes liability for what is given in exchange. This follows too from the statement, HOW SO?
ב ולמאי דסליק אדעתין מעיקרא דמטבע נעשה חליפין מאי כיצד ה"ק פירות נמי עבדי חליפין כיצד החליף בשר שור בפרה או בשר חמור בשור כיון שזכה זה נתחייב בחליפין
2 IF ONE BARTERS AN OX FOR A COW, OR AN ASS FOR AN OX. This proves it.
ג הניחא לרב ששת דאמר פירות עבדי חליפין אלא לר"נ דאמר פירות לא עבדי חליפין מאי איכא למימר
3 Now, on the original hypothesis, that coin can effect a barter, what is meant by HOW SO?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., why is an instance given which does not illustrate the use of money as barter?');"><sup>1</sup></span> - It means this: And produce too can effect a barter.
ד ה"ק יש דמים שהן כחליפין כיצד החליף דמי שור בפרה או דמי חמור בשור
4 HOW SO? IF ONE BARTERS AN OX FOR A COW, OR AN ASS FOR AN OX, as soon as one party takes possession, the other assumes liability for what is given in exchange.
ה מ"ט סבר לה כר' יוחנן דאמר דבר תורה מעות קונות ומה טעם אמרו משיכה קונה גזירה שמא יאמר לו נשרפו חיטיך בעלייה
5 Now, this agrees with R'Shesheth, who maintained: Produce can effect a barter. But on R'Nahman's view, viz. , that produce cannot effect a barter, what can be said? - It means this: Money sometimes ranks as [an object of] barter.
ו מילתא דשכיח גזרו בה רבנן מילתא דלא שכיח לא גזרו בה רבנן
6 HOW SO? IF ONE BARTERS 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 sells an ox to B for a certain sum of money, and B takes possession, thereby becoming indebted to A for the purchase price. Then B says: 'I will give you a cow for the purchase price of the ox,' to which A agrees. Now, though 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 here, and neither can retract, i.e.,it is barter, not payment.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ז ולר"ל דאמר משיכה מפורשת מן התורה הניחא אי סבר לה כרב ששת דאמר פירות עבדי חליפין מתרץ כרב ששת
7 What is the reason? - He agrees with R'Johanan, who said: Biblically speaking, money effects a title. Why then was it decreed that only meshikah gives possession?
ח אלא אי סבר לה כר"נ דאמר פירות לא עבדי חליפין ומטבע לא קני במאי מוקי לה על כרחך כרב ששת ס"ל:
8 As a precautionary measure, lest he say to him, 'Your wheat was burnt in the loft.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 126, n. 7.');"><sup>3</sup></span> Now, the Rabbis enacted a preventive measure only for a usual occurrence, but not for an unusual occurrence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a transaction as described in note 2; consequently, the Biblical law operates.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ט <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> רשות הגבוה בכסף ורשות ההדיוט בחזקה אמירתו לגבוה כמסירתו להדיוט:
9 Now, according to Resh Lakish, who maintains that meshikah is explicitly required by Biblical law: it is well if he agrees with R'Shesheth, who rules [that] produce can effect a barter; then he can explain 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, as we have seen, on the original hypothesis either of these is involved.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
י <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר כיצד רשות הגבוה בכסף גיזבר שנתן מעות בבהמה אפי' בהמה בסוף העולם קנה ובהדיוט לא קנה עד שימשוך
10 - You are forced to say that he agrees with R'Shesheth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The whole passage occurs again in B.M. 46a-b.');"><sup>6</sup></span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE SANCTUARY'S<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the Highest'.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
יא כיצד אמירתו לגבוה כמסירתו להדיוט האומר שור זה עולה בית זה הקדש אפי' בסוף העולם קנה בהדיוט לא קנה
11 TITLE TO PROPERTY [IS ACQUIRED] BY MONEY; THE TITLE OF A COMMON MAN TO PROPERTY BY HAZAKAH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained in the GEMARA:');"><sup>8</sup></span> DEDICATION TO THE SANCTUARY IS EQUAL TO DELIVERY TO A COMMON PERSON. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: How is the Sanctuary's title [acquired] by money? If the [Temple] treasurer pays money for an animal, even if the animal is at the world's end, he acquires it; whereas a common person gains no title until he performs meshikah. How is dedication to the Sanctuary equal to delivery to a common person? If one declares, 'This ox be a burnt-offering,' 'This house be hekdesh,' even if they are at the world's end, it [hekdesh] acquires them; whereas a common person gains no title<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In similar circumstances.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter