Previous daf

1)

(a) Rabah Amar Rav Huna states that if Reuven asks Shimon to sell him something for the handful of coins that he gives him, the sale is final - because since they are not fussy about the price, it is like Chalipin, where the Kinyan on one of the objects finalizes the transaction.

(b) The Din of Ona'ah (overcharging) nevertheless applies, should the money be one sixth less than the price of the object - because the purchaser specifically asked the seller to sell him the object.

(c) Rav Aba Amar Rav Huna disagrees with Rabah - inasmuch as since they are not particular about the amounts, the Din of Ona'ah does not apply.

(a) We have just ruled that Damim, in a case where they are *not particular* that the money should tally with the cost of the article, is Koneh (like Chalipin). We then ask - whether Chalipin, where they *are*, is Koneh from the Din of Chalipin, or whether, because they are particular, it has a Din Mamon, which is not Koneh.

(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah cites a Beraisa where Reuven agrees to swap his donkey for Shimon's cow (which he then acquires with Meshichah) after assessing their respective values) and where the Tana rules - that, if the donkey subsequently dies before the owner of the cow had a chance to acquire it, the Kinyan that Reuven made is Batel.

(c) Rava refutes Rav Ada bar Ahavah's proof - by pointing out that people are not so foolish as to swap articles whose prices are poles apart.

(d) He therefore interprets the Beraisa - when in fact, they were swapping a donkey for a cow plus a calf, and the reason that the Kinyan on the cow was Batel is because he had only acquired the cow and not the calf.

(a) We just discussed Rav Huna who holds (regarding a handful of money) 'Mechor Li be'Eilu, Kanah'. We reconcile Rav Huna with those who hold 'Ein Matbe'a Na'aseh Chalipin' - by establishing the Kinyan as Kinyan Kesef (not Chalipin, like we learned until now). The reason that Kinyan Kesef is effective here is because he follows the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan (who holds Ma'os Konos d'Oraysa), and Chazal did not negate the Kinyan d'Oraysa in unusual cases (such as here, where they are not particular about the value of the object). Consequently, Kesef is Koneh.

(b) And we just expressed doubts as to what Rav Nachman holds regarding 'Matbe'a Na'aseh Chalipin. Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Nachman (or Nechemyah) - actually adds Rav Huna's name to the list of Amora'im (on the previous Daf) who hold 'Ein Matbe'a Na'aseh Chalipin'.

(c) According to Rav, the Chalipin takes effect with the vessel of the acquirer (Reuven gives Shimon his object in order to acquire Shimon's) - because the latter is pleased that the 'seller' acquires his object, providing him the impetus to be Makneh him his vessel in exchange.

(d) According to Levi - Reuven acquires Shimon's object with the seller's object (when he acquires Shimon's article that is being used as a Kinyan).

(a) The problem Rav Huna from Diskarta has with Levi, in a case where Reuven wants to give Shimon Karka is - that this appears to be a perverted version of the accepted Halachah that one can acquires Metaltelin together with Karka (and not vice-versa).

(b) Rava was not impressed with the Kashya - because it is not the Kinyan on the seller's object that enables the Kinyan of the required object to take effect, but the Hana'ah that the seller receives on account of the fact that the purchaser accepted the article from him (giving him the impetus to be Makneh his object with a full heart).

(c) According to Rava, had Levi been aware that they accused him of the ignorance implied by Rav Huna from Diskarta's Kashya, he would have beaten them with a fiery rod (i.e. placed them in Cherem).

(d) The Machlokes between Rav and Levi is not an original one - because it is already contained in a Beraisa in the form of a Machlokes Tana'im (as we shall now see).

6)

(a) We learn Kinyan Chalipin from the Pasuk in Megilas Rus "ve'Zos Lefanim be'Yisrael al ha'Ge'ulah ve'al ha'Temurah ... ". "Ge'ulah" refers to - a sale of an object for which money will later be paid, but which the buyer is acquiring through Chalipin; whereas Temurah" - refers to an object which he is acquiring in exchange for the article with which the Kinyan is being performed.

(b) Kinyan Chalipin is derived from the subsequent words "La'kayem Kol Davar Shalaf Ish Na'alo". According to the Tana Kama, it was Bo'az - who was buying P'loni Almoni's rights to Rus and Elimelech's property, who handed his shoe to P'loni Almoni.

(c) According to Rebbi Yehudah - it was P'loni Almoni, the seller, who handed his shoe to Bo'az (and with it, the rights to perform sYibum with Rus and to Elimelech's property).

(a) We have already discussed the Machlokes between Rav Sheishes and Rav Nachman.

1. Rav Nachman learns from "Na'alo " - that only a K'li is eligible for use as Chalipin.
2. Rav Sheishes learns from "Lekayem Kol Davar" - to include even things that are not classified as Keilim (such as fruit).

(b)

1. Rav Nachman learns from "Le'kayem Kol Davar" - that Ge'ulah as well as Temurah can be acquired by Chalipin (provided one uses a K'li) as we explained above.
2. Rav Sheishes learns from "Na'alo" - that Chalipin cannot be performed with something that is incomplete (such as a broken vessel, half a pomegranate or half a nut).

8)

(a) Rav Sheishes bar Idi dissects the Lashon written in documents of Kinyan. From the Lashon ...

1. ... 'be'Mana' - he disqualifies anything that is not a K'li (like Rav Nachman).
2. ... 'de'Kasher' - he precludes vessels that are made of animal manure (because they are unpleasant), despite Shmuel who permits them (see also Tosfos).
3. ... 'le'Miknaya' - he precludes vessels belonging to the seller (like Rav).

(b) According to Rav Papa, 'Bei' comes to preclude the use of a coin for Chalipin, and according to Rav Z'vid (or Rav Ashi) - anything that is Asur be'Hana'ah.

(c) According to the alternative Lashon, Rav Z'vid (or Rav Ashi) agree with Rav Papa - and he learns to preclude ...

1. ... Isurei Hana'ah from 'de'Kasher'.
2. ... vessels made of animal dung - from a S'vara.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah '*Asimon* Koneh es ha'Matbe'a'. We initially interpret 'Asimon' - as a poor-quality coin which the bathers would give the bath-attendant in advance for him to know how much water to heat up and how many towels to prepare.

(b) The Beraisa rules - that one is not permitted to transfer the Kedushah of Ma'aser Sheini on to an Asimon or on to a coin that one gives to a bath-attendant as a sign.

(c) We attempt to refute the proof from here that an Asimon and coins that one gives to a bath-attendant as a sign are not one and the same - by establishing the second statement as the explanation of the first ('Pirushi ka'Mafaresh').

(d) We repudiate this suggestion however, from another Beraisa, where Rebbi Dosa permits the use of an Asimon for the redemption of Ma'aser Sheini. The Rabbanan - forbid it.

(a) The fact that even Rebbi Dosa forbids the use of coins that one gives to a bath-attendant as a sign to be used for that purpose, finally proves - that an Asimon (which Rebbi Dosa permits) and a coin that one gives to a bath-attendant as a sign (which he forbids) are not one and the same.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan therefore translates 'Asimon' as 'Pulsa' - which means uncoined metal (as we explained in our Mishnah).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan follows his own reasoning, since he equates Rebbi Dosa with Rebbi Yishmael in another Beraisa. Rebbi Yishmael, commenting on the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Tzarta ha'Kesef be'Yadcha", explains 'Lerabos Kol Davar ha'Nitzrar be'Yad', explains 'Lerabos Kol Davar ha'Nitzrar be'Yad'. Rebbi Akiva learn from "ve'Tzarta" - that one may only use Kesef Tzurah (minted coins).

(d) This corroborates Rebbi Yochanan's previous statement (that 'Asimon' is 'Pulsa') - from the fact that he equates Rebbi Dosa with Rebbi Yishmael (who argues with Rebbi Akiva and permits uncoined metal).

(a) We learned earlier that, according to Rebbi Yochanan, money acquires min ha'Torah. Chazal replaced Kinyan Kesef with Meshichah - in case, after the purchaser has already paid, a fire breaks out in the seller's attic, and the latter, who no longer owns the object, will not take the trouble to save the purchaser's 'wheat'.

(b) This explanation is not adequate however, since whoever lit the fire will be obligated to pay, in which case it is not necessary to protect the purchaser's interests. Consequently, we need to add - that the fire about which we are worried, will break out be'O'nes.

(c) Resh Lakish disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan. He learns from the Pasuk in Behar "ve'Chi Simkeru Mimkar la'Amisecha O Kanoh *mi'Yad Amisecha*" - that the Torah is discussing a Kinyan 'mi'Yad le'Yad' (i.e. Meshichah).

(d) Bearing in mind that the Pasuk is speaking about the Din of Ona'ah, Rebbi Yochanan learns from "mi'Yad Amisecha" - that Karka is precluded from the Din of Ona'ah.

(a) Resh Lakish counters that we learn this already from "ve'Chi Simkeru ... al Tonu", and that "O Kanoh (mi'Yad)" comes to teach us Meshichah. Rebbi Yochanan learns from "O Kanoh ... Al Tonu" - that the purchaser too, is subject to the La'av of 'Lo Sonu' (should he willingly underpay the seller (as we learned in a Beraisa).

(b) In fact - Resh Lakish learns both Dinim from there. He learns basically like Rebbi Yochanan, and Meshichah from the fact that the Torah places "mi'Yad" next to "Kanoh" (rather than immediately after "ve'Chi Simkeru Mimkar ... ").

(c) We learned in our Mishnah that according to Rebbi Shimon, the seller who has already received the money may retract, but not the purchaser. Rebbi Shimon ...

1. ... permits the seller to retract - because, in the event that the price of wheat goes up, he will make the effort to save the wheat should a fire break out, in order to make a bigger profit on his wheat (in spite of the 'Mi she'Para' [see Tosfos DH 'I Amrat']).
2. ... does not permit the purchaser to retract, a proof - that min ha'Torah, money is Koneh (like Rebbi Yochanan), and Chazal considered it sufficient to permit the seller to retract (seeing as [having both the goods and the money in his possession] he is the one who has the upper hand to begin with).

(d) Resh Lakish will point out - that his opinion goes according to the Rabbanan, and not Rebbi Shimon.

(a) The problem with Rebbi Yochanan is - that according to Resh Lakish at least, the Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan is now clear-cut, inasmuch as Rebbi Shimon holds that min ha'Torah money is Koneh, and the Rabbanan hold that it is not. But according to the Rabbanan, who hold that money is Koneh min ha'Torah even according to the Rabbanan, what is the basis of their Machlokes?

(b) Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Rabbanan like Rav Chisda who says - that just as Chazal instituted Meshichah to enable the seller to retract as long as the purchaser has not made Meshichah, so too, did they institute Meshichah to enable the purchaser to retract until he has made Meshichah (extending the incentive for the seller to save the wheat should it start to burn, even if the price does not go up). Whereas Rebbi Shimon does not hold of Rav Chisda.

(c) We ask on Resh Lakish from our Mishnah, which places a 'Mi she'Para' on someone who retracts after having paid, but before having made a Meshichah. Now if money does not acquire min ha'Torah, on what basis did Chazal institute a 'Mi she'Para'?

(d) He answers - that the basis of the 'Mi she'Para' is the fact that the seller broke his word.