Bava Metzia 44a (מד.) — the Talmud in English

and it broke, which was an accident, he pays for the entire barrel, because one who misuses a deposit becomes a robber with regard to the entire deposit, must pay for it, and becomes liable for accidents. Гемара:

Or thought; see the note on the Mishna.

that one who merely intended to use the deposit as his own is not liable—

;

The Rif omitted this difficulty, and his reason—as explained by the "Maggid Mishnah"—is that this doubt only applies to the one who says: sheliah yad requires deficiency, but to the one who says sheliah yad does not require deficiency, there is no place for this problem; and in law it is established for us that sheliah yad does not require deficiency. ; ;

The first Mishna of this chapter deals with the halakha governing the sale of movable property, and teaches a rule: only the buyer’s pulling of the movable property [such as a utensil or produce] effects the acquisition, and not the giving of the money to the seller for the purchased item.

Therefore, as long as the buyer has not pulled the purchased item toward himself, even if the buyer has already paid the price of the item, there is still an option [for the seller, the buyer, or both, as will be explained] to regret the transaction and annul it, if he wishes.

The Mishna also teaches that if two people exchange two types of coins with one another, one type being more useful and the other less useful, the less useful coin is considered merchandise [called in the language of the Sages “produce,” and also called “movable property”], and the one who gives it is considered the seller of the merchandise, whereas the more useful type of coin is considered money, and the one who gives it is considered the buyer of the merchandise, as the Mishna will explain.

Accordingly, if a person gives another a type of coin that is less useful and is considered “produce,” and the other undertakes to pay him useful currency in return, the acquisition takes effect when the other pulls the less useful coin toward himself. Here the acquisition is effected by the seller’s pulling the “merchandise” toward himself, and he is now obligated to pay the money for the merchandise he purchased.

Conversely, if the owner of the useful money first gives his money to the owner of the less useful money, the pulling of the useful coins, which are considered money, does not complete the acquisition of the less useful money, because they are considered merchandise; one may still regret the transaction and annul it.

The Hazon Ish, in his introduction to the chapter “The Gold,” defines “currency” as something that serves two purposes:

The first: a means of determining price.

The second: a means of payment.

Something that serves as a means of payment but not as a means of determining price, or something that serves as a means of determining price but not as a means of payment, is not considered currency, but rather “produce.”

One who sells something to another is obligated to give him payment for the item in currency, but the seller cannot establish an obligation of payment in other merchandise, unless he did so through an acquisition of exchange. In that case, the other merchandise is not considered payment for the transaction; rather, it is acquired by means of an acquisition of exchange!

All movable property is called “produce” in the discussion of the Gemara. A gold coin, which is less useful, is considered “produce” [“movable property”] in relation to a silver coin, which is more useful.

Conversely, a silver coin is considered money in relation to a gold coin, since a silver coin “circulates in commerce” more than a gold coin.

Mishna:

The pulling of the coin

of gold

by the one who undertook to pay silver coins for it is

“acquires” [

obligates the buyer of it to pay in return for it]

the

coin

of silver

that he undertook to pay for the gold, for the pulling of the produce effects the acquisition, and the buyer becomes obligated to give the price of the transaction — namely, silver dinars.

But the coin

of silver does not acquire [

does not obligate]

the

seller of the coin

of gold

to give it to the buyer, because merely giving money does not acquire the item. And likewise, a silver coin “circulates in commerce” more than a copper coin; therefore, a copper coin is considered “produce” in relation to a silver coin, which is considered “money” in comparison with the copper coin.

Accordingly, the pulling of the coin

of copper acquires the

coin

of silver, and

whereas

the silver does not acquire the copper.

Defective coins,

which have been disqualified for use,

acquire the

coins

in good condition,

which are fit for use, since “defective coins” are like movable property in relation to “coins in good condition.”

And coins

in good condition

do not acquire the

coins

that are defective,

and if he wishes, he may retract from the transaction, as with any giving of money that does not acquire movable property. “

A token” is a piece of metal the size of a coin, upon which the shape and design customarily found on that coin have not yet been stamped.

“A token” is like movable property and

acquires

through its being pulled

the coin, and the coin does not acquire the

the

token,

and he may retract from the transaction until he pulls the token.

All

movable property acquires

through being pulled

the coin; a coin does not acquire the movable property

and he may retract until he pulls the movable property.

All movable property acquires one another,

and once one of them has been pulled, the other has acquired its counterpart.

How

do movable property — “produce” — acquire money, while money does not acquire produce?

If the buyer pulled

from him,

the seller, the

produce, and did not give him money

he has acquired it and

he cannot retract,

since pulling the produce effects the acquisition.

If

the buyer

gave

him,

the seller, the

money, and did not pull from him

the

produce, he

may retract,

both the buyer and the seller,

from the transaction

.

Even though he may retract,

nevertheless,

in any event,

they said:

“May He who exacted punishment [

the Holy One, blessed be He, who exacted punishment]

from the generation of the Flood,

and punished them for their deeds,

and

who exacted punishment

from the generation of the Dispersion,

He will eventually exact punishment from one who does not keep his word,

and punish him.”

Rabbi Shimon says:

I disagree with the first tanna, who holds that both the buyer and the seller may retract after the money has been given, as long as the buyer has not performed meshikha on the produce.

Rather,

whenever the money is in his possession,

namely, the seller, who has received the money into his possession,

he has the upper hand,

and only he may retract, if he is willing to accept upon himself the curse of the Sages: that the One who exacted punishment from the generation of the Flood and from the generation of the Dispersion will exact punishment from him.

But the buyer, who has neither the money nor the produce in his possession, may not retract. If the seller wishes to uphold the sale, the buyer must accept the produce against his will, and he cannot annul the sale.

Gemara:

Rabbi taught this to Rabbi Shimon his son,

Rabbi taught his Mishna to Rabbi Shimon, his son, in the following formulation:

Gold acquires silver,

as we learned in our Mishna, that a gold coin is considered “produce” in relation to a silver coin.

Rabbi Shimon was puzzled, and

said to him,

to his father:

Rabbi

[my teacher], behold,

you taught us

and instructed us

in your youth

[in your younger years]:

Silver acquires gold,

since a silver coin is not as valuable, and is considered “produce” in relation to a gold coin; therefore, the one who acquires the silver is obligated to pay for it with a gold coin.

And

if

you return

from your position

and teach us in your old age

that

gold acquires silver?!

But Rabbi did not retract from what he had now taught his son, for indeed Rabbi had changed his view in his old age and held that gold acquires silver.

And the Gemara explains:

What did he hold in his youth

Rabbi,

and what did he hold in his old age

Rabbi? What was Rabbi’s initial view, and why did he change his opinion?

And we explain:

In his youth he held

Rabbi held that when one coin is evaluated against another coin, in order to designate one as “produce” and the other as “money,” the more valuable coin is “money,” while the less valuable one is “produce.”

Therefore,

gold,

a gold coin,

which is valuable, is “currency,”

while a coin of

silver, which is not as valuable,

as much,

is “produce”

[fruit] in relation to the gold coin.

And the produce acquires it,

the withdrawal of the silver coin

acquires the currency,

that is, it creates the obligation to pay in a gold coin.

But

in his old age he held

Rabbi held that the coin that is “readily spendable” and “passes as legal tender” is considered “money” in relation to a coin that is less readily spendable, which is considered “produce.”