Bava Metzia 45b — the Talmud in English

a

One

of them

said: The dispute

between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel

is specifically regarding sela'im for gold dinars,

specifically,

for Beit Shammai hold: We decree ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

lest he delay

the

going-up offerings

for the pilgrimage.

And if he becomes accustomed to redeeming them on gold dinars,

sometimes the coins are not sufficient

for the gold dinar [sometimes he will not have enough sela'im to redeem them for a gold dinar]

and he does not bring them up,

he will delay bringing them up to Jerusalem, until he has, in the following year, second-tithe produce, which he will redeem for additional sela'im, and together with what is already in his possession, the sela'im will reach the value of a gold dinar.

Therefore they decreed and said: A person may not redeem his sela'im for gold dinars.

And Beit Hillel hold: We do not decree,

there is no concern

lest he delay

his

going-up offerings,

when he does not have enough sela'im to redeem them for a gold dinar.

For even when the coins are not sufficient

for the gold dinar, he will indeed bring them up,

for the burden of several sela'im is not so heavy, and this will not prevent him from going up for the pilgrimage and bringing the sela'im in his possession up to Jerusalem.

But with produce for dinars, everyone agrees,

even according to Beit Shammai,

we redeem,

and there is no concern at all in the matter,

for

even if he has only a small amount of produce, which he cannot redeem for gold dinars,

since it rots [the produce is liable to rot],

he will not delay it.

And one [Rabbi Yohanan or Resh Lakish]

said: Even with produce for dinars as well, there is a dispute

between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.

Beit Shammai hold: Even with produce there is concern lest he delay it until he can redeem it for a gold dinar.

And Beit Hillel hold: There is no concern in the matter, neither with produce nor with dinars.

[Rabbi Yohanan or Reish Lakish]

And we raise a difficulty:

Granted, according to this latter formulation,

the last one,

where you said that by Torah law it is permitted,

to redeem sela'im for dinars, and it is the Sages who decreed concerning it.

That is

it works out well,

that it teaches

the Mishna in the wording:

“He shall do and he shall not do,”

as we learned: Beit Shammai say: A person shall not make sela'im into gold dinars; and it implies that after the fact his redemption is a valid redemption.

The Mishna was not taught in the wording: “Redemption does not apply”: sela'im cannot be redeemed for gold dinars.

For since there is here only a rabbinic decree, therefore after the fact, if he transgressed and redeemed sela'im for gold dinars, the sanctity of second tithe took hold in the gold dinars, and what he did is effective.

Rather, according to this formulation, where you said that by Torah law they disagree,

and the reason of Beit Shammai is that gold is “produce,” and currency is not redeemed for produce,

or because we expound: “the first silver,” and not “the second silver.”

And the Mishna was not taught using the wording “redemption”: “Sela coins may not be redeemed with gold dinars.”

If so,

“We redeem and we do not redeem”

should have been stated, for the wording “cannot be redeemed” implies that even after the fact the sanctity of second tithe does not take hold in the gold dinars.

If so,

it should have said: “We redeem, and we do not redeem”

And indeed, if by Torah law it is impossible to redeem sela coins with gold dinars, the Mishna should have been worded “may not be redeemed,” so that people would not err regarding this law!?

it should have said,

And if indeed, by Torah law, it is impossible to redeem sela'im for gold dinars, the Mishna should have been taught in the wording “cannot be redeemed,” so that people would not come to err concerning this law!?

And we conclude: Indeed, it is difficult, according to those formulations in which by Torah law they disagree. a. In the Scroll of Ruth [4:7] it is said: “And this was formerly done in Israel concerning redemption and concerning exchange, to establish every matter: a man would remove his shoe and give it to his fellow, and this was the attestation in Israel.” And it is said [there, verse 8]: “And the redeemer said to Boaz, Acquire it for yourself [Boaz acquired it from the redeemer], and he removed his shoe.” b. From these verses the Sages learned about “the acquisition by means of a cloth” and about “exchange.” “

Acquisition by means of a cloth” means that the seller sold him a complete sale for money, but the buyer had not yet drawn the object and had not given money to the seller, and they come to establish the matter of their sale by means of an acquisition. This acquisition is called “acquisition by means of a cloth,” since through the handing over of the cloth from one to the other the matter is established: the object is acquired by the buyer, and he becomes liable for the money to the seller.” “

Exchange” means that he exchanges one utensil for the object opposite it, and by drawing one, the other is acquired by his fellow.

according to those formulations that say they dispute the matter by Torah law.

c. In the following passages several details concerning these acquisitions will be explained: what is the object by means of which the acquisition is made, what is acquired through this acquisition, who hands the “cloth” by means of which the acquisition takes effect to whom, and so on, as will be explained below.

It was stated:

In our Mishna we learned that money does not effect acquisition, and if the buyer gave money to the seller, he did not acquire the produce, and he and the seller can retract from the sale.

And here

Rav and Levi disagreed: whether it is possible to acquire with currency—money—as an acquisition, in the manner in which one acquires with a cloth. a.

One

of them [Rav or Levi]

said: Currency can effect exchange,

and if he gave the currency as an exchange,

since this one drew the money, the object was acquired by his fellow

wherever it is.

And

one

of them

said: Currency cannot effect exchange, and its reason is explained shortly. He said, he explained, Rav Pappa: What is the reason of the one who says: Currency cannot effect exchange? Because his mind is directed of the transferor to the form, to the image stamped on the currency, since the currency is valuable only because of the image stamped upon it. And the image is liable to be annulled, “Image” is something that can be annulled and changed, since the king can invalidate it and decree that another image be made. If so, one may say: Just as one does not perform “exchange” with something that is not defined and whole, such as half a nut or half a pomegranate, so currency cannot effect exchange, since something that can be annulled has no importance like something defined and whole. We learned in our Mishna according to the one who says that currency can effect exchange:

And

one

of them

said:

Currency cannot serve for exchange,

and its reason will be explained shortly.

He said,

he explained:

Rav Pappa: What is the reason of the one who says: Currency cannot serve for exchange?

Because his mind is focused

on the part transferring it

on its design,

on the image stamped on the currency, since the currency has value only because of the image stamped on it.

And the image is liable to be cancelled,

“Image” means something that can be cancelled and changed, since the king can invalidate it and decree that a different image be made.

If so, one may say: Just as one does not perform an exchange with something that is incomplete and not a defined whole, such as half a nut or half a pomegranate, so currency cannot serve as an exchange, since something that can be cancelled has no importance as a defined and complete object.

We learned

in our Mishna in accordance with the one who says that currency can serve as an exchange:

Gold acquires silver—what, is that not

even

through barter

a gold coin acquires a silver coin,

and infer from it that a coin can serve as barter.

And we reject this:

No,

gold acquires silver not as barter, but

as

a form of

money

alone. That is to say, the silver is not acquired by the owner of the gold as barter for the gold; rather, since gold is peira in relation to silver, therefore the pulling of the gold acquires the silver, as an obligation to pay for the gold.

And we ask:

If so,

according to your words, that the Mishna did not speak of barter but of money,

why was the Mishna taught in the language:

“Gold acquires silver,”

for this language applies only when, through pulling the gold, the owner of the gold acquired the silver wherever it may be, and became its complete owner? And according to your words, gold

obligates

the silver;

it should have had to teach

this!?

For through pulling the gold, the owner of the silver became obligated to pay for the gold that he pulled; there is no “acquisition” here by the owner of the gold of the silver coins themselves, but only an “obligation” imposed upon the owner of the silver to pay for the gold that he acquired.

And we answer: Indeed,

teach: “Gold obligates

the silver,” meaning, “acquires” in our Mishna does not necessarily mean complete acquisition, but an obligation upon the person to pay the silver coins in exchange for the gold that he pulled.

And

this too is logically compelling:

we taught the statement as referring to money: “Gold acquires silver,” and not as referring to barter, and it is impossible to prove from the Mishna whether a coin can serve as barter or not.

Since the latter clause teaches

of the Mishna:

“Silver does not acquire gold,”

and here it certainly speaks of money and not of barter.

For

if you say, granted,

our Mishna

deals with money

and

that is,

it works out well,

for we say: Gold

is considered

produce and silver

is considered

currency, and currency

does not acquire

produce,

for money does not acquire movable property.

But if you say that it deals with barter,

our Mishna,

both should acquire one another,

just as a gold coin serves as barter to acquire the silver, so a silver coin should serve as barter to acquire the gold; and why did we teach: “Silver does not acquire gold”!?

Rather, infer from it: our Mishna does not deal with barter, but with money.

And further,

there is proof that our Mishna deals with money and not with barter, for

it was taught

in a beraita explaining our Mishna:

“Silver does not acquire gold”—how so?

If

the owner of the silver

sold him,

to the owner of the gold,

twenty-five silver dinars,

for

one

gold dinar, even though the owner of the gold pulled

the silver,

he did not acquire it,

and they may retract,

until he pulls the gold.

But

if you say, granted,

“gold acquires silver”

with money

is what it speaks of,

for this reason silver does not acquire

the gold, since a silver coin is currency in relation to a gold coin, and currency does not acquire “produce.”

But if you say

“gold acquires silver”

through barter, should

silver not also acquire gold!?

For just as a gold coin serves as barter to acquire the silver, so a silver coin should serve as barter to acquire the gold; and why did he not acquire the gold through pulling the silver!?

And we ask:

Rather, what is it,

according to your view, what does the beraita deal with? Is it, then,

with money

that it deals?

If so,

if, as you say, the beraita deals with money,

say the first clause

of the beraita:

“Gold acquires silver”—how so?

If he sold him one dinar

of

gold, for twenty-five dinars

of

silver, once

immediately when he

pulled the

dinar,

the gold is acquired,

the

silver [

silver dinars]

wherever it may be.

It had occurred to us: “wherever it may be” means in any place in the world where the silver coins are found; they are acquired by the owner of the gold.

If so,

if you say, granted,

the beraita speaks

of barter, that is

it works out well,

for it teaches: “is acquired”

silver

wherever it may be,

because through pulling the gold, the owner of the gold acquired the silver and gained it, even though he did not pull it and it is not present before us.

But if you say

the beraita speaks

of money,

then

this,

is it really the case that

the silver is acquired

the

silver wherever it may be!?

For the pulling of the gold does not transfer the money to the owner of the gold; rather, there is a personal obligation upon the owner of the silver, who is obligated to give its value to the owner of the gold, and

“the person became obligated” should have had to be taught

instead!?

Rav Ashi said: Actually,

it speaks

of money,

and the person became obligated to pay the silver.

And what is “wherever it may be”

that it teaches? It does not mean wherever the silver is found, but

as it is,

the person became obligated to give the silver,

as he said to him,

as the owner of the gold stipulated with the owner of the silver.

How so?

If he said to him

the owner of the silver

“from my new purse,”

new sela’im,

“I will give you” [I will give you],

he is obligated to give him specifically new sela’im, and

he cannot give him from his old purse [

old sela’im].

And

even though

old sela’im

are superior to them,

new sela’im, nevertheless he must give him new sela’im, as he obligated himself to give.

And

what is the reason? He is obligated to give new sela’im—are the old ones not superior to the new ones!?

that he is obligated to give new coins, when the old ones are superior to the new ones!?

Because he said to him:

I specifically prefer new coins, for

“I need them in order to keep them,”

I want to set them aside with me for a long time, and new ones are convenient for me, so that they will not become excessively black when I keep them with me for a long time.

Rav Pappa said: Even according to the one who says: A coin cannot serve as barter, it is only that it cannot perform barter,

but

they can be acquired through barter.

That is, even one who holds that it is impossible to effect an acquisition through barter by means of a coin nevertheless agrees that a coin can be acquired through a cloth by means of barter. The proof for this is:

just as produce according to Rav Naḥman.

Here is

produce according to Rav Naḥman—is it not that although they,

produce,

do not perform barter,

no barter acquisition is performed with them.

Nevertheless,

they can be acquired through barter.

Currency likewise is no different

from produce, and just as produce is acquired through barter, so currency is acquired through barter, even though they do not serve as barter to acquire another thing with them.

It was objected:

from a Mishna [Maaser Sheni, chapter 4, Mishna 5]: a. One who redeems his own second tithe adds a fifth to the value of the tithe, as it is stated [Leviticus 27:31]: “And if a man surely redeems of his tithe, its fifth he shall add to it.”

b. One who redeems the second tithe of others redeems the tithe at its value and does not add a fifth, for it is stated [there]: “of his tithe”—for his tithe he adds a fifth, but not for that of others.

c. It is permitted to employ a ruse in this redemption, to transfer its produce to others and redeem it without a fifth. A person who

was standing at the threshing floor

of second-tithe produce and wanted to redeem his produce without adding a fifth,

and did not have money in his hand

to give it to his fellow, so that his fellow would then redeem the produce without a fifth.

He says to his fellow

“Behold, these fruits are given to you as a gift.”