Bava Metzia 45b (מה:) — the Talmud in English

a

one

of them

said: The dispute

between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel

is specifically concerning sela coins in exchange for gold dinars,

specifically,

as Beit Shammai reason: We decree

lest he delay

his

pilgrimage offerings

until the pilgrimage festival.

If

he becomes accustomed to redeeming them with gold dinars,

sometimes the coins will not be sufficient

for the dinar [

at times he will not have enough sela coins to redeem them with a gold dinar]

and he will not bring them up,

he will delay taking them up to Jerusalem until he has second-tithe produce the following year, which he will redeem with additional sela coins; together with what he already has, the sela coins will then amount to the value of a gold dinar.

Therefore, they decreed and said: A person may not redeem his sela coins with gold dinars.

And Beit Hillel reason: We do not decree

there is no concern

lest he delay

his

pilgrimage offerings,

when he does not have enough sela coins to redeem them with a gold dinar.

For even when the coins are not sufficient

for a dinar,

he will nevertheless take them up,

since the burden of several sela coins is not so great that it will prevent him from going up for the pilgrimage and taking the sela coins in his possession up to Jerusalem.

But with produce in exchange for dinars, everyone agrees,

even according to Beit Shammai,

we redeem,

and there is no concern in the matter,

for

even if he has only a small quantity of produce, which he cannot redeem with gold dinars,

since it is perishable [

the produce is liable to rot],

he will not delay it.

And one [

Rabbi Yohanan or Reish Lakish]

said: Even with produce in exchange for dinars there is likewise a dispute

between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.

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

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

And we raise a difficulty: Granted, according to this latter formulation,

the last one,

that you said that by Torah law it is entirely permitted

to redeem sela coins with dinars,

and it was the Sages who decreed against it.

That is understandable,

it works out well

that the Mishna teaches

in the wording:

“He should do, and he should not do,”

as we learned: Beit Shammai say: A person should not make sela coins into gold dinars; this implies that after the fact, the redemption is valid.

The Mishna was not taught in the wording “may be redeemed”: Sela coins may not be redeemed with gold dinars.

Since this is only a rabbinic decree, after the fact, if he transgressed and redeemed sela coins with gold dinars, the sanctity of second tithe was transferred to the gold dinars, and what he did is valid.

But according to that formulation, which says that they disagree by Torah law,

and the reason for Beit Shammai is that gold is “produce,” and principal currency may not be redeemed with produce,

or because we expound: “the first silver,” but not “the second silver.” If so, “we redeem and we do not redeem”

should have been stated,

because the wording “may not be redeemed” implies that even after the fact the sanctity of second tithe is not transferred to the gold dinars.

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!?

And we conclude: Indeed,

it is difficult,

for those formulations according to which they disagree by Torah law.

A. In the Scroll of Ruth [4:7] it is stated: “Now this was the practice in earlier times in Israel concerning redemption and exchange, to validate every matter: A man would remove his shoe and give it to his fellow, and this was the confirmation in Israel.” And it is stated [ibid., verse 8]: “So the redeemer said to Boaz, ‘Buy it for yourself’ [Boaz bought it from the redeemer], and he removed his shoe.”

B. From these verses the Sages derived the laws of “acquisition by means of a cloth” and “exchange.” “Acquisition by means of a cloth” means that the seller made a complete sale to him for money, but the buyer had not yet taken possession of the item and had not given money to the seller. They then come to formalize the sale by means of an act of acquisition. This acquisition is called “acquisition by means of a cloth,” because through one person handing a cloth to the other the transaction is finalized: The object is acquired by the buyer, and he becomes obligated to pay the seller. “Exchange” means exchanging one utensil for the corresponding object, so that by taking possession of one, the other is acquired by his fellow.

C. The following discussions will explain several details of these acquisitions: What object is used to effect the acquisition, what is acquired through this acquisition, who gives the “cloth” through which the acquisition takes effect, and so forth, as will be explained below.

It was stated:

We learned in our Mishna that money does not effect acquisition. If the buyer gave money to the seller, he did not acquire the produce, and both he and the seller may retract from the sale.

And here

Rav and Levi

disagreed: Whether it is possible to acquire with currency—money—through an act of acquisition, as one acquires by means of a cloth. a one

of them [Rav or Levi]

said: Currency can effect an exchange,

and if he gave the currency as an exchange,

once this person takes possession of the money, the object is acquired by the other

wherever it may be.

And

a

one

of them

said: Currency cannot effect an exchange, and the reason for this is explained shortly. He said, he explained, Rav Pappa: What is the reason of the one who says: Currency cannot effect an exchange? Because his mind is focused on the minting of the coin, on the image stamped on the currency, since the currency has value only by virtue of the image stamped upon it. And the image is liable to be annulled, “image” means something that can be annulled and changed, since the king can invalidate it and decree that a different image be made. Accordingly, one may say: Just as one does not perform an exchange with an item that is not defined and whole, such as half a nut or half a pomegranate, so currency cannot effect an exchange, since something that can be annulled has no importance as a defined and whole object. We learned in our Mishna in accordance with the one who says that currency can effect an 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”—does this not mean

even

through barter,

a gold coin acquires a silver coin,

and learn from it that currency can serve as barter?

And we reject this:

No,

gold does not acquire silver by means of barter, but

by

means of

payment

alone. That is, the silver is not acquired by the owner of the gold as barter for the gold. Rather, since gold is considered produce in relation to silver, the withdrawal of the gold acquires the silver as an obligation to pay for the gold.

And we raise a difficulty:

If so,

according to you, that the Mishna was not speaking of barter but of payment,

why was the Mishna phrased in the language:

“Gold acquires silver,”

for this expression is applicable only when, through withdrawing the gold, the owner of the gold acquires the silver wherever it may be and becomes its complete owner? And according to you, gold

obligates

the silver;

it should have said

“obligates” instead!?

For through withdrawing the gold, the owner of the silver becomes obligated to pay for the gold that he withdrew. There is no acquisition by the owner of the gold of the silver coins themselves; there is 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; that is, “acquires” in our Mishna does not necessarily mean a complete acquisition, but rather an obligation imposed upon the person to pay the silver coins in exchange for the gold that he withdrew.

And

this too is evidently the case,

that we learned the statement “Gold acquires silver” with regard to payment and not with regard to barter; and it is impossible to prove from the Mishna whether currency can serve as barter.

As the latter clause

of the Mishna

teaches: “Silver does not acquire gold,”

and here it certainly refers to payment and not to barter.

For

if you say

that our Mishna

deals with payment,

then

that is,

it works out well,

as we say: Gold

is considered

produce, and silver

is considered

currency, and currency

does not acquire

produce,

as money does not acquire movable property.

But if you say that it deals with barter,

that 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. Why, then, did we learn: “Silver does not acquire gold”!?

Rather, learn from this that our Mishna does not deal with barter, but with payment.

And furthermore,

there is proof that our Mishna deals with payment and not with barter, as

it was taught

in a beraita that explains 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 withdrew

the owner of the silver’s

silver, he did not acquire it,

and they may retract,

until he withdraws the gold.

Now,

if you say

that “gold acquires silver”

through payment

is what the Mishna

therefore does not acquire

means that silver does not acquire gold, because a silver coin is currency in relation to a gold coin, and currency does not acquire produce.”

But if you say

that “gold acquires silver”

through barter, should

silver 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. Why, then, did the withdrawal of the silver not acquire the gold!?

And we raise a difficulty:

Rather, what is the case?

According to your view, what does the beraita deal with? Is it not

payment

that it deals with?

If so,

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

let us say that the first clause

of the beraita states:

“Gold acquires silver”—how so?

If he sold him one dinar

of

gold for twenty-five dinars

of

silver, as soon as

he

he withdrew the

dinar,

the gold dinar acquires

the

silver [

silver dinars]

wherever it may be.

The assumption was that “wherever it may be” means anywhere in the world where the silver coins are located; they are acquired by the owner of the gold.

If so,

if you say

that the beraita speaks

of barter, that is

it works out well,

as it teaches: “the silver is acquired”

by the owner of the gold

wherever it may be,

because through withdrawing the gold, the owner of the gold acquired the silver and gained possession of it, even though he did not withdraw it and it is not before us.

But if you say

that the beraita speaks

of payment,

then

this—

is it the case that

the silver is acquired

the

wherever it may be!?

For the withdrawal of the gold does not acquire the money for the owner of the gold; rather, the owner of the silver has only a personal obligation imposed upon him, obligating him to give the owner of the gold its equivalent.

It should have said: “the person became obligated”

instead!?

Rav Ashi said: In fact,

it speaks

of payment,

and the person became obligated to pay the silver.

And what does “wherever it may be”

which it teaches mean? It does not mean wherever the money is located, but rather

“as it is,”

the person became obligated to provide the silver

as he told him,

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

How so?

If

the owner of the silver told him

“from my new purse I will give you,”

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 sela-im from an 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

for what reason

is he obligated to give new sela-im? Are the old ones not superior to the new ones!?

Because he told him:

I specifically prefer new coins, because

“I need them in order to store them,”

I want to keep them by me for a long time, and new ones are more convenient for me, so that they will not become excessively black as I keep them for a long time.

Rav Pappa said: Even according to the one who says that currency cannot serve as barter, it is only that it cannot effect barter;

but

it can be acquired through barter.

That is, even one who holds that a barter-acquisition cannot be effected with currency nevertheless concedes that currency can be acquired through a cloth or another object used for barter. And the proof is:

It is analogous to produce according to Rav Naḥman.

This is analogous to

produce according to Rav Naḥman: Is it not the case that although they,

produce,

cannot serve as barter,

they cannot be used to effect a barter acquisition.

Nevertheless,

they can be acquired through barter.

Currency likewise is no different

from produce. Just as produce can be acquired through barter, so currency can be acquired through barter, even though currency cannot serve as barter to acquire another object.

The objection is raised

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]: “If a man shall redeem any of his tithe, he shall add its fifth to it.”

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

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

standing at the threshing floor

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

but had no money

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

says to his fellow

“Here, these produce are given to you as a gift.”