Bava Metzia 46a (מו.) — the Talmud in English

And he returns

the first one

and says: Here they are,

these produce,

redeemed with coins

that are non-sacred

that I have in my house,

and he does not add a fifth, since the produce is not his at the time of the redemption.

And we infer:

The reason

that he gives him the produce is

that he does not have coins in his possession.

It follows that

if he does have

coins

in the granary, he should acquire them

the coins

for the other party,

for his fellow

by pulling

and redeem [יפדה]

the produce in his possession,

for in this manner,

transferring coins to his fellow

is preferable

to transferring the produce to him,

as

his

fellow

would be a gentile

with regard to the tithe, and he would not be obligated to add a fifth.

And if you say: A coin can be acquired through barter,

why does the owner of the produce transfer to his fellow the produce in the granary? He could transfer the coins to him instead

!? And even though the coins are not in his possession,

let him acquire those coins for the other by means of a sudar [שיקנה לו את המעות בקנין סודר]

wherever they are,

and

his fellow can then

redeem

the tithe with these coins, without a fifth

!? Rather, infer from this Mishna that a coin cannot be acquired through barter.

And we reject this: Actually, a coin can be acquired through barter. The reason he does not transfer the coins to him through a sudar is that, for example,

he does not have a sudar

in the granary.

All movable property can be acquired agav karka—through land. If one transfers land to his fellow through money, a document, or possession, he can transfer the movable property to him along with the land, and need not perform a separate act of acquisition for the movable property.

And we ask: Even if he has no sudar here, nevertheless, he has land;

let him acquire

the coins

for him,

for his fellow

through land

And we answer:

This person does not have

any

land,

and therefore he cannot transfer the coins through land. And we ask:

But it says that he is standing in the granary!?

He is standing in the granary where his produce is located; why, then, can he not transfer the coins through this land? And we answer: It concerns

a granary that is not his.

And we ask:

And

is it so that

the tanna took such trouble

and exerted himself

to teach us

the law of

a destitute man [ערום ]

naked ],

who has absolutely nothing,

when this is an uncommon situation

Rather, is it not so that,

necessarily

it follows that a coin cannot be acquired through barter.

And we conclude: Indeed

it follows

that a coin cannot be acquired through barter.

And even Rav Pappa,

who said that a coin can be acquired through barter,

retracted [חזר בו]

and said that a coin cannot be acquired through barter.

A. If a bailee who is guarding a deposit gives the deposit to an agent and the deposit is lost on the way, the bailee is liable for the deposit. Therefore, the bailee is not obligated to give the deposit to the depositor’s agent, lest the deposit be lost and the bailee suffer the loss.

Proof that Rav Pappa retracted is provided by an incident that occurred:

For it was like the case of Rav Pappa, who had twelve thousand dinars

twelve thousand dinars had been deposited for Rav Pappa in a place called Bei Hozai].

He transferred them

Rav Pappa transferred those coins

to Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa through the threshold of his house [מפתן ביתו], so that Rav Shmuel, who happened to be traveling to Bei Hozai, would bring Rav Pappa’s money from there.

the entrance of his house], so that Rav Shmuel, who happened to be traveling to Bei Chozai, would bring Rav Pappa’s money from there.

When

Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa arrived from Bei Hozai with the money,

Rav Pappa went out

Rav Pappa

to greet him [יצא לקראתו]out of great joy that he had brought his money,

he went out to meet him] out of great joy that he had brought his money,

as far as

a place called

Tovakh.

And from the fact that Rav Pappa had to trouble himself to transfer the coins through land, and did not transfer them through a sudar acquisition, it follows that Rav Pappa had retracted and held that a coin cannot be acquired through barter.

And likewise

Ulla said

in accordance with the one who says:

A coin cannot serve as an object of barter.

And likewise Rabbi Asi said: A coin cannot serve as an object of barter.

And likewise Rabba bar bar Ḥana said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: A coin cannot serve as an object of barter.

He raised an objection,

he challenged

Ulla

who says that a coin cannot serve as an object of barter, from a beraita:

If his donkey drivers

[his donkey handlers]

and his laborers were demanding of him

their wages and provisions

in the marketplace,

and he did not have money in his possession.

And he said to a money changer: Give me, for a dinar, coins

small coins worth a dinar

and I will provide for them

[I will give them what they need],

and I will repay you,

I will pay you,

a fine dinar and a tristis

[a small coin ]

from the coins that

I have in my house.

If

indeed

he has

now

money,

then it is

permitted.

But if not,

if he does not have money now, it is

forbidden

because of interest.

And

if you say that a coin can be acquired through barter, this works well, because when he has money in his house, this is not a loan, nor payment for waiting for the money; rather, it is “barter”: he exchanged the money changer’s coins for those in his house, and because of his pressing need, he sold him his own coins cheaply, giving him an additional tristis.

But

if it enters your mind that a coin cannot serve as an object of

barter,

then

it is a loan, and

even if he has money in his house,

it is forbidden

to do so!?

Ulla fell silent

and did not answer Rabbi Abba’s challenge.

He said to him,

Rabbi Abba said to Ulla:

Perhaps,

my challenge can be answered as follows:

In both cases,

both the money changer’s coins and the homeowner’s coins were not actual small coins, but

unformed coins that

had

been cast,

copper pieces

that

still

did not have the form of currency,

the form of a coin.

And in both cases they were “commodities,”

and therefore they were acquired

these small coins

through barter.

He said to him

Ulla said to Rabbi Abba:

Yes,

indeed, this is how the beraita can be explained.

And this is also precise,

it can be inferred from the language of the beraita that it is speaking of “unformed coins,” rather than actual coins:

For it teaches

in the beraita:

“A fine dinar and a tristis,” and it does not teach, “a fine dinar and a tristis,”

which indicates that he is not giving him an actual dinar, a fine one that is current and accepted in commerce, but unformed coins that are fine and worth a dinar and a tristis.

And we conclude: Indeed,

infer from this

that the beraita is speaking of “unformed coins,” and not actual coins.

Rav Ashi said: Actually, it is a matter of payment

and of unformed coins,

indeed, it is speaking of “unformed coins,” as is indicated by the language of the beraita: “a fine dinar and a tristis,” and it does not teach: “a fine dinar and a tristis.”

However, the reason for the matter is not specifically that these unformed coins were exchanged for those unformed coins, so that as soon as he took them from the money changer, he transferred to him the unformed coins in his house in exchange for them.

Rather, even if he stipulated with him to give him fine unformed coins worth a dinar and a tristis, as payment—so that he did not transfer to him specific unformed coins, but merely undertook to pay him from what he had in his house—there is no interest here and no payment for waiting for money.

For even as a loan,

since he has it

in his house,

it is considered as though he said:

lend me [the money]

until my son comes, or until I find the key.

There is no prohibition of interest in this.

Come and hear,

a proof from a Mishna [Kiddushin 28a] that a coin can serve as an object of barter:

Anything that serves as payment for another item, once this one has acquired it, that one becomes obligated with regard to the barter,

and it proceeds to explain it:

Anything that serves as payment for another item,

as we learned in the Mishna in Kiddushin,

what is it

[what is meant]?—

A coin.

It was initially understood that this is what it means: Anything that is customarily given as payment for another object—that is, a coin.

If its owner gave it as barter, rather than as payment, once the seller acquired the coin, the buyer became liable for any accidents involving the object given in barter wherever it was, so that if it died or was lost, the buyer suffered the loss, since the sale took effect when the seller acquired it, and the buyer must pay the seller the payment that he stipulated with him.

And infer from this: A coin can serve as an object of barter,

and this Mishna presents a difficulty to the one who says that a coin cannot serve as an object of barter!?

He said,

he answered,

Rav Yehuda:

This Mishna is not discussing the law of barter with a coin, but the law of barter with all movable property other than a coin, and

this is what the tanna of the Mishna said: