Bava Metzia 46a — the Talmud in English

And he returns

the first one

and says: “Behold, they are

these fruits,

redeemed upon coins

ordinary coins

that I have in my house,”

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

And we infer:

The reason

that he gives him the fruits is

that he does not have coins.

It follows:

but if he has

at the threshing floor

coins, let him acquire them,

the coins,

to the other one,

to his fellow,

by pulling,

and redeem

[redeem] the fruits that are in his possession,

for thus,

to transfer coins to his fellow,

is preferable

to transferring the fruits to him,

for he would be

to him,

his fellow,

a gentile

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

And if you say: A coin is acquired through exchange,

why does the owner of the fruits transfer to his fellow the fruits that are at the threshing floor? He can transfer the coins to him!?

And even though the coins are not in his possession,

let him acquire the coins for him through the garment [with which he will acquire the coins for him by the acquisition of a garment], wherever they are,

and

then

his fellow will return

to redeem,

to redeem the tithe with these coins, without a fifth!?

Rather, infer from this Mishna that a coin is not acquired through exchange.

And we reject this: Actually, a coin is acquired through exchange; and the reason that he does not transfer the coins to him through the garment is, for example,

that he does not have a garment

at the threshing floor.

All movable property is acquired “through land”: if he transferred land to his fellow by money, a document, or possession, he may transfer to him, through the land, the movable property as well, and he need not perform a separate act of acquisition with the movable property.

And we raise a difficulty: Even if he has no garment here, in any event, he has land;

and let him acquire

the coins

for him,

for his fellow,

through land!?

And we answer:

This person does not have

land,

land,

and he cannot transfer the coins through land. And we raise a difficulty:

But it says that he is standing at the threshing floor!?

He is standing at the threshing floor where his fruits are located, so why can he not transfer the coins through this land!? And we answer: It is speaking

of a threshing floor that is not his.

And we raise a difficulty:

And

is it so that

the tanna troubled himself

and exerted himself

to teach us

the law of

a completely naked man

[naked ]

who has nothing at all,

for this is an uncommon matter!?

Rather, is it not so?

necessarily

infer from here: A coin is not acquired through exchange.

And we conclude: Indeed,

infer from here,

a coin is not acquired through exchange.

And Rav Pappa too,

who said: A coin is acquired through exchange,

retracted

[he retracted] to say: A coin is not acquired through exchange.

A depositary who entrusted the deposit to a messenger and the deposit was lost on the way is liable for the deposit. Therefore, the guardian is not obligated to deliver the deposit to the depositor’s messenger, lest the deposit be lost and the guardian suffer a loss.

And proof that Rav Pappa retracted is from an incident that occurred,

for it was like this: Rav Pappa had twelve thousand dinars

in Bei Hozai

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

He acquired them

Rav Pappa transferred those coins

to Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa, through the threshold of his house

[the threshold of his house], so that Rav Shmuel, who happened to be traveling to Bei Hozai, would bring Rav Pappa’s coins from there.

When he came

Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa from Bei Hozai with the coins,

Rav Pappa went out

Rav Pappa

to meet him

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

as far as

the place called

Tavokh.

And from the fact that Rav Pappa had to trouble himself to transfer the coins through acquisition through land, and did not transfer them through acquisition by a garment, infer from here: Rav Pappa retracted and held: A coin is not acquired through exchange.

And likewise

Ulla said

according to 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 Chana said

in the name of

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

He challenged him,

he objected,

Rabbi Abba challenged Ulla,

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

If his donkey drivers [

his donkey leaders]

and his laborers were demanding from him

their wages and their sustenance

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 equal in value to 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 good dinar and a trisit [

a small ma'a ]

from the coins that

I have in my house.

If

indeed

he has

now

money,

then this is

permitted.

But if not,

if he does not now have money, then this is

forbidden

because of interest.

And

if you say: A coin can be acquired through barter, this is well understood, for when he has money in his house, there is no loan here and no payment for waiting for the money, but rather “barter”: he exchanged the money changer’s money for that which was in his house, and because of his financial pressure he sold him his [money] cheaply, giving him one additional trisit.

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 objection to him.

He said to him,

Rabbi Abba said to Ulla:

Perhaps,

perhaps my objection can be answered as follows:

In both cases,

both the money of the money changer and the money of the householder are not actual small coins, but

with small coins that

have

been changed,

copper coins

that

still

do not have a coin-form upon them,

the form of a coin.

And in both cases they were “produce,”

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 speaks of “small coins” and not of actual coins:

For it teaches

in the beraita:

“A good dinar and a trisit,” and it does not teach, “a good dinar and a trisit,”

which indicates that he does not give him an actual dinar, a good one that is current in circulation, but rather small coins that are good and worth a dinar and a trisit.

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from it

that the beraita speaks of “small coins” and not of actual coins.

Rav Ashi said: Actually, [it is] as payment

and with small coins,

indeed, it is speaking of “small coins,” as is indicated by the language of the beraita: “a good dinar and a trisit,” and it does not teach: “a dinar, a good one, and a trisit.”

However, the reason for the matter is not specifically because of exchanging these small coins for those, so that immediately when he drew [the coins] from the money changer, he transferred to him the small coins in his house in exchange for them.

Rather, even if he stipulated with him to give him good small coins worth a dinar and a trisit, by way of payment, so that he did not transfer to him specified small 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 the money.

For even by way of a loan,

since he has

in his house,

it is treated as though he said:

lend me [the money]

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

And 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 regarding 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 it]?—

A coin.

It entered our minds that this is what it says: Anything that is customarily given as payment for another object—that is, a coin—

if its owner gave it by way of barter, and not by way of payment, once the seller acquired the coin, the buyer became liable for the accidents of the barter wherever it was, for if they died or were lost, the buyer suffered the loss, since with the seller’s acquisition the sale took effect, and the buyer must pay the seller the payment that he stipulated with him.

And learn from it: A coin can serve as an object of barter,

and this Mishna is difficult for the one who says: A coin cannot serve as an object of barter?!

He said,

he answered,

Rav Yehuda:

This Mishna is not dealing with the law of barter involving a coin, but with the law of barter involving all movable property except a coin, and

this is what the tanna means

of the Mishna: