Bava Metzia 47a — the Talmud in English

When one sells an object to another, and the buyer gives him money that is not sufficient for the value of the object, this is ona'a; if he deducted a sixth from the money, the buyer acquires it and returns the ona'a, but if he deducted more than a sixth, the sale is void.

And he has against him

a

claim of ona'a,

for if the money he gave him was a sixth less than the value of the object, the buyer is obligated to complete the money for the seller. And Rav Huna explains his words:

he acquires

the buyer acquires the object with the money, and neither of them can retract.

Even though he did not pull

the object,

since he was not particular

to ask how much money he gave him,

he acquires it, for it is like barter,

and he acquired it through giving the money.

It entered our minds: He acquires it through the acquisition of barter, and currency becomes barter, for if it is merely an acquisition through money, we hold: money does not acquire, and they can retract.

And below we challenge: Do we not hold that currency does not become barter?!

And he has against him ona'a, for

this

“Sell it to me with these” he said to him,

and this is an expression of sale, in which there is a law of ona'a, and not an expression of barter.

Rav

Abba said

in the name of

Rav Huna:

A person who held money in his hand and said to another:

Sell me

this object

with

these monies,

he acquires it, and he has no ona'a against him,

since he was not particular to ask how much money he was giving him. The Gemara says:

It is obvious

to us, and there is no doubt about the matter, that one who gives

money, and

the seller

is not particular about it,

to see whether it is sufficient for the value of the sale ,

we have said that he acquires it, for they are like barter.

But the question is: in

barter, when he is particular about it,

a person gives another an object for an object in order to acquire it through barter, and the recipient is particular to see what is the value of the object that he receives.

What

is its law? Is there here the category of barter, even though he is particular about them, and both are acquired through the pulling of one of the objects?

Or perhaps, since he was particular about them, they are like money, and he acquires through the category of money, and the sale is not completed until the second one also pulls.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: ta shma

from a beraita that, in barter when he is particular about it, he does not acquire by the “category of barter,” but they have the “category of money”;

Behold,

a man

who was holding his cow and standing

in the marketplace,

and his fellow came and said to him: “Your cow—why

did you bring it to the marketplace?!

The owner of the cow said to him:

I need a donkey

and I wish to sell the cow and buy a donkey with its money.

His fellow said to him:

I have a donkey, which I am giving,

ready to sell;

to you.

Your cow—at how much

do you wish to sell it?

The owner of the cow said to him: I wish to sell it

for such and such,

for a certain sum.

The owner of the cow asked the owner of the donkey:

Your donkey—at how much

do you desire to sell it?

The owner of the donkey answered him: I wish to sell it

for such and such,

for a certain sum. If

the owner of the donkey pulled the cow,

after they agreed between themselves to exchange the cow for the donkey.

But the owner of the cow did not manage to pull

to himself

the donkey before the donkey died.

The owner of the donkey did not acquire the cow,

even though he had already pulled it.

It entered our minds: The cow is considered money for the donkey, since the owner of the donkey was particular to know its value; therefore pulling the cow does not acquire it, for we hold: money does not acquire the sale.

Infer from this

from this beraita:

“Barter,” when he is particular

about

them,

to know their value, does not have the category of “barter,” but the category of “money,” and

he did not acquire.

He said,

he challenged

, Rava: According to your words, that barter when he is particular about it does not acquire, it follows that the barter mentioned in the Scroll of Ruth is barter about which one is not particular.

According to your words, that an exchange whose value one considers does not effect acquisition, it follows that the exchange mentioned in the Scroll of Ruth was an exchange whose value was not considered.

But it is impossible to explain the verses in this manner, for is it that

the barter

of the verse

concerns fools

[fools],

that they are not particular

to know the value of the thing they receive in exchange, in order to decide whether it is good in his eyes to give his own for that object?!

Rather,

certainly,

every barter

presumably

people are particular

about it, to know how much it is worth,

and

even so

he acquires it.

And here,

the above beraita,

with what are we dealing? With a case where he said to him: “A donkey

I am selling you

for a cow and a calf,” and he pulled the cow, but had still not pulled the calf.

And indeed, if he had pulled both the cow and the calf, this would be a complete pulling, and the donkey would have been acquired by the owner of the cow and the calf through acquisition by barter.

But since he had still not pulled the calf, the owner of the cow and the calf did not acquire the donkey, since

it did not have

the pulling of the cow alone

a proper pulling.

Now the Gemara returns to discuss Rav Huna’s words:

The master said,

above:

“Sell me with these”—he acquires it, and he has ona'a against him.

It entered our minds: He acquires it through barter.

And we challenge:

Let us say,

is it to be said that

Rav Huna held: “Currency becomes barter”?!

For we already proved above that currency does not become barter?!

And we answer:

No,

Rav Huna did not hold that currency becomes barter; and here he does not acquire it on account of barter, but through the category of money.

And as for Rav Huna’s statement: “For it is like barter,” this is what he is saying: These monies acquire without pulling the object being acquired, just as in barter it is unnecessary to pull it.

And the reason is that

Rav Huna follows the view of Rabbi Yohanan, who said: By Torah law money acquires, and why did they say

the Sages that

pulling acquires

and not money?

It is a decree

that they made,

lest he say

the seller

to him,

to the buyer:

“Your wheat has been burned in the upper room.”

And since this is only a decree of the Sages, one may say:

A matter that is common,

such as acquisition through money, with money,

the Rabbis decreed concerning it, but concerning a matter that is uncommon the Rabbis did not decree,

and here too, since it is an uncommon matter that a person should sell an object without knowing how much money he is receiving, therefore the money acquires according to Torah law.

Mar Huna, son of Rav Nahman, said to Rav Ashi: “You, this is how you taught it,”

you recite Rav Huna’s words in a manner that leaves doubt whether, in his view, currency becomes barter, or whether he concedes that currency does not become barter.

But

we teach it this way,

this is how we recite Rav Huna’s view:

And so

Rav Huna said: Currency does not become barter.

If so, it is obvious that Rav Huna’s words, “he acquires even though he did not draw,” are to be interpreted in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yohanan, who holds: money acquires by Torah law; and here, even rabbinically, the acquisition through the money was not voided, as above.

The Gemara investigates:

With what does one acquire?

That is, with whose utensil is the acquisition of halifin effected: with the utensil of the transferor, or with the utensil of the acquirer?

Rav said: With the utensil of the acquirer,

the acquirer gives a utensil to the transferor, and through this giving the acquisition of halifin takes effect, and the acquirer acquires the object that the transferor consented to transfer to him.

d.

Even though the acquirer is destined to pay the seller the value of the object, nevertheless

the acquirer is content that the transferor should acquire

also the utensil that he now gives him,

so that he will make up his mind and acquire it for him,

so that the seller will consent to transfer the object to him already now, even though he will pay him his money only later.

And Levi said:

Halifin is effected

with the utensil of the transferor,

and the reason for the matter is

as we shall say below.

He said,

he asked,

Rav Huna of Diskarta asked Rava: And according to

the view of

Levi, who said: With the utensil of the transferor,

if he wishes to acquire land through halifin,

does he not thereby acquire the land by virtue of

the drawing of the

cloak,

for the buyer draws the cloth and acquires it through the acquisition of drawing, and by virtue of it he acquires the land?

If so, it becomes “property that has guarantee,”

land ,

and is acquired together with

by way of agav,

“property that has no guarantee”—

movable property.

But we learned the opposite

in the Mishna [Kiddushin 26a]:

“Property that has no guarantee,”

movable property,

is acquired together with

by way of agav,

“property that has guarantee,”

for when one acquires the land through money, a document, or possession, this acquisition is effective also for movable property, even though this acquisition is not effective for movable property when he acquires it by itself, without land.

And it is implied that specifically movable property is acquired together with land, but land is not acquired together with movable property.

If so, what is Levi’s reason!?

He said to him

Rava to Rav Huna of Diskarta:

If Levi were here,

and were hearing your question,

he would bring forth before your face sparks of fire,

he would bring forth before you sparks of fire; and this is an expression of excommunication, because he suspected Levi that his view was to interpret the law of halifin in this way.

Do you think

that you actually think that by virtue of drawing the

cloak he transfers to him

the land!?

Rather, these are nothing but halifin, as though this one gives him another object in exchange for the land. And what does he give him?

Through that benefit that he receives from him,

that benefit—that he considers him important and is prepared to receive the utensil from him as a gift—is considered by him as though the acquirer gives him a substantial gift, and

he makes up his mind

the giver,

and transfers it to him

the land.

The Gemara says:

As a dispute between tannaim,

the tannaim already disputed the disagreement between Rav and Levi, whether the acquisition of halifin and of a cloth is effected through the acquirer giving the cloth, or through the transferor giving it.

For the source of this acquisition is what is stated in the Scroll of Ruth [4:7]: “A man drew off his shoe and gave it to his fellow.”

And if we interpret that the acquirer drew off his shoe and gave it to the transferor, then it is possible to learn from here that the acquisition of halifin is effected through the acquirer’s giving.

And if we interpret that the transferor drew off his shoe and gave it to the acquirer, it is possible to learn from this verse that the acquisition of halifin is effected through the transferor’s giving.

In addition to the issue of whether halifin is with the utensil of the acquirer or with the utensil of the transferor, over which the tannaim disagreed, as below, the Gemara brings in full the beraita that explains the entire verse dealing with the acquisition of halifin.

It is stated in the Scroll of Ruth [4:7]:

“And this was formerly done in Israel, concerning redemption and concerning exchange, to establish every matter: a man drew off his shoe and gave it to his fellow.”

“Redemption”

that the verse stated

is sale,

for he sold him a complete sale for money, but the seller had not yet received the sale money, and the buyer had not drawn [the object], and they come to establish the terms of their sale through an acquisition.

And

from where is it that “redemption” is an expression of sale? For

so it says [Leviticus 27:32–33]: “And every tithe of cattle and flock, everything that passes under the staff, the tenth shall be holy to the Lord. He shall not inspect whether it is good or bad, and he shall not exchange it; and if he does exchange it, then both it and its substitute shall be holy,

“it shall not be redeemed.”

“It shall not be redeemed.”

What the verse stated, “it shall not be redeemed,” means: it shall not be sold, as we learned through a “gzera shava”: “it shall not be redeemed” concerning the tithe of cattle, from “and it shall not be redeemed” concerning consecrated property, which it is forbidden to sell.

“Exchange”

that the verse stated

is halifin,

whereby he exchanges this utensil for the object corresponding to it.

And

how do we know that temura is an expression of exchange? For this is what

it says

[Leviticus 27:9–10]: “And if it is an animal from which one brings an offering to the Lord, anything that he gives from it to the Lord shall be holy.

He shall not exchange it and he shall not substitute

it,

good for bad or bad for good; and if he does substitute an animal for an animal, then it and its substitute shall be holy.”

“To establish every matter, a man removed his shoe

and gave it to his fellow.” Who gave it to whom

the shoe?

The Sages say:

Boaz,

who acquired Ruth and the field,

gave it to the redeemer.

And

Rabbi Yehuda says:

the

redeemer,

who transferred ownership,

gave it to Boaz

the shoe.

It follows that Rav’s statement that [the acquisition is made] with the vessel of the purchaser is according to the view of the first tanna, who said: Boaz—the purchaser—gave his shoe to the redeemer—the transferor.

And Levi’s statement—that [the acquisition is made] with the vessel of the transferor—is according to the view of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: The redeemer—the transferor—gave his shoe to Boaz—the purchaser.

A tanna

in a beraita:

They acquire

the acquisition by exchange with a vessel,

even though it does not contain

in the vessel

the value of a peruta.

Rav Naḥman said: They taught this

that they acquire the acquisition,

only with a vessel, but with produce,

anything that is not a vessel,

not

do they acquire.

Rav Sheshet said:

They acquire

even with produce.

And we explain:

What is Rav Naḥman’s reason,

who says that they acquire only with a vessel?

Because

the verse says: “his shoe,”

which indicates:

a shoe

yes,

they acquire with it;

something else

no,

they do not acquire with it.

And

what is Rav Sheshet’s reason

who says that even produce [can be used]? After all, the verse mentions only a shoe, which is a vessel!?

Because

the verse says: “to establish every matter,”

that is, to establish and effect this acquisition with every thing.

And we raise an objection: If so, this is difficult

for Rav Naḥman as well, for

it is

written: “to establish every matter,”

and what does the verse come to teach us, if we do not include even produce!?

And we answer:

That phrase, “to establish every matter,”

redemption and temura,

which are acquired with a shoe.

And we raise an objection:

And Rav Sheshet as well, for

it is

written: “his shoe,”

which indicates a vessel and not produce!?

And we answer:

He said,

he will explain

to you Rav Sheshet:

They indeed acquire even with produce, and the reason Scripture mentioned

a shoe is to teach us: Just as “his shoe”

is a “specified thing”

[a whole thing],

so too every

thing with which they acquire must be

a “specified thing.”

To exclude

[to exclude]

half a pomegranate and half a nut, which do not

acquire with them, since they are not a “specified thing” and whole. The transferor [who gives a sudar] intends that they write for the purchaser a document of evidence concerning this.

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said:

According to whom,

according to whose view,

do we write nowadays,

we are accustomed to write, in a document of “acquisition by sudar,” this formula: “We acquired from him

with a vessel fit for acquiring with it”?

That is, this wording in the document—what does it come to exclude?

And we explain: What we write:

“With a vessel,”

is

to exclude the words of

Rav

Sheshet, who said: They acquire with produce.

It comes to teach us: “With a vessel”—with a vessel we acquired from him, and not with produce, according to Rav Naḥman and not according to Rav Sheshet.

And what we write: “With a vessel”

“fit,”

is

to exclude

from the words of

Shmuel, who said: