בְּמָרוֹקָא. ״לְמִקְנְיָא״ – לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּלֵוִי, דְּאָמַר בְּכִלְיוֹ שֶׁל מַקְנֶה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן ״לְמִקְנְיָא״ וְלָא ״לְ[אַ]קְנוֹיֵי״. ״בֵּיהּ״ – רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: לְמַעוֹטֵי מַטְבֵּעַ. וְרַב זְבִיד, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לְמַעוֹטֵי אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה.
with date pits used for cleaning and smoothing parchment. The term to acquire items serves to exclude the opinion of Levi, who says that the symbolic exchange is effected by means of the vessels of the one transferring ownership of the item. This latter expression teaches us that the vessel is given to acquire and not to transfer ownership to the other. With regard to the term: With it, Rav Pappa said: It serves to exclude a coin, which cannot effect a symbolic exchange. And Rav Zevid, and some say Rav Ashi, said: It serves to exclude items from which deriving benefit is prohibited.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: ״בֵּיהּ״ – אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְמַעוֹטֵי מַטְבֵּעַ. ״דְּכָשַׁר״ – אָמַר רַב זְבִיד, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב אָשֵׁי: לְמַעוֹטֵי אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה. אֲבָל מוֹרִיקָא לָא אִצְטְרִיךְ.
Some say a different version of the dispute, as follows. With regard to the term: With it, Rav Pappa said: It serves to exclude a coin, which cannot effect a symbolic exchange. With regard to the term: That is fit, Rav Zevid, and some say Rav Ashi, said: It serves to exclude items from which deriving benefit is prohibited. But according to this version, a verse to exclude date pits is not necessary, as they are of no significance at all.
אֲסִימוֹן קוֹנֶה אֶת הַמַּטְבֵּעַ וְכוּ׳. מַאי ״אֲסִימוֹן״? אָמַר רַב: מָעוֹת הַנִּיתָּנוֹת בְּסִימָן לְבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ.
§ The Gemara returns to an analysis of a passage in the mishna. When one party takes possession of an asimon, the other party acquires the minted coin. The Gemara asks: What is an asimon? Rav said: It is one of the coins given as a token to gain entry into the bathhouse, for which the bathers would pay later.
מֵיתִיבִי: אֵין מְחַלְּלִין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי עַל אֲסִימוֹן וְלֹא עַל מָעוֹת הַנִּיתָּנוֹת בְּסִימָן לְבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ. מִכְּלַל דַּאֲסִימוֹן לָאו מָעוֹת הַנִּיתָּנוֹת בְּסִימָן לְבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ! וְכִי תֵּימָא פָּרוֹשֵׁי קָמְפָרֵשׁ – וְהָא לָא תַּנָּא הָכִי: מְחַלְּלִין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי עַל אֲסִימוֹן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי דּוֹסָא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מְחַלְּלִין. וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאֵין מְחַלְּלִין עַל מָעוֹת הַנִּיתָּנוֹת בְּסִימָן לְבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ!
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One desacralizes second-tithe produce neither with an asimon nor with one of the coins given as a token to gain entry into the bathhouse. This proves by inference that an asimon is not one of the coins given as tokens in a bathhouse. And if you would say the tanna is explaining the meaning of the term asimon, there is a difficulty with that explanation. But wasn’t it taught in another baraita like this: One desacralizes second-tithe produce with an asimon; this is the statement of Rabbi Dosa. And the Rabbis say: One does not desacralize second-tithe produce with an asimon. And they agree that one does not desacralize the second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto one of the coins given as a token to gain entry into the bathhouse. It is clear from this baraita that an asimon is not a token given in a bathhouse.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי אֲסִימוֹן – פּוּלְסָא. וְאַזְדָּא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי דּוֹסָא וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד, רַבִּי דּוֹסָא – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מַאי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְצַרְתָּ הַכֶּסֶף בְּיָדְךָ״ – לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל דָּבָר הַנִּצְרָר בַּיָּד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו צוּרָה.
Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is an asimon? It is a blank, i.e., a piece of metal in the shape of a coin that was not yet imprinted. The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his standard line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Dosa and Rabbi Yishmael said the same thing. Rabbi Dosa, as we stated, said that the legal status of an asimon is that of a coin. With regard to Rabbi Yishmael, what is his statement? It is as it is taught in a baraita: “And you shall bind up [vetzarta] the money in your hand” (Deuteronomy 14:25). This serves to include any type of money that is bound [hanitzrar] in one’s hand, i.e., that has monetary value; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: It serves to include any type of money that has an imprint [tzura]. Rabbi Akiva requires a minted coin in order to desacralize a second-tithe produce coin, while Rabbi Yishmael says that a blank can be used as well.
כֵּיצַד: מָשַׁךְ הֵימֶנּוּ פֵּירוֹת וְלֹא נָתַן לוֹ מָעוֹת – אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה מָעוֹת קוֹנוֹת, וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ מְשִׁיכָה קוֹנָה – גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמַר לוֹ ״נִשְׂרְפוּ חִטֶּיךָ בָּעֲלִיָּיה״.
§ The mishna teaches: How so? If the buyer pulled produce from the seller, but the buyer did not yet give the seller their value in coins, he cannot renege on the transaction, but if the buyer gave the seller coins, but did not yet pull produce from him, he can renege on the transaction, as the transaction is not yet complete. By Torah law money effects acquisition, i.e., when one pays money he acquires the item, even if he has not yet performed another act of acquisition. And for what reason did the Sages say that pulling acquires an item and money does not? This is a rabbinic decree lest the seller say to the buyer after receiving the money: Your wheat was burned in the upper story. If a fire breaks out or some other mishap occurs after a seller receives the money, he will not bother to save the goods in his house because they no longer belong to him, and the buyer may incur a loss.
סוֹף סוֹף, מַאן דִּשְׁדָא דְּלֵיקָה בָּעֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי! אֶלָּא: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא תִּפּוֹל דְּלֵיקָה בְּאוֹנֶס. אִי מוֹקְמַתְּ לְהוּ בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ – מָסַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ, טָרַח וּמַצֵּיל. וְאִי לָא – לָא מָסַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ, טָרַח וּמַצֵּיל.
The Gemara asks: Ultimately, the one who ignited the fire is required to pay for the damage caused, and the one who purchased the movable items with money will be reimbursed for his loss, so why was there a need to issue this decree? Rather, it is a rabbinic decree lest a fire be ignited spontaneously due to circumstances beyond one’s control, where no one is liable to pay for the damage caused. If you establish the purchase item in the possession of the seller, he will expend great effort, exert himself, and rescue the item, as it is still his own property. But if you do not establish the purchase item in the possession of the seller, he will not expend great effort, exert himself, and rescue the item. That is the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.
רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מְשִׁיכָה מְפוֹרֶשֶׁת מִן הַתּוֹרָה. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר לַעֲמִיתֶךָ אוֹ קָנֹה מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ״, דָּבָר הַנִּקְנֶה מִיָּד לְיָד.
Reish Lakish says: The act of acquisition of pulling is explicit in the Torah, and it is not merely by rabbinic decree that payment of money does not effect acquisition of movable property. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Reish Lakish? He derives it from the Torah, as the verse states: “And if you sell to your colleague an item that is sold, or acquire from your colleague’s hand, you shall not exploit his brother” (Leviticus 25:14), and the reference is to an item that is acquired from hand to hand, i.e., by means of pulling.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: ״מִיַּד״ – לְמַעוֹטֵי קַרְקַע, דְּלֵית בַּהּ אוֹנָאָה.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The term “from your colleague’s hand” is not teaching that an item can be acquired by pulling. Rather, it serves to exclude land, which is not subject to the halakha of exploitation because it is not physically handed over from one to another.
וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, אִם כֵּן לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא: ״וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ אַל תּוֹנוּ״, ״אוֹ קָנֹה״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לִמְשִׁיכָה.
The Gemara asks: And how does Reish Lakish respond to that explanation? The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish agrees that the verse serves to exclude land from the halakha of exploitation. But if it is so that this was its only purpose, let the verse write: And if you sell, from your colleague’s hand, an item that is sold, you shall not exploit. Why do I need the additional phrase “or acquire”? Learn from it that acquisition by Torah law is effected by means of pulling.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״אוֹ קָנֹה״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר אַל תּוֹנוּ״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְאַנָּה לוֹקֵחַ, נִתְאַנָּה מוֹכֵר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹ קָנֹה אַל תּוֹנוּ״.
The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yoḥanan, what does he do with the phrase “or acquire”? What halakha does he derive? The Gemara answers: He requires that phrase for that which is taught in a baraita: From the phrase in the verse: “And if you sell to your colleague an item that is sold…you shall not exploit,” I have derived only a case where the buyer was exploited. From where is it derived that the halakha is the same in a case where the seller was exploited? The verse states: “Or acquire…you shall not exploit,” indicating that it is prohibited for the one who acquires the item to exploit the seller.
וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: תַּרְתֵּי גָּמַר מִינֵּיהּ.
The Gemara asks: And from where does Reish Lakish derive this halakha? He derives two halakhot from the phrase “or acquire from your colleague’s hand.” He derives that it is prohibited to exploit the seller and that movable items are acquired by means of pulling.
תְּנַן, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁהַכֶּסֶף בְּיָדוֹ – יָדוֹ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה. מוֹכֵר הוּא דְּמָצֵי הָדַר בֵּיהּ, לוֹקֵחַ לָא מָצֵי הָדַר בֵּיהּ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא מָעוֹת קוֹנוֹת – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי מוֹכֵר מָצֵי הָדַר בֵּיהּ, לוֹקֵחַ לָא מָצֵי הָדַר בֵּיהּ. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מָעוֹת אֵינָן קוֹנוֹת – לוֹקֵחַ נָמֵי לִיהְדַּר בֵּיהּ!
We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: Anyone who has the money in his possession has the advantage. It is the seller who can retract from the transaction; the buyer cannot retract from the transaction. The Gemara asks: Granted, if you say that giving money effects acquisition of movable property, it is due to that reason that the seller can retract from the transaction and the buyer cannot retract from the transaction. Rabbi Yoḥanan explained that the Sages instituted pulling to complete the transaction for the benefit of the buyer so that the seller will expend great effort and rescue the item, as it is still his own property. But the seller acquires the money immediately. But if you say in general that giving money does not effect acquisition of movable property, let the buyer also renege on the transaction.
אָמַר לָךְ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – לָא קָאָמֵינָא, כִּי קָאָמֵינָא – אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish could have said to you: I did not state my opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon; when I stated my opinion it was in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ – הַיְינוּ דְּאִיכָּא בֵּין רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְרַבָּנַן. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְרַבָּנַן? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא. דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁתִּקְּנוּ מְשִׁיכָה בַּמּוֹכְרִין כָּךְ תִּקְנוּ מְשִׁיכָה בַּלָּקוֹחוֹת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, רַבָּנַן אִית לְהוּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא.
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Reish Lakish, that is the dispute between the opinions of Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis, as Rabbi Shimon holds that money effects acquisition of the item and the Rabbis hold that only pulling the item effects its acquisition. But according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, what difference is there between the opinion of Rabbi Shimon and that of the Rabbis? The Gemara responds: The difference between them is with regard to the statement of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda says: Just as the Sages instituted pulling for the sellers, likewise, they instituted pulling for the buyers. Until the item is pulled, the buyer can also renege on the transaction. Rabbi Shimon does not hold in accordance with the statement of Rav Ḥisda, and the Rabbis hold in accordance with the statement of Rav Ḥisda.
תְּנַן: אֲבָל אָמְרוּ, מִי שֶׁפָּרַע מִדּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל – הוּא עָתִיד לִיפָּרַע מִמִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד בְּדִיבּוּרוֹ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא מָעוֹת קוֹנוֹת – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָאֵי בַּ״אֲבָל״, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מָעוֹת אֵינָן קוֹנוֹת, אַמַּאי קָאֵי בַּ״אֲבָל״? מִשּׁוּם דְּבָרִים.
We learned in the mishna: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the generation of the dispersion, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement. Granted, if you say that giving money effects acquisition of movable property, it is due to that reason that one who reneges on the transaction after the money is paid stands subject to the curse: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment. But if you say that giving money does not effect acquisition of movable property, why does one who reneges after the money is paid stand subject to the curse: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment? The Gemara answers: It is due to the fact that he reneged on a statement of his committing himself to buy the item.
וּבִדְבָרִים מִי קָאֵי בַּ״אֲבָל״? וְהָתַנְיָא,
The Gemara asks: And does one who reneged on a statement of commitment stand subject to the curse: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: