ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 46
BAVA METZIA 46 (23 Teves) - l'Iluy Nishmas Nachum ben Shlomo Dovid Mosenkis,
by his son, Sid Mosenkis of Queens, New York.
(a) If someone who is standing in his granary wants to redeem his Ma'aser
Sheini, but has no money on him. the Tana of the Beraisa advises him - to
give the Ma'aser to his friend before redeeming it on the money that he has
(b) By doing this he gains - having to add a fifth, because we learn from he
Pasuk "mi'Ma'asro" that it is only the the owner redeeming his own Ma'aser
who needs to add a fifth, but not someone else who redeems the owner's
(c) Having money on him would have had the advantage - of being able to hand
the money to his friend as a gift, in which case the friend could have
redeemed the owner's Ma'aser Sheini, before returning the money (which would
have caused his actions to look less like a swindle).
(d) We prove from here - that one cannot acquire money with Chalipin either,
because if one could, why would the owner need to be Makneh the money in his
house together with the threshold of his house? Why did his friend not
acquire it by giving him an article of clothing or whatever as Chalipin? We
arre therefore forced to say that the Tana holds that money cannot be
acquired by means of Chalipin.
(a) The owner is not Makneh a small piece of land to his friend, for his
friend to redeem the Ma'aser on the money in the owner's house - because the
Tana speaks when he does not own any land ...
(b) ... and the granary in which he is standing is not his own.
(a) We attempt to refute the proof from the above Beraisa that, just as a
coin cannot acquire with Chalipin, so too, can one not acquire it with
Chalipin either - by establishing the case when the friend did not have a
Sudar (or anything else either) with which to acquire the owner's money.
We have proved from this episode, from the fact that he was Makneh the money
together with the threshold of his house - and not by means of Chalipin -
that Rav Papa retracted from his previous statement, and agrees that one can
acquire a coin with Chalipin.
(b) The problem with this explanation is - that it is preposterous to
suggest that according to Rav Papa, the Tana is coming to teach us a
Halachah about a naked man who has nothing on him which might serve as a
(c) When Rav Shmuel bar Acha went to Mechuza, Rav Papa was Makneh him the
twelve thousand Dinrim that the Bei Chuza'a owed him. This was necessary -
because otherwise, they would have refused to hand him the money, because
they would have had to accept responsibility for any Onsin that might have
occurred on the return journey.
(d) Rav Papa demonstrated his joy at receiving his money back intact - by
going to greet Rav Shmuel bar Acha as far as Tavach (or perhaps he did it to
acknowledge the favor that Rav Shmuel bar Achah did for him).
(a) Ula, Rebbi Asi and Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan all agree -
that a coin cannot be used as Chalipin.
(b) If someone's employees are claiming their wages, and he has no money on
him - the Tana of a Beraisa advises him to borrow a Dinar's worth of P'rutos
against the value of a Dinar and T'risis (a better-quality coin that is
worth slightly more than a regular Dinar). that he has at home.
(c) Rebbi Aba asked Ula from this Beraisa on the previous Sugya - that
according to those who hold that a coin cannot be used as Chalipin, what
would the fact that the employer had money at home help to remove the Isur
Ribis? And what's more, in this case, it is a coin acquiring a coin through
(a) Although Ula remained silent, he conceded that Rebbi Aba was right to
establish the Beraisa by P'rutetos - which are plain un-minted copper
pieces, which are considered Peiros and not currency.
(b) He even supported his answer from the Lashon 'Yafeh Dinar u'T'risis' -
which implies that he did not have coins, only pieces of copper to the value
of a Dinar plus a T'risis.
(c) Rav Ashi disagrees. The Kashya doesn't bother him in the first place,
because the employer had money at home - and as we learned above with regard
to Peiros, as long as one has money at the time, it is as if he asked him
for a loan until his son arrives with the key or until he finds the key
(which is not considered a loan at all).
(a) The Mishnah in Kidushin states 'Kol ha'Na'aseh Damim be'Acher, Keivan
she'Zachah Zeh, Nischayev Zeh ba'Chalipin'. The simple interpretation of
this Mishnah - that as soon as one of the men acquires the money (which is
what is usually used as currency to pay for the object that one is buying),
poses a Kashya on those who hold 'Ein Matbe'a Na'aseh Chalipin'/
(b) Rav Yehudah therefore interprets the Mishnah as 'Kol ha'Nishum Damim
be'Acher ... ' - by which he means that any Metaltelin that need to be
assessed can be used for Chalipin (but not money, which does not).
(c) And we prove this from the Seifa of the Mishnah 'Keitzad - Hichlif Shor
be'Parah O Chamor be'Shor'.
(a) According to our initial understanding of 'Kol ha'Nishum Damim be'Acher
... ' (which those who learn 'Matbe'a Na'aseh Chalipin' will have to adopt),
we will explain the Seifa 'Keitzad ... ' to mean - that Peiros too, can be
used as Chalipin (such as someone who swaps an ox for a cow ... [See Tosfos
(b) This can only go like Rav Sheishes, but not like Rav Nachman.
1. ... Rav Sheishes holds 'Peiri Avdi Chalipin'.
(c) Rav Nachman explains ...
2. ... Rav Nachman restricts Chalipin to a K'li (like a shoe, as we learned
1. ... the Reisha of the Mishnah ('Kol ha'Na'aseh Damim be'Acher') - like
the second interpretation ('Kol ha'Nishum Damim be'Acher').
(d) In view of the principle that money cannot acquire, this case must be an
exception, due to the fact that Rav Nachman holds like Rebbi Yochanan - who
says min ha'Torah money acquires, and it is only to safeguard the purchaser
that Chazal require Meshichah (as we shall now see).
2. ... the Seifa ('Keitzad, Hichlif Shor be'Parah ... ) - to mean 'Yesh
Damim she'Hein ka'Chalipin'. And he is speaking about where Reuven sold
Shimon an ox, which the latter acquired, but the payment remained
outstanding. Should Shimon then offer Reuven a cow instead of the money,
the deal is final, and neither can retract (just like a Kinyan Chalipin).
(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, Chazal negated Kinyan Kesef - due to the
fear that the seller will allow the sold article (that is no longer his, and
for which he is not responsible) to burn, without bothering to save it.
(b) What makes the case in our Mishnah different, according to Rav Nachman,
is - the fact that it is most unusual to use money that the seller has
already received as a Kinyan (and generally, Chazal tended not to apply
their decrees in unusual cases). Consequently, they left the Torah-law (that
money acquires) intact.
(c) According to Resh Lakish - money does not acquire min ha'Torah, in which
case it would not acquire in the case of Rav Nachman either.
(d) Resh Lakish must therefore explain our Mishnah like Rav Sheishes, who
holds that Peiros are eligible for Chalipin, since he cannot explain it like
Rav Nachman (as we just explained).
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Kol ha'Metaltelin Konin Zeh es Zeh'. Resh
Lakish explains that the word 'Kol' comes to include a purse full of money.
Once again, this poses a Kashya on those who hold 'Ein Matbe'a Na'aseh
(b) The Tana cannot be speaking about Kinyan Kesef - because it is
unanimously accepted that Kesef cannot acquire.
(c) So Rav Acha establishes the Mishnah when one of the purses is full of
coins taken out of circulation by the king - which tend to remain in
circulation clandestinely; whereas the other one is full of coins have
simply lost favor with the people - but which remain in full circulation in
other provinces under the king's jurisdiction.
(d) Even though we know ...
1. ... that the former are no longer considered currency, we need to be told
that the latter are not considered currency either - despite the fact that
(unlike the former), they are full currency in other provinces.
2. ... that the latter are no longer considered currency, we need to be told
about the former - in spite of the fact that (unlike the latter), they are
still clandestine currency in that province.