Bekhorot — Daf 13b

מה עמיתך באחת אף עובד כוכבים נמי באחת

אמרי ולאמימר דאמר משיכה בעובד כוכבים קונה הניחא אי סבר לה כר' יוחנן דאמר דבר תורה מעות קונות משיכה לא אהני לעמיתך לעמיתך בכסף לעובד כוכבים במשיכה

אלא אי סבר לה כר"ל דאמר משיכה מפורשת מן התורה לעמיתך במשיכה ולעובד כוכבים במשיכה לעמיתך למה לי

אמרי לעמיתך אתה מחזיר אונאה ואי אתה מחזיר אונאה לכנעני לכנעני (ויקרא כה יד) מאל תונו איש את אחיו נפקא

חד בכנעני וחד בהקדש וצריכי דאי כתב רחמנא חד הוה אמינא לכנעני הוא דאין לו אונאה אבל הקדש יש לו אונאה קמ"ל

הניחא למ"ד גזילו אסור היינו דאצטריך קרא למישרי אונאה אלא אי סבר לה כמ"ד גזילו של כנעני מותר אונאה מיבעיא אמרי אי סבר לה כמ"ד גזילו מותר על כורחיך כר' יוחנן ס"ל

מיתיבי הלוקח גרוטאות מן העובד כוכבים ומצא בהן עבודת כוכבים אם עד שלא נתן מעות משך יחזיר ואם משנתן מעות משך יוליך הנאה לים המלח

ואי אמרת מעות קונות משיכה ל"ל הכא במאי עסקינן שקיבל עליו לדון בדיני ישראל אי הכי מעות למה לי הכי קאמר אע"פ שנתן מעות אי משיך אין ואי לא לא

אי הכי קשיא רישא אמר אביי רישא משום דאיכא מקח טעות אמר ליה רבא רישא משום דאיכא מקח טעות סיפא ליכא מקח טעות

אלא אמר רבא רישא וסיפא מקח טעות רישא דלא יהיב זוזי לא מיחזי כעבודת כוכבים ביד ישראל סיפא דיהיב זוזי מיחזי כעבודת כוכבים ביד ישראל

ואביי אמר לך רישא מקח טעות דלא ידע דהא לא יהיב ליה זוזי סיפא לאו מקח טעות הוא דכיון דיהיב זוזי כי קא משיך איבעי לעיוני והדר מימשך

רב אשי אמר מדרישא משיכה אינה קונה סיפא נמי משיכה אינה קונה ואיידי דתנא רישא משך תנא סיפא נמי משך

רבינא אמר מדסיפא משיכה קונה רישא נמי משיכה קונה ורישא הכי קאמר אם לא נתן ולא משך יחזור מאי יחזור יחזור בדברים

קסבר דברים יש בהם משום מחוסרי אמנה והני מילי ישראל מישראל דקיימו בדבורייהו אבל ישראל מעובד כוכבים דאינהו לא קיימי בדבורייהו לא:

As ‘thy neighbour’ [i.e., an Israelite] acquires possession only in one way,1 so the heathen acquires possession only in one way.2 It was argued: Now according to Amemar who said that meshikah effects possession in the case of a heathen, this might be right if he holds according to the opinion of R. Johanan who maintains that according to the Biblical law, money effects possession between Israelites, whereas meshikah does not effect possession;3 the text ‘to thy neighbour’ serves then the purpose of allowing us to deduce that ‘to thy neighbour’ [i.e., an Israelite] money effects possession, but for a heathen to effect possession meshikah is required. But if he holds according to the opinion of Resh Lakish, who maintains that meshikah is expressly mentioned in the Torah, [with the indicating result that] ‘to thy neighbour’ [an Israelite] with meshikah and for a heathen with meshikah, what need then is there for the text ‘to thy neighbour’? — It can be explained thus: The text means: ‘to thy neighbour’ you return an overcharge,4 but you do not return an overcharge to a Canaanite [a heathen] — But do we not derive [the exclusion of the law of overcharging in connection with] the Canaanite from the following text: Ye shall not oppress one another?5 — One text refers to a Canaanite and the other refers to sacred property.6 And it was necessary [to teach both cases]. For if the Divine Law had written only one text, I might have assumed that, as regards the Canaanite there is no law concerning overreaching, but in regard to sacred property7 the law of overreaching is enforced. Therefore Scripture teaches us [that this is not so]. This would hold good according to him who says that the robbed object of a Canaanite is forbidden [to be retained]; therefore a scriptural text is necessary to permit [the retention of] overreaching. But8 if be holds with him who says that the robbed object of a Canaanite is allowed [to be retained], can there be any question about permitting [to retain] overreaching? I can answer: If [Amemar] holds according to him who says that the robbed object of a Canaanite is allowed [to be retained], then perforce he will hold according to the view of R. Johanan.9 An objection was raised. If one buys broken pieces [of silver] from a heathen and finds among them an idol, if he made meshikah before he had given the purchase money, he should withdraw [from the transaction]. But if he made meshikah after he had given the money, he should carry the benefit derived therefrom to the Dead Sea.10 Now, if you hold that money effects possession, what need is there for meshikah? — We are dealing here with the case where [the heathen] undertook to act in the matter in accordance with Israelite law. If so, what need is there for money [as a means of effecting possession]? — This is what [the Baraitha] intends to say: Although he had given the money, if he made meshikah, [then he can withdraw], but if not, [he] cannot [do so]. If this is the case, there is a difficulty in the first part [of the Baraitha]?11 — Said Abaye: The reason of the first part [of the Baraitha] is because it was made in error.12 Raba said to him: ‘[You say that the reason of] the first part [of the Baraitha] is because it was made in error. But is the last part [of the Baraitha] also not a case of a purchase in error’? Rather, said Raba: Both the first and the last parts deal with the case of a purchase in error;13 but in [the case stated in] the first part where he had not yet given the money, the idol does not appear to have been in the possession of an Israelite, whereas in the last part [of the Baraitha], where he had given the money, the idol appears to have been in the possession of an Israelite.14 And Abaye? — He will explain thus. The first part is a case of a purchase made in error, for he did not know of the idol, since he had not yet paid the money.15 But the last part is a case of a purchase made in error, for since he had given the money, when he was [about] to make meshikah he should have examined the purchase and then made meshikah.16 R. Ashi said:17 Since in the first part [of the Baraitha], meshikah does not effect possession, in the last part also, meshikah does not effect possession. But as he mentions meshikah in the first part, he also states meshikah in the last part. Rabina said: Since in the last part meshikah effects possession, in the first part too meshikah effects possession.18 And what the first part says in effect is this: If he had not given the money, nor made meshikah, he withdraws. What is [then] meant by ‘he withdraws’?19 — That he can retract his words, for he [the Tanna of the Baraitha] maintains: To retract one's words indicates a want of honesty, but this is the case only with an Israelite dealing with an Israelite, because they stand by their word, whereas in the case of an Israelite dealing with gentiles, since the latter do not stand by their word, it is not so. analogy we assume that the same limitation applies in the case of the form of acquisition which exists for gentiles. i.e., money. Israelites. should not have an advantage over sacred property in this respect. overreaching from the text, ‘Thy neighbour’. Consequently the text will imply that although money effects possession in a transaction between Israelites, in the case of heathens meshikah is required. Hence we see that Amemar must necessarily hold according to the opinion of R. Johanan. derive any profit therefrom. the Dead Sea! and meshikah is the form here of effecting possession, this having been agreed upon by the parties concerned. genuine one. and therefore money payment is the method of effecting possession of an object bought. And no difficulty can be raised from the last part of the Baraitha, by arguing that, if this be a fact what need is there for meshikah, for meshikah is mentioned here only because it is mentioned in the first part, and there it had to be mentioned to inform us, that it has no effect, since the purchase money was not handed over.