Bava Metzia

by means of maroka.  'For gaining possession' — this rejects Levi's view, that the utensils of the bestower [are required]:  therefore it teaches us: to obtain possession, but not to confer possession.  'Therewith' — R. Papa said: It is to exclude coins. R. Zebid — others state, R. Ashi — said: It is to exclude objects the benefit of which is forbidden. Others state: 'Therewith' excludes coins.  'That is fit'; R. Zebid — others state, R. Ashi — said: That excludes objects whose use is forbidden.  But as for maroka, It Is unnecessary [to exclude that]. UNCOINED METAL [ASIMON]  ACQUIRES COINED. What IS ASIMON? — Said Rab: Coins that are presented as tokens  at the baths.  An objection is raised: The second tithe may not be redeemed by asimon, nor by coins that are presented as tokens at the baths; proving that ASIMON is not coins that are presented as tokens at the baths.  And should you answer that it is a definition,  surely the Tanna does not teach thus; [for we learnt:] The second tithe may be redeemed by 'asimon', this is R. Dosa's view. The Sages maintain: It may not. Yet both agree that it may not be redeemed with coins that are presented as tokens at the baths.  But, said R. Johanan. What is 'asimon'? A disk.  Now, R. Johanan follows his views [expressed elsewhere]. For R. Johanan said: R. Dosa and R. Ishmael both taught the same thing. R. Dosa: the statement just quoted. And what is R. Ishmael's dictum? — That which has been taught: And thou shalt bind up the money in thine hand;  this is to include everything that can be bound up in one's hand — that is R. Ishmael's view. R. Akiba said: It is to include everything which bears a figure. E. G., IF [A] DREW INTO HIS POSSESSION [B' s] PRODUCE, WITHOUT PAYING HIM THE MONEY, HE CANNOT RETRACT, etc. R. Johanan said: By Biblical law, [the delivery of] money effects possession. Why then was it said meshikah effects possession? Lest he [the vendor] say to him [the vendee]. 'Your wheat was burnt In the loft.'  But after all, whoever causes  the fire must make compensation! — But [for fear] lest a fire accidentally break out. Now, if the ownership is [still] vested in him [the vendor],  he will wholeheartedly take pains  to save it; if not, he will not do so. Resh Lakish said: Meshikah is explicitly provided for by Biblical law. What is Resh Lakish's reason? — Scripture saith, And if thou sell aught unto thy neighbour, or acquire aught of thy neighbour's hand  — i.e., a thing 'acquired' [by passing it] from hand to hand.  But R. Johanan maintains, 'of [thy neighbour's] hand' is to exclude real estate from the law of fraud.  And Resh Lakish?  — If so,  Scripture should have written, 'And if thou sell aught unto thy neighbour's hand, ye shall not defraud:' why state, 'or acquire aught'? This proves that its purpose is to teach the need of meshikah. And R. Johanan: how does he utilise 'or buy'? — He employs it. even as was taught: 'And if thou sell aught … ye shall not defraud:' from this I know the law  only if the purchaser was defrauded. Whence do I know it if the vendor was cheated? From the phrase. 'or acquire aught…ye shall not defraud.' And Resh Lakish?  — He learns both therefrom. We learnt, R. SIMEON SAID: HE WHO HAS THE MONEY IN HIS HAND HAS THE ADVANTAGE. [This means,] only the vendor can retract, but not the purchaser.  Now, should you say that [by Biblical law the delivery of] money effects possession, it is well; therefore the vendor can retract, but not the vendee.  But if you say that [the delivery of] money does not effect a title [even by Biblical law], then the purchaser too should be able to retract!  — Resh Lakish can answer you: I [certainly] did not state [my view] on the basis of R. Simeon's opinion, but according to the Rabbis. Now, as for Resh Lakish, it is well: for precisely therein do R. Simeon and the Rabbis differ.  But according to R. Johanan, wherein do R. Simeon and the Rabbis differ? — In respect to R. Hisda's dictum, viz.: Just as they [sc. the Rabbis] enacted the law of meshikah in respect of the vendor, so did they institute it in respect to the vendee.  Thus, R. Simeon rejects this dictum of R. Hisda, whilst the Rabbis agree therewith. We learnt: BUT THEY [SC. THE SAGES] SAID: HE WHO PUNISHED THE GENERATION OF THE FLOOD AND THE GENERATION OF THE DISPERSION, HE WILL TAKE VENGEANCE OF HIM WHO DOES NOT STAND BY HIS WORD. Now, if you say that the delivery of money effects a title, it is well: hence he is subject to the 'BUT etc.'. If, however, you maintain that money does not effect a title, why is he subject to 'BUT'?  — On account of his words.  But is one subject to 'BUT' on account of [mere] words? Has it not been taught: