Bava Metzia

R. Simeon said: Though they [sc. the Sages] ruled, [The delivery of] a garment acquires the gold denar,  but not vice versa: that however, is only the halachah  but they [also] said, He who punished the generations of the Flood, and of the Dispersion, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Egyptians at the [Red] Sea, He will exact vengeance of him who does not stand by his word; and he who enters into a verbal transaction effects no title, yet he who retracts therefrom, the spirit of the Sages is displeased with him. Whereon Raba observed: We have no other [condemnation] than that the spirit of the Sages is displeased with him!  For words accompanied by [the passage of] money one is subject to 'BUT'; for words unaccompanied thereby one is not subject to 'BUT'. Raba said: Both Scripture and a Baraitha  support Resh Lakish, 'Scripture', — for it is written, [If a soul sin …] and lie unto his neighbor in that which vas delivered him to keep or in the putting forth of the hand  or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath oppressed his neighbour:  'the putting forth of the hand' — said R. Hisda: E.g., if he [the debtor] assigned a utensil to him for [the payment of] his debt  'Or hath oppressed' — said R. Hisda: E.g., if he assigned him a utensil for that in respect of which he oppressed him.  Yet when Scripture repeated it,  it is written, Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took away, or the thing that he withheld by oppression, or that which was delivered him to keep; but 'the putting forth of the hand'  is not repeated. Why so? surely because it lacked meshikah!  Said R. Papa to Raba: But perhaps that follows from 'oppression', which Scripture did repeat?  — The circumstances here  are, e.g. that he [the employee] took it [the utensil] from him and then entrusted it to his keeping.  [But] this is identical with 'bailment'! — There are two kinds of bailments — 15 If so, 'the putting forth of the hand' [i.e.. loan] should also be repeated, and it could [likewise] be applied to the case where, e.g.,he [the creditor] had taken it [the utensil assigned for repayment] from him [the debtor], and then re-deposited it with him?  — Had Scripture repeated it, it would have been neither a refutation nor a support:  since, however, Scripture did not repeat it, it supports him [Resh Lakish]. Yet did not Scripture repeat, 'the putting forth of the hand'? But it was taught: R. Simeon said: Whence do we know that what was stated above  is to be applied to what is stated below?  Because it is written, Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely.  And R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha in Rab's name: That is to extend the law of restoration to 'the putting forth of the hand'! — Even so, Scripture did not explicitly repeat it — 22 Where have we a Baraitha?  — For it has been taught:  If he gave it to a bath-attendant, he is liable to a trespass offering.  And Raba said thereon: This holds good only of a bath-attendant, since no meshikah is lacking.  But [if he gave it for] any other object, which requires meshikah,  he is not liable to a trespass offering until he does draw it into his possession.  But has it not been taught: If he gave it to a hairdresser, he is liable to a trespass offering. Now in the case of the hairdresser, must he [the treasurer] not draw the shears into his possession?  — The reference here is to a heathen barber, to whom the law of meshikah does not apply.  It has been taught likewise: If he [the treasurer] gave it [the perutah of hekdesh] to a hairdresser, a ship's captain,  or to any artisan, he is not liable to a trespass offering until he takes Possession.  Now these are self-contradictory!  But this must surely prove that one refers to a heathen and the other to an Israelite hairdresser. This proves it. R. Nahman ruled likewise: By Biblical law, [the delivery of] money effects a title, and Levi sought [the source of this ruling] in his Baraitha [collection] and found it; [Viz.,] If he [the treasurer] gave it to a wholesale provision merchant,  he is liable to a trespass offering.