Bava Metzia

But this refutes Resh Lakish!-Resh Lakish can answer you: That is on the basis of R. Simeon's ruling. BUT THEY [SC. THE SAGES] SAID, HE WHO PUNISHED, etc. It has been stated: Abaye said: He is [merely] told this.  Raba said: He is anathematised.  'Abaye said: He is [merely] told this,' because it is written, And thou shalt not curse the ruler of thy people.  'Raba said: He is anathematised.' because it is written, of thy people, implying [only] when he acts as is fitting for 'thy people'. Raba said: Whence do I know  it? For [it once happened that] money was given to R. Hiyya b. Joseph [in advance payment] For salt. Subsequently  salt rose in price. On his appearing before R. Johanan,  he ordered him, 'Go and deliver [it] to him  [the purchaser], and if not, you must submit to [the curse]: He who punished.' Now if you say that one is merely informed — did R. Hiyya b. Joseph require to be told?  — What then: he is anathematised? Did R. Hiyya b. Joseph come to submit to a curse of the Rabbis?  But [what happened was that] only a deposit had been paid to R. Hiyya b. Joseph. He thought that he [the purchaser] was [morally] entitled only to the value thereof, whereupon R. Johanan told him that he was entitled to the whole [of the purchase]. It has been stated: A deposit — Rab said: It effects a title [only] to the extent of the value thereof.  R. Johanan ruled: It effects a title to the whole purchase. An objection is raised: If one gives a pledge  to his neighbour and says to him, 'If I retract; my pledge be forfeit to you;' and the other stipulates, 'If I retract, I will double your pledge';  the conditions are binding:  this is R. Jose's view, R. Jose following in this his general ruling that asmakta  acquires title. R. Judah [however] maintained: It is sufficient that it effects a title to the value thereof.  Said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: When is that? If he [the depositor] said to him, 'Let my pledge effect the purchase'.  But if one sold a house or field for a thousand zuz, of which he [the vendee] paid him five hundred, he acquires title [to the whole], and must repay the balance even after many years.  Now surely. the same ruling applies to movables, viz., [if a deposit is given] without specifying [its purpose],  possession is gained of the whole!  — No. As for movables, an unspecified deposit does not effect possession [of the whole]. And wherein do they differ?  — Real estate, which is actually acquired by [the delivery of] money,  is entirely acquired;  movables, which are acquired [by the delivery of money] only in respect of submission to [the curse] 'He who punished,' are not acquired entirely. Shall we say that this is disputed by Tannaim? [For it has been taught:] If one makes a loan to his neighbour against a pledge. and the year of release arrived, even if it [the pledge] is worth only half [the loan], it [the year of release] does not cancel [the loan]: this is the ruling of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. R. Judah ha-Nasi said: If the pledge corresponds to [the value of] the loan, it does not cancel it; otherwise, it does.  What is meant by R. Gamaliel's statement, 'It does not cancel [the loan]'? Shall we say, To the value thereof? Hence it follows that in the opinion of R. Judah ha-Nasi even that half too is cancelled!