Kiddushin

as soon as one party takes possession, the other assumes liability for what is given in exchange. This follows too from the statement, HOW SO? IF ONE BARTERS AN OX FOR A COW, OR AN ASS FOR AN OX. This proves it. Now, on the original hypothesis, that coin can effect a barter, what is meant by HOW SO?1 — It means this: And produce too can effect a barter. HOW SO? IF ONE BARTERS AN OX FOR A COW, OR AN ASS FOR AN OX, as soon as one party takes possession, the other assumes liability for what is given in exchange. Now, this agrees with R. Shesheth, who maintained: Produce can effect a barter. But on R. Nahman's view, viz., that produce cannot effect a barter, what can be said? — It means this: Money sometimes ranks as [an object of] barter. HOW SO? IF ONE BARTERS THE MONEY OF AN OX FOR A COW, OR THE MONEY OF AN ASS FOR AN OX.2 What is the reason? — He agrees with R. Johanan, who said: Biblically speaking, money effects a title. Why then was it decreed that only meshikah gives possession? As a precautionary measure, lest he say to him, ‘Your wheat was burnt in the loft.’3 Now, the Rabbis enacted a preventive measure only for a usual occurrence, but not for an unusual occurrence.4 Now, according to Resh Lakish, who maintains that meshikah is explicitly required by Biblical law: it is well if he agrees with R. Shesheth, who rules [that] produce can effect a barter; then he can explain it as R. Shesheth. But if he holds with R. Nahman, that produce cannot effect a barter, whilst money does not effect a title [at all], how can he explain it?5 — You are forced to say that he agrees with R. Shesheth.6 MISHNAH. THE SANCTUARY'S7 TITLE TO PROPERTY [IS ACQUIRED] BY MONEY; THE TITLE OF A COMMON MAN TO PROPERTY BY HAZAKAH.8 DEDICATION TO THE SANCTUARY IS EQUAL TO DELIVERY TO A COMMON PERSON. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: How is the Sanctuary's title [acquired] by money? If the [Temple] treasurer pays money for an animal, even if the animal is at the world's end, he acquires it; whereas a common person gains no title until he performs meshikah. How is dedication to the Sanctuary equal to delivery to a common person? If one declares, ‘This ox be a burnt-offering,’ ‘This house be hekdesh,’ even if they are at the world's end, it [hekdesh] acquires them; whereas a common person gains no title9 purchase price. Then B says: ‘I will give you a cow for the purchase price of the ox,’ to which A agrees. Now, though this is theoretically a fresh transaction, viz., B sells a cow to A, the money owing by B for the ox being regarded as though delivered to him by A for the cow, and it is a principle that the delivery of money alone does not consummate a purchase, it does so here, and neither can retract, i.e.,it is barter, not payment.