Avodah Zarah, Daf Ayin Aleph, Part 4

 

Introduction

In yesterday s (long) section we learned that according to Amemar a non-Jew can acquire through meshikhah. Today s section continues to discuss this.

 

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

אי ס"ד משיכה בעובד כוכבים קונה אמאי יחזיר

 

They raised a difficulty [against Amemar]: One who bought scrap metal from a non-Jew and found an idol in it: if before he gave the coins he drew it to himself, he may return the idol; but if he gave the coins and then drew it to himself, he must throw it into the Dead Sea!

Now if you thought that acquisition by meshikhah does apply to a Gentile, how can he return it?

 

The Jew buys scrap metal from a non-Jew and finds an idol in the heap. He wants to return the idol and receive regular scrap metal in its place. If he has not yet paid the coins he can return the idol, but if he already paid, he may not. This baraita seems to prove that in a transaction with a non-Jew, drawing the object acquires it once the Jew has drawn the idol to himself, he may not return it.

 

אמר אביי משום דמיחזי כי מקח טעות

 

Abaye said: Because it appears to be a mistaken acquisition.

 

Abaye says that he may return the idol because it is a mistaken acquisition. He was supposed to be buying srap metal broken pieces of silver, gold, etc. He did not think that he was buying idols. Thus the whole sale is annulled.

 

אמר רבא רישא מקח טעות סיפא לאו מקח טעות

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

Rava said: The first circumstance is a mistaken purchase but the second is not!

Rather Rava said: Both circumstances are a mistaken purchase; but in the first, since he had not paid over the money, it does not look like an idol in the possession of a Jew, whereas in the second, since he had paid over the money, it does look like an idol in the possession of a Jew.

 

Rava says that if the first half of the baraita is a mistaken purchase and therefore annulled, then both cases are a mistaken circumstance. So why is he not allowed to return the idol in the second case?

Rava answers that both cases are mistaken purchases and therefore, in principle, he should be able to return the idol in either case. However, in the second case, since he already paid the money, it looks like the idol is already his and that he is selling it back to the non-Jew. Therefore, he may not return it. But in the first case, it does not look like he has acquired the idol so he may return it.