Kiddushin, Daf Kaf Het, Part 4

 

Introduction

Today s section discusses exchanges by barter. What types of exchanges are considered irreversible? Particularly, can coins and produce be used as barter?

 

גמ׳ חליפין מאי ניהו מטבע שמע מינה מטבע נעשה חליפין

 

GEMARA. What is the barter? Money! Learn from this that coin can become [an object of] barter.

 

The Talmud asks what this item is that is being exchanged for another item. If that item is money, then barter can be performed with money. This would mean that if I give you money for your cow, then I have acquired your cow and neither of us can renege. The problem with this is that we have learned that money cannot be used to acquire objects.

 

אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר כל הנישום דמים באחר כיון שזכה זה נתחייב בחליפין

דיקא נמי דקתני כיצד החליף שור בפרה או חמור בשור ש"מ

 

Rav Judah said: This is what it means: Whatever is assessed as the value of another object, as soon as one party takes possession, the other assumes liability for what is given in exchange. This can also be derived from a precise reading in the mishnah: How so? If one barters an ox for a cow, or a donkey for an ox. This proves it.

 

Rav Judah explains the mishnah for an item to be used as barter it must be something that does not have a value that can be expressed in its own terms. For instance, I could say a Hershey Bar is worth four Hershey kisses or two Goldenberg s chews (I really loved those). But I cannot say how much a Hershey bar is worth in terms of Hershey bars. But a coin s value is expressed on its own terms a dollar is worth a dollar. Therefore, coins cannot be used in barter.

 

ולמאי דסליק אדעתין מעיקרא דמטבע נעשה חליפין מאי כיצד ה"ק פירות נמי עבדי חליפין כיצד החליף בשר שור בפרה או בשר חמור בשור כיון שזכה זה נתחייב בחליפין

 

Now, with regard to that which you thought, that coin can become an object of barter, what is meant by the How so ? This is what it means: And produce too can effect a barter. How so? If one barters the meat of ox for a cow, or the meat of donkey for an ox, as soon as one party takes possession, the other assumes liability for what is given in exchange.

 

The Talmud now goes back and asks how we would interpret the mishnah if we thought that coin could become an object of barter. To do this the Talmud basically rewrites the mishnah. The first part of the mishnah refers to coin, which can be used as barter, and the second half refers to produce (or what we could call edible products) which can also be used for barter. Note that prior to this we would not have thought that produce can be used for barter. If I want to trade you my Hershey bars for you Reeses cups, you would not take possession of the Hershey bars until you took them into your possession. But if it can be used as barter, then you would possess them as soon as I took the peanut butter cups.

 

הניחא לרב ששת דאמר פירות עבדי חליפין אלא לר"נ דאמר פירות לא עבדי חליפין מאי איכא למימר

 

Now, this agrees with R. Sheshet, whosaid: Produce can effect barter. But to R. Nahman, who holds that produce cannot effect barter, what can be said?

 

The Talmud now alludes to a dispute about whether produce (and animals) can be used to effect barter. R. Sheshet says it can, but R. Nahman says it may not. We should note that this is a new problem, not related to the previous one. How can R. Nahman even understand the mishnah which does seem to say that produce and animals and not just vessels can be used for barter.

 

ה"ק יש דמים שהן כחליפין כיצד החליף דמי שור בפרה או דמי חמור בשור

 

This is what it means: Money sometimes counts 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.

 

This is an entire reinterpretation of the mishnah such that the mishnah does not teach that produce or animals can effect barter. My explanation follows Rashi. The beginning of the mishnah states that money can sometimes be used to acquire through barter, even though the money was given as such and not as a form of barter. If Reuven sold Shimon an ox for a man, and Shimon drew the animal to him, he is now liable to give the maneh to Reuven. Reuven now says Give me the cow instead of the money. Shimon says yes. If Shimon says, I am giving you this cow in place of the money Reuven acquires the cow without having to pull it towards himself. We have now avoided the problem of produce effecting barter.

מ"ט סבר לה כר’ יוחנן דאמר דבר תורה מעות קונות ומה טעם אמרו משיכה קונה גזירה שמא יאמר לו נשרפו חיטיך בעלייה

 

What is the reason? He agrees with R. Yohanan, who said: From the Torah, money effects acquisition. Why then did they say that only meshikhah acquires? As a decree lest he say to him, Your wheat was burnt in the loft.

 

Generally speaking money cannot acquire so why did this mishnah allow money to acquire (in this limited circumstance)? The answer is that from the Torah, money can acquire. The rabbis decreed that money does not acquire goods lest someone sell some wheat, take the money and then tell the other person that his wheat was burned. In other words, the law that money does not acquire was created for the protection of the buyer.

 

מילתא דשכיח גזרו בה רבנן מילתא דלא שכיח לא גזרו בה רבנן

 

Now, the Rabbis enacted a preventive measure only for a usual occurrence, but not for an unusual occurrence.

 

The rabbis decreed that money does not acquire things in unusual circumstances. But there was no reason to make such a decree for the rare case described above, since it is such a rare case.

 

ולר"ל דאמר משיכה מפורשת מן התורה הניחא אי סבר לה כרב ששת דאמר פירות עבדי חליפין מתרץ כרב ששת אלא אי סבר לה כר"נ דאמר פירות לא עבדי חליפין ומטבע לא קני במאי מוקי לה

על כרחך כרב ששת ס"ל:

 

Now, according to Resh Lakish, who holds that meshikhah is explicitly required by biblical law: it is well if he agrees with R. Sheshet, who rules [that] produce can effect a barter; then he can explain it as R. Sheshet. But if he holds like R. Nahman, that produce cannot effect a barter, and money does not acquire [at all], how can he explain it?

You are forced to say that he agrees with R. Sheshet.

 

Resh Lakish disagrees with R. Yohanan about what acquires. He holds that money does not acquire, and that even from the Torah only meshikhah acquires. The problem is that if he holds like R. Nahman that produce cannot effect barter, how can he understand the mishnah? So in the end, you have to say that he holds like R. Sheshet, who holds that produce can effect barter. So he can interpret the mishnah in the following manner quoted from above: And produce too can effect a barter. How so? If one barters the meat of ox for a cow, or the meat of donkey for an ox, as soon as one party takes possession, the other assumes liability for what is given in exchange.