PAST DEDICATION
BAVA METZIA 46-49 - Dedicated by Mrs. Rita Grunberger of Queens, N.Y., in loving memory of her husband, Reb Yitzchok Yakov ben Eliyahu Grunberger. Irving Grunberger helped many people quietly in an unassuming manner and is dearly missed by all who knew him. His Yahrzeit is 10 Sivan.

1)

(a)What does the Beraisa advise someone who is standing in his granary to do, if he wants to redeem his Ma'aser Sheini, but has no money on him?

(b)What does he gain by doing this? What do we learn from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "mi'Ma'asero"?

(c)What advantage would there have been had he had money on him?

(d)What do we prove from here?

1)

(a)If someone who is standing in his granary wants to redeem his Ma'aser Sheini, but has no money on him, the Beraisa advises him to give the Ma'aser to his friend before redeeming it on the money that he has at home.

(b)By doing this he gains not having to add a fifth, because we learn from he Pasuk "mi'Ma'asro" that it is only the owner redeeming his own Ma'aser who needs to add a fifth, but not someone else who redeems the owner's Ma'aser.

(c)Having money on him would have had the advantage of being able to hand the money to his friend as a gift, in which case the friend could have redeemed the owner's Ma'aser Sheini, before returning the money (which would have caused his actions to look less like a swindle).

(d)We prove from here that one cannot acquire money with Chalipin either, because if one could, why would the owner need to be Makneh the money in his house together with the threshold of his house. Why did his friend not acquire it by giving him an article of clothing or whatever as Chalipin? This proves that, according to this Tana, money cannot be acquired by means of Chalipin.

2)

(a)Why is the owner not Makneh a small piece of land to his friend, for his friend to redeem the Ma'aser on the money in the owner's house?

(b)But surely, if he owns a granary, he must own land?

2)

(a)The owner is not Makneh a small piece of land to his friend, for his friend to redeem the Ma'aser on the money in the owner's house because the Tana speaks when he does not own any land ...

(b)... and the granary in which he is standing is not his own.

3)

(a)How do we try to refute the proof from the above Beraisa that, just as a coin cannot acquire with Chalipin, so too, can one not acquire it with Chalipin either?

(b)What is the problem with this explanation?

(c)When Rav Shmuel bar Acha went to Mechuza, Rav Papa was Makneh him the twelve thousand Dinarim that the bei Chuza'a owed him. Why was this necessary? Why could he not simply claim the money as Rav Papa's Shali'ach?

(d)How did Rav Papa demonstrate his joy at receiving his money back intact?

3)

(a)We try to refute the proof from the above Beraisa that, just as a coin cannot acquire with Chalipin, so too, can one not acquire it with Chalipin either by establishing the case when the friend did not have a Sudar (or anything else either) with which to acquire the owner's money.

(b)The problem with this explanation is that it is preposterous to suggest that according to Rav Papa, the Tana is coming to teach us a Halachah about a naked man who has nothing on him which might serve as a Kinyan Chalipin.

(c)When Rav Shmuel bar Acha went to Mechuza, Rav Papa was Makneh him the twelve thousand Dinarim that the bei Chuza'a owed him. This was necessary because otherwise, they would have refused to hand him the money, because they would have had to accept responsibility for any Onsin that might have occurred on the return journey.

(d)Rav Papa demonstrated his joy at receiving his money back intact by going to greet Rav Shmuel bar Acha as far as Tavach (or perhaps he did it to acknowledge the favor that Rav Shmuel bar Achah did for him).

4)

(a)What have we proved from this episode, from the fact that Rav Papa was Makneh the money together with the threshold of his house?

4)

(a)We have proved from this episode, from the fact that Rav Papa was Makneh the money together with the threshold of his house (and not by means of Chalipin) that Rav Papa retracted from his previous statement, and concedes that one cannot acquire a coin with Chalipin.

5)

(a)What do Ula, Rebbi Asi and Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan all say about using a coin as Chalipin?

(b)What does the Beraisa advise someone to do if his employees are claiming their wages, and he has no money on him, provided he has money at home? What is a 'T'risis'?

(c)How did Rebbi Aba query Ula from this Beraisa on the previous Sugya? What makes us think that the banker acquired the Dinar u'T'risis with Chalipin?

5)

(a)Ula, Rebbi Asi and Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan all agree that a coin cannot be used as Chalipin.

(b)If someone's employees are claiming their wages, and he has no money on him the Beraisa advises him to borrow a Dinar's worth of Perutos against the value of a Dinar and T'risis (a better-quality coin that is worth slightly more than a regular Dinar). that he has at home.

(c)Rebbi Aba queried Ula from this Beraisa on the previous Sugya in that, according to those who hold that a coin cannot be used as Chalipin, how would the fact that the employer had money at home help to remove the Isur Ribis? And what's more, in this case, it is a coin acquiring a coin through Chalipin.

6)

(a)Although Ula remained silent, he conceded that Rebbi Aba was right to establish the Beraisa by P'rutetos. What are P'rutetos? How does this answer the Kashya?

(b)And he even supported his answer from the Lashon 'Yafeh Dinar u'T'risis'. What does that prove?

(c)Rav Ashi disagrees. The Kashya doesn't bother him in the first place, because the employer had money at home. So what if he did?

6)

(a)Although Ula remained silent, he conceded that Rebbi Aba was right to establish the Beraisa by P'rutetos (plain un-minted copper pieces, which are considered Peiros and not currency).

(b)And he even supported his answer from the Lashon 'Yafeh Dinar u'T'risis' which implies that he did not have coins, only pieces of copper to the value of a Dinar plus a T'risis.

(c)Rav Ashi disagrees. The Kashya doesn't bother him in the first place, because the employer had money at home and as we learned above with regard to Peiros, as long as one has money at the time, it is as if he asked him for a loan until his son arrives with the key or until he finds the key (which is not considered a loan at all).

7)

(a)The Mishnah in Kidushin states 'Kol ha'Na'aseh Damim be'Acher, Keivan she'Zachah Zeh, Nischayev Zeh ba'Chalipin'. The simple interpretation of this Mishnah poses a Kashya on those who hold 'Ein Matbe'a Na'aseh Chalipin'. What is the simple interpretation of the Mishnah?

(b)Rav Yehudah therefore interprets the Mishnah as 'Kol ha'Nishum Damim be'Acher ... '. What does he mean by that?

(c)How do we prove this from the Seifa of the Mishnah 'Keitzad ... '. What does the Seifa of the Mishnah say?

7)

(a)The Mishnah in Kidushin states 'Kol ha'Na'aseh Damim be'Acher, Keivan she'Zachah Zeh, Nischayev Zeh ba'Chalipin'. The simple interpretation of this Mishnah that as soon as one of the men acquires the money (which is what is usually used as currency to pay for the object that one is buying), poses a Kashya on those who hold 'Ein Matbe'a Na'aseh Chalipin'/

(b)Rav Yehudah therefore interprets the Mishnah as 'Kol ha'Nishum Damim be'Acher ... ' by which he means that any Metaltelin that need to be assessed can be used for Chalipin (but not money, which does not).

(c)And we prove this from the Seifa of the Mishnah, which states 'Keitzad Hichlif Shor be'Parah O Chamor be'Shor'.

46b----------------------------------------46b

8)

(a)According to our initial understanding of 'Kol ha'Nishum Damim be'Acher ... ' (which those who learn 'Matbe'a Na'aseh Chalipin' will have to adopt), how will we explain the Seifa 'Keitzad ... ?'

(b)This can only go like Rav Sheshes, but not like Rav Nachman. What does ...

1. ... Rav Sheshes say?

2. ... Rav Nachman say?

(c)How will Rav Nachman then explain ...

1. ... the Reisha of the Mishnah ('Kol ha'Na'aseh Damim be'Acher')?

2. ... the Seifa ('Keitzad, Hichlif Shor be'Parah ... )? If it does not refer to Chalipin, then what does it refer to?

(d)In view of the principle that money cannot acquire, this case must be an exception, based on the fact that Rav Nachman holds like Rebbi Yochanan. What does Rebbi Yochanan say?

8)

(a)According to our initial understanding of 'Kol ha'Nishum Damim be'Acher ... ' (which those who learn 'Matbe'a Na'aseh Chalipin' will have to adopt), we will explain the Seifa 'Keitzad ... ' to mean that Peiros too, can be used as Chalipin (such as someone who swaps an ox for a cow ... [See Tosfos DH 'u'Peiri']).

(b)This can only go like Rav Sheshes, but not like Rav Nachman. Rav ...

1. ... Sheshes holds 'Peiri Avdi Chalipin'.

2. ... Nachman restricts Chalipin to a Kli (like a shoe, as we learned earlier).

(c)Rav Nachman therefore explains ...

1. ... the Reisha of the Mishnah ('Kol ha'Na'aseh Damim be'Acher') like the second interpretation ('Kol ha'Nishum Damim be'Acher').

2. ... the Seifa ('Keitzad, Hichlif Shor be'Parah ... ) to mean 'Yesh Damim she'Hein ka'Chalipin', suh as where Reuven sold Shimon an ox, which the latter acquired, but the payment remained outstanding. Should Shimon then offer Reuven a cow instead of the money, the deal is final, and neither can retract (just like a Kinyan Chalipin).

(d)In view of the principle that money cannot acquire, this case must be an exception, based on the fact that Rav Nachman holds like Rebbi Yochanan who says min ha'Torah money acquires, and it is only to safeguard the purchaser that Chazal require Meshichah (as we shall now see).

9)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, why did Chazal negate Kinyan Kesef?

(b)What makes the case in the Mishnah different, according to Rav Nachman?

(c)What does Reish Lakish hold? Why can he not possibly explain the Mishnah like Rav Nachman?

(d)How will Reish Lakish therefore explain our Mishnah?

9)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, Chazal negated Kinyan Kesef due to the fear that the seller will allow the sold article (that is no longer his, and for which he is not responsible) to burn, without bothering to save it ('Nisr'fu Chitecha ba'Aliyah').

(b)The case in our Mishnah is different, according to Rav Nachman, is the fact that people rarely use money that the seller has already received as a Kinyan (and generally, Chazal tend not to apply their decrees in unusual cases). Consequently, they left the Torah-law (that money acquires) intact.

(c)According to Reish Lakish money does not acquire min ha'Torah, in which case it would not acquire in the case of Rav Nachman either.

(d)Reish Lakish must therefore explain our Mishnah like Rav Sheshes, who holds that Peiros are eligible for Chalipin.

10)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah 'Kol ha'Metaltelin Konin Zeh es Zeh'. Reish Lakish explains that the word 'Kol' comes to include a purse full of money. What is the problem with that?

(b)How do we know that the Tana is speaking about Chalipin and not Kinyan Kesef?

(c)So Rav Acha establishes the Mishnah when one of the purses is full of coins taken out of circulation by the king, and the other one is full of coins that have simply lost favor with the people of that particular province. What is the difference between the two?

(d)Once we know ...

1. ... that the former are no longer considered currency, why do we need the latter?

2. ... that the latter are no longer considered currency, why do we need the former?

10)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah 'Kol ha'Metaltelin Konin Zeh es Zeh'. Reish Lakish explains that the word 'Kol' comes to include a purse full of money. Once again, this poses a Kashya on those who hold 'Ein Matbe'a Na'aseh Chalipin'.

(b)The Tana cannot be speaking about Kinyan Kesef because it is unanimously accepted that Kesef cannot acquire.

(c)Rav Acha therefore establishes the Mishnah in a case where one of the purses is full of coins taken out of circulation by the king which tend to remain in circulation clandestinely; whereas the other one is full of coins that have simply lost favor with the people but which remain in full circulation in other provinces under the king's jurisdiction.

(d)Even though we know ...

1. ... that the former are no longer considered currency, we need to be told that the latter are not considered currency either despite the fact that (unlike the former), they are full currency in other provinces.

2. ... that the latter are no longer considered currency, we need to be told about the former in spite of the fact that (unlike the latter), they are still clandestine currency in that province.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF