Clarification: Rashi explains 'Where the claim is be'Safek - such as the Shevu'ah of partners and sharecroppers who split up', as we learned in the Mishnah in Perek Kol ha'Nishba'in (Shevu'os, Daf 48b & 49a) 'If Arisin (sharecroppers) or partners split up, one cannot force the other to swear' ...

Clarification (cont.): ... and where the Tana continues 'If however, one of them is Chayav a Shevu'ah for another reason, he can force him to swear on that too.

Clarification (concl.): So we see that on a Safek too, one can add a Shevu'ah.

Question: Why does the Gemara ask for the source ...

Question (cont.): ... Why can one not learn a Kal va'Chomer fom Sotah, who is a Safek and yet one makes her add a Shevu'ah, despite the fact that one cannot make her swear with one witness, in which case we would be learning Safek from Safek?

Answer: The cases are not similar, seeing as there (by Sotah), all her (initial) Shevu'os are a Safek, which is why we can add on her another Safek ...

Answer:... whereas by Mamon, where the basic Shevu'ah is not on a claim of a Safek, we would have thought that one cannot add a Safek Shevu'ah.

Question: Why do we need the above Kal ve'Chomer to teach us that one adds a Shevu'ah? Why can we not learn from the D'rashah itself that one can add a Shevu'ah by Mamon ...

Question (cont.): ... with a Mah Matzinu, since 'It says Shevu'ah inside and Shevu'ah outside'?

Answer: If not for the Kal va'Chomer, we would not be able to learn it from a Mah Matzinu, since 'One can cannot learn Mamon from Isur'. ...

Answer (cont.): But once the Kal va'Chomer has revealed to us that we can learn Mamon from Isur, we can learn from the Mah Matzinu that Safek is like Vadai.

Halachah: And Tosfos' Rebbe says that one is not Megalgel by all S'feikos

Halachah (cont.): ... inasmuch as, if Reuven is Chayav a Shev'u'ah to Shimon, Shimon cannot simply make him also swear that he never stole anything from him ...

Halachah (concl.): Only where there is cause for suspicion - such as where he was his partner or an Aris does the Mishnah at the end of 'Kol ha'Nishba'in' say that one can add a Shevu'ah.

Inference: From here Rabeinu Tam learns that wherever we find this Lashon, such as in Nedarim (Daf 7b), in the case of 'Someone who hears his friend pronouncing the Name of Hash-m and who ought to have placed him in Niduy (Cherem) but didn't, he himself is in Cherem!' ...

Inference (cont.): It is not an automatic procedure, but one that must be performed by Beis-Din

Proof: ... as the Gemara says here 'We place him in Cherem' ...

Reason: ... and this is 'measure for measure' - Inasmuch as just he called his friend an Eved, who is cursed, so too do we curse him with 'Arur', which is a Cherem.

Reason (cont.): Likewise if he calls him a Mamzer, thereby accusing him (his father) of having transgressed a La'av, which is subject to Malkos, he too, will receive Malkos like someone who transgresses a La'av.

Clarification: Rashi explains that whatever one gives as payment when one acquires an object - with reference to a coin - and the Gemara currently thinks that the Mishnah is coming to teach us that a coin can be used as Chalipin.

Clarification: ... since it speaks where gave it to him in the form of Chalipin and not in the form of payment, in the same way that one acquires with a head-cloth - as the Pasuk writes in Rus, 4 "A man removed his shoe", and the moment the one acquires it, the other man acquires the swap (the article for which he is exchanging it).

Machlokes Rav & Levi: In Perek ha'Zahav (Bava Metzia, Daf 47a), Rav and Levi argue over whether Chalipin is performed with the Keilim of the Koneh (the purchaser) or of the Makneh (the seller) - Rav holds 'of the Koneh', Levi, 'of the Makneh'.

Rav #1: According to Rav it fits well if we have the text 'Since this one acquires ... the other one is liable ... ' ...

Clarification: ... and this is the explanation: As soon as the one - the Makneh, who receives the coin from the Koneh, acquires it, the other one (the Koneh) becomes liable for the Onsin of the swap, which is in the domain of the Makneh wherever it is; and should it get lost, the loss is his (the Koneh's).

Rav #2: Whereas if we do not have the text 'this one', then it is saying that as soon as the Makneh acquires the money or the Sudar of the Koneh, he - the Makneh, becomes obligated to give the Koneh the Chalipin, and he cannot retract.

Levi #1: Whereas Levi who says 'with Keilim of the Makneh, meaning - that the Makneh gives a P'rutah to the Koneh.

Clarification: If we have the text 'Nischayav Zeh', then it means that 'As soon as the Koneh acquires it, the other one (the Makneh) becomes obligated to give him the 'swap', and he is not permitted to retract.

Levi #2: Whereas if we do not have the text 'Zeh', then it means that, as soon as he - the Koneh, acquires the coin, he himself is liable for Onsin regarding the object, as Tosfos explained (See Masores ha'Shas).

Rav: According to Rav, this makes sense, as it means that 'The purchaser swapped his ox for the cow, in order to acquire the cow wherever it is ...

Question on Levi: But according to Levi it poses a Kashya - in that how will he explain 'Hichlif Shor be'Parah'?, seeing as the owner gave the purchaser both the ox and the cow, as they both belong to him?

Answer: The Ri answers that one can interpret 'Hichlif Shor be'Parah' to mean that the owner swapped the ox in exchange for the Hana'ah of the purchaser accepting the cow', since the purchaser accepted it from him on account of the ox that he was going to give him.

Implied Question: Even though as far as the Din of Kesef is concerned, we Pasken (in Bava Metzi'a, Daf 44a) that money cannot acquire', only drawing the article (Meshichah), but money only acquires with regard to being subject to a Mi she'Para (a curse if one retracts) ...

Answer: When he gives it to him in the form of a Kinyan Sudar, it becomes a swap, and he acquires the 'Sudar', as Rashi explains.

Question: According to those who hold that Peiros cannot become Chalipin, only a shoe (exclusively [and other Keilim]), on what grounds can a coin become Chalipin, seeing as it is not a K'li?

Answer #1: Rabeinu Tam explains that a coin is a sort of K'li, since it is fit to hang round his daughter's neck (See Bava Metzi'a, 52b).

Answer #2: Moreover, says the Ri, it is fit to use as a weight.

Answer #3: And one can say further, that since it is fit to purchase anything, it is considered a K'li See Masores ha'Shas).

Clarification: Rashi explains 'Anything that, if one wants to give it as payment for something else, it needs to be assessed - which incorporates all Metalt'lin except for money ...

Clarification (cont.): 'as soon as the one acquires it ... ' - And if one gives it in the form of Chalipin, its swap is acquired by the purchaser with the Meshichah with which the owner drew the article ...

Clarification (cont.): ... and he is coming to teach us the Din of Chalipin regarding Metalt'lin, inasmuch as, although it is not a Kl'm but Metalt'lin, it is Chalipin ...

Clarification (concl.): ... and it is not teaching us the Din of a coin ...

Clarification of Sugya: 'One can also infer this' - that it is not coming to teach us the Din of a coin ...

Clarification of Sugya (cont.): 'What is "Keitzad"? - It ought to have said "How (does it speak)? Where he swapped money for a cow?' ...

Clarification of Sugya (cont.): ... and it answers 'This is what it means ... ' - And it is teaching us two things; First of all it mentions a coin, and then it teaches us other Metalt'lin, and Peiros too ...

Clarification of Sugya (cont.): ... whatever is not a K'li is called 'Peiros' in the context of Chalipin ...

Reason: ... and it only mentions 'Peiros because fruit is common.

Clarification of Sugya (cont.): 'How? If he swapped an ox for a cow'

Explanation: ... even the body of an ox for a cow, and certainly a live ox, which is more Chashuv and which is similar to a K'li that one uses.

Clarification of Sugya (cont.): 'That is fine according to Rav Sheishes, who says that fruit can be used as Chalipin' - one can explain the entire Mishnah both according to the Havah Amina, and according to the Maskana "Kol ha'Nishum" ...

Clarification of Sugya (cont.): ... but according to Rav Nachman - what does "Keitzad" mean' - according to both the Havah Amina, and the current explanation?

Clarification of Sugya (cont.): And the Gemara answers 'There are cases where money is like Chalipin' - and the entire Mishnah is one case, and what it means is "Whatever is used to pay for other things" - money ...

Explanation: ... because sometimes money acquires like Chalipin of a shoe, even if one gives it in the form of payment ...

Clarification of Sugya (cont.): 'How is that? Where one swaps the value of an ox for a cow" - meaning if he sells the cow for a Manah and draws the ox, rendering himself Chayav to pay a Manah ...

Clarification of Sugya (cont.): And in reply to the seller's request as to whether he has a cow to sell for that money, he replies 'Yes'; Then, after assessing the value of the cow at one Manah, the seller of the ox says 'The money that you owe me is now yours as payment for the cow'; the money acquires without Meshichah of the cow, like Chalipin (up to here is the Lashon of Rashi).

Explanation #2: Others explain the Sugya differently. They establish the Machlokes Rav Nachman and Rav Sheishes specifically by Peiros, such as actual fruit or the body of an ox, but not by other Metalt'lin ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... and they interpret the Sugya according to the Havah Amina ...

Reason: Because according to the current way of understanding it, it goes well with Rav Nachman, who concedes that other Metalt'lin can be used as Chalipin, in which case Rav Nachman will be speaking even by a live ox, as it too, can be used as Chalipin.

Refutation: This is not correct however, since Rav Nachman's reason is clearly stated in Perek ha'Zahav (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 47a) ...

Refutation (cont.): ... because the Pasuk says "Shoe". 'A shoe, yes, but not anything else' - implying that only a shoe can be used, but that anything else, even a live ox, is not eligible for use as Chalipin.

Reinstatement: Both Rabeinu Chananel and the Ri uphold this explanation ...

Implied Question: And when, in the Gemara in Perek ha'Zahav, Rav Nachman states 'A shoe yes ... ' ...

Answer: ... he means anything that resembles a shoe, including Keilim that one uses, and an ox and a donkey themselves are comparable to a shoe, and can therefore be used as Chalipin, even according to the opinion that fruit cannot ...

Reason: ... for the reason that Rashi explained - they are similar to Keilim inasmuch as they are used and are fit for working.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And now, when the Gemara asks according to Rav Nachman, who says that Peiros cannot be used for Chalipin - the entire Sugya refers to what the Gemara initially thought, as Rashi explained ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... but according to Rav Yehudah, who says 'Kol ha'Nishum ... ', it goes well, even according to Rav Nachman, who explains 'How? if he swapped an ox for a cow and not the body of an ox ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): ... and the Gemara answers that what Rav Nachman means is that 'There are cases where money is like Chalipin' - In that case, both the Havah Amina and the Maskana fit nicely.

Introduction to Question: There is a Kashya on Rashi however, - since his explanation implies that the bodies of the ox and the cow are considered Peiros, and it is with regard to them that Rav Nachman says 'Peiros cannot be used as Chalipin' ...

Question: But we learned in the Mishnah in Perek ha'Sho'el (Ibid., Daf 100a) that 'If someone swaps a cow for a donkey, and it gave birth ... '?

Answer: One can however, explain there, that, according to the opinion that Peiros cannot be used for Chalipin, the Mishnah is talking about the value of the cow for a donkey, and it is the donkey that gave birth.

Question: The Kashya remains however from the Mishnah in Perek ha'Zahav (Ibid, Daf 47a) 'How much is your cow worth?' 'So much. And how much is your donkey worth?' So much' - And the Beraisa rules there that the one acquires the donkey with the Meshichah of the cow?

Conclusion: The explanation must therefore be that the body of an ox exclusively is considered Peiros, but a live ox or donkey are like a shoe, as Tosfos explained earlier.

Question: Why did the Chachamim uproot the Kinyan Mamon, which is mi'd'Oraysa, completely, to institute that Meshichah alone acquires and not money? ...

Question (cont.): They should have instituted that money, together with Meshichah acquires, in which case the Kinyan d'Oraysa would not be entirely uprooted?

Question (concl.): Nor would one then need to worry about the seller saying 'Your wheat got burned ... !', since as long as has not made a Meshichah, he is still able to retract.

Answer: It may sometimes happen that the purchaser draws the wheat, and if one would not acquire with Meshichah alone, it is he who would be able to say to the seller 'Your wheat got burned in the attic!'.

Question: Now too, seeing as money does not acquire, it may sometimes happen that the purchaser gives money to the seller before having drawn the wheat, and he will say to the seller 'Your money got burned in the attic!' ...

Answer: ... but that is nothing to worry about, since he is at least a Shomer Chinam - and seeing as 'Money can only be guarded in the ground' (Bava Metzi'a, 42a), 'Your money got burned' is not applicable (See Masores ha'Shas).