Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia Chapter 4

הַכֶּסֶף קוֹנֶה אֶת הַזָּהָב וְהַזָּהָב אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה אֶת הַכֶּסֶף. הַנְּחוֹשֶׁת קוֹנֶה אֶת הַכֶּסֶף וְהַכֶּסֶף אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה אֶת הַנְּחוֹשֶׁת. מָעוֹת הָרָעוֹת קוֹנוֹת אֶת הַיָּפוֹת וְהַיָּפוֹת אֵינָן קוֹנוֹת אֶת הָרָעוֹת. אֲסֵימָן קוֹנֶה אֶת הַמַּטְבֵּעַ וְהַמַּטְבֵּעַ אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה אֶת אֲסֵימָן. הַמִּיטַּלְטְלִין קוֹנִין אֶת הַמַּטְבֵּעַ וְהַמַּטְבֵּעַ אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה אֶת הַמִּיטַּלְטְלִין. זֶה הַכְּלָל. כָּל הַמִּיטַּלְטְלִין קוֹנִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. הַכֶּסֶף קוֹנֶה אֶת הַזָּהָב כול׳. זֶהוּ כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁלְּדָבָר. כָּל הַיָּרוּד מֵחֲבֵירוֹ קוֹנֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר אַשִּׁי. מָאן תַּנִּיתָהּ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֵּרִבִּי. אָמַר לֵיהּ אָבוֹי. חֲזוֹר בָּךְ וְתַנִּי כְהָדָא. הַזָּהָב קוֹנֶה אֶת הַכֶּסֶף. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לֵינָא חָזַר בִּי. דְּעַד דַּהֲוָה חֵילָךְ עָלַיִךְ אַתְנִיתָנִי. הַכֶּסֶף קוֹנֶה אֶת הַזָּהָב. מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי אָמְרָה. זָהָב כְּפֵירוֹת. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה. כֶּסֶף כְּפֵירוֹת. [מַתְנִיתָה דְּרִבִּי חִיָיה אָמְרָה. זָהָב כְּפֵירוֹת. מִלְּתֵיהּ אָמְרָה. כֶּסֶף כְּפֵירוֹת. כְּהָדָה] בְּרַת רִבִּי חִיָיה רוֹבָה אוֹזְפָת לְרַב דֵּינָרִין. אֲתַת שְׁאָלַת לָאֲבוּהּ. אֲמַר לָהּ. שְׁקִילִי מִינֵּיהּ דֵּינָרִין טָבִין וּתְקִילִין. מִבְּרַת רִבִּי חִיָיה יָלְפִין. אָמַר רִבִּי אִידִּי. אוֹף אַבָּה אֲבוֹי דִשְׁמוּאֵל בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי. מָהוּ לִלְווֹת דֵּינָרִין בְּדֵינָרִין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מוּתָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. אוֹף רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ תְּרֵיהוֹן מָרִין. מוּתָּר לִלְווֹת דֵּינָרִין בְּדֵינָרִין. קָרַט בְּקָרַט שָׁרֵי. לֵקָן בְּלֵקָן אָסוּר. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. כָּל הַנַּעֲשֶׂה דָּמִים בְּאַחֵר כֵּיוָן שֶׁזָּכָה זֶה נִתְחַיַיב בַּחֲלִיפָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שׁוֹר בְּפָרָה אוֹ חֲמוֹר בְּשׁוֹר. הָא צִיבּוּר בְּצִיבּוּר לֹא קָנָה. רַב יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב. אֲפִילוּ צִבּוּר בְּצִיבּוּר קָנָה. רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מִינָה בְשֵׁם רַב. הַמַחֲלִיף אברוקלון בְּאמבורוקלון קָנָה. רִבִּי זֵירָא רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. לָזֶה פָרָה וְלָזֶה חֲמוֹר וְהֶחֱלִיפוּ זֶה בָּזֶה. וּמָשַׁךְ בַּעַל הַחֲמוֹר אֶת הַפָּרָה וּבָא בַּעַל הַפָּרָה לִמְשׁוֹךְ הַחֲמוֹר וּמְצָאָהּ שְׁבוּרָה. בַּעַל הַחֲמוֹר עָלָיו לְהָבִיא הָרְאָיָיה שֶׁהָיָה הַחֲמוֹר שָׁלֵם בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמָּשַׁךְ. מָאן דְלָא סְבַר הָא מִילְּתָא לָא סְבַר בִּנְזָקִין כְּלוּם. אָמַר רִבִּי זֵירָא. לֵינָה סְבַר הָדָא מִילְּתָא וְלֵינָה סְבַר בִּנְזָקִין כְּלוּם. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הָיוּ בָהּ מוּמִין וְעוֹדָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ כול׳. רִבִּי חוּנָא רִבִּי פִּינְחָס רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה סָלְקוֹן גַּבֵּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לְגַדְּפָה. אָמְרִין קוֹמוֹי הָדָא וְאָמַר לוֹן. אֱמוֹר דְּבַתְרָהּ. נִכְנְסָה לִרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל הַבַּעַל צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָיה. וְלֹא הָאָב שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָיה. וְתֵימַר הַבַּעַל צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָיה. אוֹף הָכָא הַבַּעַל צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָיה. רִבִּי בָּא רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. לָזֶה פָרָה וְלָזֶה חֲמוֹר וְהֶחֱלִיפוּ. מָשַׁךְ בַּעַל הַחֲמוֹר אֶת הַפָּרָה לֹא קְנָאָהּ. חֲמוֹר מָהוּ שֶׁתִּקָּנֶה. רִבִּי בָּא אָמַר. קָנָה. רִבִּי יָסָא אָמַר. לֹא קָנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. אִית הָכָא מִילֵּי דְיוֹדֵי בָהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָדָם שֶׁאָמַר לַחֲבֵירוֹ. פָּרָתִי אֲנִי מְבַקֵּשׁ לִמְכּוֹר. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בְּכַמָּה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בְּח̇ דֵינָרִין. אֲזַל סָמְכֵיהּ גַּבֵּי טרפוניטיה. בְּצַפְרָא עֲבַר וְאַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ תַּמָּן קָאִים. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מָה אַתְּ עֲבִיד הָכָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אֲנָא בָּעִי מֵיסַב דֵּינָרִין דְּאַסְמִיכְתָּנִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מָה אַתְּ בָּעֵי מִיזְבּוֹן לָךְ בְּהוֹן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. חֲמוֹר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. חֲמוֹרָךְ אֶצְלִי. מָשַׁךְ זֶה לֹא קָנָה זֶה מָשַׁךְ זֶה לֹא קָנָה זֶה. אֶלָּא כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד נִקְנֶה בְגוּפוֹ.

MISHNAH: Ramat Gan 1974; Chapters XI,XIV. Silver acquires gold but gold does not acquire silver 8:1 Note 15 , Erubin 7:11 24d l. 3). But it is universally accepted that in rabbinic practice payment only establishes a claim to ownership and possession, not a fact. This is to avoid fraudulent transactions in which the seller sells non-existent goods and then claims that they were lost, e. g., by fire, between sale and delivery when they already were owned by the buyer but not yet in his possession. On the other hand, in a barter transaction taking possession by one party automatically transfers both ownership and possession to the other party ( Qiddušin 1:6 ). If a person loses because the other party who took money in a commercial transaction then refuses to go through with the sale and offers to refund the money, he can ask the court to publicly curse the defaulting party but he has no legal way to force completion of the sale ( Mishnah 2 ). But if the buyer took possession of the merchandise, then the sale is completed; the seller can force payment in court and is not required to take the article back. This means that transactions involving money are considered a kind of barter in which coins always are passive but never active objects of barter. There is no doubt that gold or silver bars are merchandise, objects of trade and barter. The question is about coins. If gold coins are exchanged for silver coins and vice-versa, the question is which of the species are considered as merchandise and which as coins in the transaction. The Babli and all sources depending on it (Mishnah and Tosephta mss.) state that “Gold acquires silver but silver does not acquire gold,” the opposite of the Yerushalmi. The Halakhah states that originally, the Yerushalmi Mishnah was identical with the Babli; the change can be dated to the early Third Century. D. Sperber has argued convincingly that this is not a question of gold or silver standard since both the Roman and the Parthian, later Persian, empires actually were on a gold-and-silver standard. But the Persian empire never experienced the disastrous manipulation of silver coinage which started with Caracalla and ended with the hyper-inflation of the military anarchy, only to be brought under control by Diocletian’s currency reform. By contrast, even the worst Roman emperors did not adulterate gold coinage (if they minted gold at all.) Therefore, in Babylonia silver coin was the common vehicle of trade while gold coin was used only in very large transactions or as a vehicle for hoarding. This means that silver coin was “money” but gold coin was “merchandise” even when gold coin did not trade at an agio over the official ratio. But in the Roman empire in the period of formulation of the Mishnah (roughly 190–230) silver coins changed from dependable vehicle of commerce to objects to be disposed of as quickly as possible; silver became a merchandise relative to gold coin. . Brass acquires silver but silver does not acquire brass. Bad coins acquire good ones but good ones do not acquire bad ones. A blank acquires a coin but a coin does not acquire a blank. Movables acquire coins but coins do not acquire movables 8:1 Note 15 , Erubin 7:11 24d l. 3). But it is universally accepted that in rabbinic practice payment only establishes a claim to ownership and possession, not a fact. This is to avoid fraudulent transactions in which the seller sells non-existent goods and then claims that they were lost, e. g., by fire, between sale and delivery when they already were owned by the buyer but not yet in his possession. On the other hand, in a barter transaction taking possession by one party automatically transfers both ownership and possession to the other party ( Qiddušin 1:6 ). If a person loses because the other party who took money in a commercial transaction then refuses to go through with the sale and offers to refund the money, he can ask the court to publicly curse the defaulting party but he has no legal way to force completion of the sale ( Mishnah 2 ). But if the buyer took possession of the merchandise, then the sale is completed; the seller can force payment in court and is not required to take the article back. This means that transactions involving money are considered a kind of barter in which coins always are passive but never active objects of barter. There is no doubt that gold or silver bars are merchandise, objects of trade and barter. The question is about coins. If gold coins are exchanged for silver coins and vice-versa, the question is which of the species are considered as merchandise and which as coins in the transaction. The Babli and all sources depending on it (Mishnah and Tosephta mss.) state that “Gold acquires silver but silver does not acquire gold,” the opposite of the Yerushalmi. The Halakhah states that originally, the Yerushalmi Mishnah was identical with the Babli; the change can be dated to the early Third Century. D. Sperber has argued convincingly that this is not a question of gold or silver standard since both the Roman and the Parthian, later Persian, empires actually were on a gold-and-silver standard. But the Persian empire never experienced the disastrous manipulation of silver coinage which started with Caracalla and ended with the hyper-inflation of the military anarchy, only to be brought under control by Diocletian’s currency reform. By contrast, even the worst Roman emperors did not adulterate gold coinage (if they minted gold at all.) Therefore, in Babylonia silver coin was the common vehicle of trade while gold coin was used only in very large transactions or as a vehicle for hoarding. This means that silver coin was “money” but gold coin was “merchandise” even when gold coin did not trade at an agio over the official ratio. But in the Roman empire in the period of formulation of the Mishnah (roughly 190–230) silver coins changed from dependable vehicle of commerce to objects to be disposed of as quickly as possible; silver became a merchandise relative to gold coin. . This is the rule: all movables acquire one another 1:6 . . HALAKHAH: “Silver acquires gold,” etc. This is a summary of the matter: Anything worth less that the other acquires the other. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, who stated this? Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi. His father told him, change your opinion and state the following: “Gold acquires silver.” He told him, I do not change my opinion since when your faculties were unimpaired, you instructed me to state: “Silver acquires gold.” The word of Rebbi implies that gold is like produce. The Mishnah implies that silver is like produce. [Rebbi Ḥiyya’s baraita implies that gold is like produce, but his word implies that silver is like produce, as in the following:] The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya’s daughter lent denars to Rav. She came and asked her father, who told her: Take from him good and full weight denars. Do we learn from Rebbi Ḥiyya’s daughter 89 (1981) pp. 217–218.] It is not stated whether the lender was Pazi or Martha. ? Rebbi Idi said, also Abba, Samuel’s father, asked before Rebbi: May one lend denars against denars? He answered him, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, also Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both instruct: It is permitted to lend denars against denars. Qerat against qerat is permitted, lekan against lekan is forbidden pp. 92–93) makes it probable that the last sentence is not R. Joḥanan’s and R. Simeon ben Laqish’s, but is the editor’s deduction from the preceding statement. He notes that qeraṭ can either be the Greek κεράτιον, a gold weight, 1/1728 libra aurei, in Dioclation’s system equal in value with the silver siliqua, 1/24 solidus, or Syriac קרטא, quarta ( pars sicli ), one denar. Since we are dealing with coins, the preferred meaning is that of siliqua, an honest silver coin which did not exist during R. Joḥanan’s lifetime. Lekan was proposed in Ma‘aśer Šeni 4:1, Note 22, as “small measure or weight”, i. e. local small change which in the Mishnah had been defined as merchandise when compared with silver. {The computation of R. Eliahu Fulda in Ma‘aśer Šeni 4:1, who wanted to prove that the lekan was 1/62.5 of a solidus, was already shown to be in error by H. Y. Sheftel [Encyclopedia of biblical and rabbinic coins, measures, weights, areas, and time, Berdiczew 1907 (Hebrew)]}. . There, we have stated: If anything is given instead of money, if one entered in possession, the other is obligated for its exchange 1:6, Note 521 . . Rebbi Joḥanan said, they stated this only about an ox for a cow, or a donkey for an ox; but heap against heap one did not acquire. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Even heaps among heaps he did acquire 1:6, Note 525 . If one of the parties took possession, the other party automatically obtained possession of the exchanged property. . Rebbi Abba bar Mina in the name of Rav: One who exchanged אברוקלון against אמברוקלון did acquire is: One who exchanged אמבורקלין against אמבורקלין did acquire. Arukh explains as “bundles of sheets” which in Italian (dialect of Rome) would be called ברוקלי (variants ברוקלון, ברוקלו) or (תרצילו, טורצלי, תרוצולו, תורצלו) .טרצילו. The second word is identified by Krauss in Additamenta ad librum Aruch Completum as turzello. M. Sachs (J. Levy, S. Krauss) identifies אמבורוקלון as Latin involucrum “wrapper; covering; envelope”, from involvo “to wrap up, roll up.”. Turzello, from Latin tortus “a twisting, winding”, from torqueo “to twist, to turn” is an acceptable translation of involucrum. In this interpretation, the statement implies that the laws of barter also apply if something is exchanged against an object of the same kind. It is difficult to understand why this should not be so. H. Y. D. Azulay, in his פתח עיניים, quotes from the ms. of R. Menaḥem di Lonzano בדיקלין באמה בדיקלין. E: אמלוקנין באמבוליקין. However, Maimonides connects the statement with the later Mishnaiot whose subject is the cancellation of a sale because of overcharging by the seller or underpaying by the buyer. He reads the statement as meaning that a barter is concluded the moment one of the parties takes possession of the object coming to him, and no legal recourse exists for the party realizing that he made a bad bargain. He must hold that אברוקלון and אמבורוקלון are two different objects. It is possible that he reads the two words as “needle” and “silk cloth” since he writes ( Mekhirah 13:1): “One who barters vessels agains vessels or animals against animals, even a needle for silk cloth or a kid goat for a horse, has no claim of overcharging since he might prefer a needle to silk cloth.” The horse is specifically exempt from the rules of overcharging in Halakhah 4, Note 132 . (Ravad objects and thinks that Maimonides misunderstood the Yerushalmi.) The commentary Migdal ‘Oz (R. Šem-Ṭob Gabbai) readsאמבורקלין אמטרקלין, but gives no explanation of the words beyond noting that these clearly denote different objects. . 1:6, Notes 532–542 . Rebbi Ze‘ira R. Abba. Since R. Ze‘ira objects to the statement in both texts, and the Qiddušin text is reproduced in the next paragraph, the attribution here is incorrect. , Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: One had a cow and one a donkey. They exchanged one for the other. The donkey’s owner took the cow. When the cow’s owner came to take the donkey and found that it had a fracture, the donkey’s owner had to bring proof that his donkey was well at the moment he took the cow. Anybody who does not agree to this does not know anything about civil law. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, I do not agree, I do not know anything about civil law. There, we have stated 7:9 . After the definitive wedding, the husband discovers that his bride has a bodily defect and divorces her for that. He does not want to pay her ketubah. A prima facie argument is that the defect happened where it was discovered. Therefore, if the bride was still in her father’s house, the father has to prove that at the time of the preliminary wedding his daughter was without blemish. If the bride now is in her husband’s house, the husband has to prove that she was already blemished at the preliminary wedding when he agreed to be financially responsible for her. Similarly, the rule is that if the donkey was in his first owner’s stable when the buyer found it with a broken leg that the stable’s owner has to prove that it was healthy at the time he took possession of the cow. : “If she had bodily defects, as long as she was in her father’s house,” etc. Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah went to visit Rebbi Yose to sharpen wits. They quoted the statement 7:9 . After the definitive wedding, the husband discovers that his bride has a bodily defect and divorces her for that. He does not want to pay her ketubah. A prima facie argument is that the defect happened where it was discovered. Therefore, if the bride was still in her father’s house, the father has to prove that at the time of the preliminary wedding his daughter was without blemish. If the bride now is in her husband’s house, the husband has to prove that she was already blemished at the preliminary wedding when he agreed to be financially responsible for her. Similarly, the rule is that if the donkey was in his first owner’s stable when the buyer found it with a broken leg that the stable’s owner has to prove that it was healthy at the time he took possession of the cow. and he told them, look at the next statement: “Once she entered the husband’s domain, the husband has to prove.” Would not the father have to prove? But you are saying that the husband has to prove; here also, the owner has to prove. 1:6, Notes 543–549 . The initial sentence is out of place in this paragraph; it should be the start of the preceding one, cf. Note 21 . The missing starting sentence would indicate that the parties to a trade determined the monetary value of the animals traded. No money actually changed hands because they agreed that the prices of the items exchanged were equal. The question now arises whether the transaction has to be classified as sell-and-buy, in which case each party has to take possession by an act of acquisition, or as barter, when the taking of possession of one party automatically transfers possession also to the other party. (Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: One had a cow and one a donkey. They exchanged them.) The donkey’s owner took the cow; he did not acquire it 1:6 , 60d l. 75, Note 543): A cow was originally sold for a fixed sum. Then the buyer had second thoughts and offered the seller a donkey instead of money. If now they exchange the animals, it is not barter. Since the first to take the other’s animal takes something for which he did not pay, and the sale was not a credit sale, he cannot have acquired the animal until the other party also takes his. The only problem left open is whether the second party also has to execute a conscious act of acquisition; this is required by R. Yose but waved by R. Abba. . Would the donkey be acquired? Rebbi Abba said, he acquired. Rebby Yasa said, he did not acquire. Rebbi Mana said, there is a situation in which Rebbi Yose would agree: A man said to another, I want to sell my cow. He asked him, for how much? He answered, for eight denars. He went and gave him a draft on his banker ( loc. cit. Note 19) reads טרפיזטא τραπεζίτης “banker”, the Greek equivalent of Mishnaic שׁוּלְחָנִי. In Qiddušin it simply says, “he gave him a draft for money, פריטייא”; the last term might refer to Greek πρατήριον, τό “place for selling, market” (E. G.) . In the morning he went and found him open for business. He asked him, what are you doing here? He answered, I want to collect the denars in the draft I have on you. He asked him, what do you want to buy with them? He answered, a donkey. He told him, your donkey is with me. If either of them took possession, the other did not acquire but each animal separately has to be taken in possession.

כֵּיצַד מָשַׁךְ מִמֶּנּוּ פֵּירוֹת וְלֹא נָתַן לוֹ מָעוֹת אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר נָתַן לוֹ מָעוֹת וְלֹא מָשַׁךְ לוֹ פֵירוֹת יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. אֲבָל אָמְרוּ מִי שֶׁפָּרַע מֵאַנְשֵׁי דוֹר הַמַּבּוּל עָתִיד לְהִיפָּרַע מִמִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד בְּדִבּוּרוֹ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר כָּל שֶׁהַכֶּסֶף בְּיָדוֹ יָדוֹ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה. כֵּיצַד מָשַׁךְ הֵימֶנּוּ פֵּירוֹת כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא. כְּתִיב כִּי מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ חָמָס מִפְּנֵיהֶם. וּמָה הָיָה חֲמָסָן. הֲוָה בַּר נַשׁ נְפִיק טְעִין קוּפָּה מְלֵיאָה תּוֹרְמוֹסִין וְהָיוּ מִתְכַּוְונִין וְנוֹטְלִין פָּחוֹת מִשָּׂוֶה פְרוּטָה דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בַדַּיָינִין. אָמַר רִבִּי חִיַיה בַּר וָָוה. רַבָּה רַבָּה. כְּמַעֲשֵׂי אֵילּוּ כֵּן מַעֲשֵׂי אֵילּוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וְלָא אָמְרִין לָהּ לְכָל אַפִּין. רַב יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב. מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה וְהוֹרָה רִבִּי כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר יוֹסֵף יְהַב דֵּינָר לְמִלְחָא. חֲזַר בֵּיהּ הַהוּא. אֲמַר. לָא יְדַע דִּכְבָר יְהָבוֹן מַגְלָא גַו שָׁקֵּיהּ דְּהַהוּא גַבְרָא. מִי שֶׁפָּרַע מֵאַנְשֵׁי דוֹר הַמַּבּוּל עָתִיד לִיפָּרַע מִמִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד בְּדִיבּוּרוֹ. חַד בַּר נַשׁ יְהַב דֵּינָרִין לַמֵּטַכְסָה. חֲזַר בֵּיהּ. אֲתַא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר יוֹסֵף וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר. אוֹ יִתֵּן לוֹ כְּדֵי עֵירָבוֹנוֹ אוֹ יִמְסוֹר אוֹתוֹ לְמִי שֶׁפָּרַע. וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אוֹ יִתֵּן לוֹ כָּל מִקְחוֹ אוֹ יִמְסוֹר אוֹתוֹ לְמִי שֶׁפָּרַע. רִבִּי לָא אָמַר. עֵירָבוֹן הָיָה. רִבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר. מִקְצַת דָּמִים נָתַן לוֹ. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר יוֹסֵף לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּמֶקַח שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לִיקָּנוֹת חֶצְיָין כְּגוֹן פָּרָה וְטַלִּית. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. טַבַּעַת אֵין בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם עֵירָבוֹן. כָּל הַנּוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן בִּדְבָרִים אֵין מוֹסְרִין אוֹתוֹ לְמִי שֶׁפָּרַע. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אָמַר לִיתֵּן מַתָּנָה לְחֲבֵירוֹ וּבִיקֵּשׁ לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ חוֹזֵר. [רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי בְּעָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּא. וְאָהֵין הוּא לָיו צֶדֶק הִין צֶדֶק.] אָמַר. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַר צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּדַעַת גְּמוּרָה. מִבָּתָר כֵּן אִין חָזַר בֵּיהּ לֹא חָזַר בֵּיהּ. הָדָא דְּתֵימַר בֶּעָנִי. אֲבָל בֶּעָשִׁיר נַעֲשֶׂה נֵדֶר. רַב מְפַקֵּד לַשַּׁמָּשֵׁיהּ. אֵימַת דְּנֵימַר לָךְ. תִּתֵּן מַתָּנָה לְבַר נַשׁ. אִין הֲוָה מִסְכֵּן הַב לֵיהּ מִיָּד. וְאִין עָתִיר אִימְלִיךְ בִּי תִּנְיָינוּת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן יְהַב דֵּינָרִין לִקְרִיבוֹי עַל מְשַׁח. יְקַר מְשַׁח. אָתָא שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי יַנַּאי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה מָעוֹת קוֹנִין. וְלָמָּה אָמְרוּ אֵין קוֹנִין. שֶׁלֹֹּא יֹאמַר לוֹ. נִשְׂרְפוּ חִיטֶּיךָ בָּעֲלִיָיה. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר סוֹסַרְטַאי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. אִם אָמַר לוֹ. נִשְׂרְפוּ חִיטֶּיךָ בָּעֲלִיָיה. נֶאֱמָן. רִבִּי יִצְחָק מַקְשֵׁי. מַה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּשֶׁקָּנוּ לוֹ מָעוֹתָיו שֶׁלּוֹ נִשְׂרְפוּ. וְאִי לֹא קָנוּ לוֹ מָעוֹתָיו שֶׁלָּזֶה נִשְׂרְפוּ. רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. בַּר נַשׁ דִּיהַב לְחַבְרֵיהּ י̇ דֵּינָרִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אִית לִי גַּבָּךְ ק̇ (דֵּינָרִין) [גַּרְבִּין] מֵהָדֵין בֵּיתָה. שָׁרֵי. מֵהָדֵין כַּרְמָא. אָסוּר. מַה בֵין כֵּרֵם לַבַּיִת. בַּיִת אֵינוֹ מָצוּי לִיפּוֹל. כֶּרֶם מָצוּי לִיפּוֹל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אַתְּ שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ. בַּר נַשׁ דִּיהַב לְחַבְרֵיהּ י̇ דֵּינָרִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. בִּמְנָת דְּתֵיקוּם לִי בְהוֹן ק̇ גַּרְבִּין. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁלַח יָדוֹ בָהֶן צָרִיךְ לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ מִקְחוֹ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. אוֹ קָנֹה מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ. מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ אַתְּ צָרִיךְ מְשִׁיכָה. אֵין אַתְּ צָרִיךְ מְשִׁיכָה מִיָּד הַגּוֹי. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. לְאֵי זֶה דָבָר מוֹסְרִין אוֹתוֹ לְמִי שֶׁפָּרַע. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. וַתְיָיא כְּהֵין תַּנָּאָה דְתַנֵּי. הַנּוֹשֵׂא וְהַנּוֹתֵן בִּדְבָרִים אֵין מוֹסְרִין אוֹתוֹ לְמִי שֶׁפָּרַע.

MISHNAH: How is this? If he collected from him the produce but did not give him the money, he cannot retract. If he gave the money but did not collect the produce, he can retract, but they said: He Who exacted retribution from the people of the Flood will in future collect from him who does not keep his word. Rebbi Simeon said, the one who holds the money is advantaged. HALAKHAH: “How is this? If he collected the produce from him,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa said, it is written: “For the earth was filled with oppression because of them. 6:13 . Gen. rabba 31(5 ), in the name of R. Ḥanina. ” What was their oppression? If a person came carrying a box full of lupines they all asembled and each one was taking less than the worth of a peruṭah, a case which cannot be brought before the judges. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, “much, much” 6:5 about the generation of the flood; Gen. 18:20 about Sodom and Gomorrha, identical expressions. Gen. rabba 28(3 ); R. Berekhiah in the name of R. Joḥanan. . The acts of these were identical to the acts of those. Rebbi Ḥanina said, practice follows Rebbi Simeon, but we do not say this in all cases. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: A case came before Rebbi and he instructed following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph gave a denar for salt. That one reneged. He said, does he not know that already a sickle is put on the thigh of that man, “He Who exacted retribution from the people of the Flood will in the future collect from him who does not keep his word”? 2:1, Notes 101–107 . A person paid for raw silk. He reneged. The case came before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph and Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, either he delivers for the amount of the pledge or one may turn him over to “Him Who exacted retribution.”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, either he delivers the entire contract or one may turn him over to “Him Who exacted retribution. 2:1, Note 106 . ” Rebbi La said, it was a case of a pledge; Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he had given him partial payment. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan in a sale which is not usually split, such as of a cow or a stole. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A ring does not have the status of a pledge 10:9, Note 131; Babli 48b . . Nobody dealing in words onlymay one deliver to “Him Who exacted retribution” 10:9, Notes 129–130; Babli 49a , Tosephta 3:14 . As long as there was no action of acquisition, the person who goes back on his word can be considered untrustworthy but is not subject to judicial censure. . Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one promised a gift to another and wanted to renege on it, he may renege. 10:9, Notes 133–142; Ma‘aśer Šeni 4:7 Note 129 Babli 49a . [Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Is that “true no, true yes 19:36 . ”?] 10:9, Note 134 ; Giṭṭin 6:1, Note 39 . He said, at the moment when he said it, he had to speak with full deliberation text, it is R. Jacob bar Zavdi who gives the answer to R. Yose [ Babli 49a , Bekhorot 13b ; Sifra Bekhorot Pereq 8(7)]. . After that, if he changes his mind, he cannot change it, that is, if [the recipient] is poor 1:6 . Kaftor waPeraḥ Chapter 44 reads: “If somebody promised to give a gift and wants to change his mind, he may change his mind. But if he said, I am speaking with full deliberation, he cannot change his mind. That is, for a rich recipient. But for a poor recipient it becomes a vow.” This seems to be more of a paraphrase than an exact quote. . But for a rich person, is that a vow? Rav commanded his servant: If I tell you to give a gift to a person, if he is poor, give it to him immediately. But if he is rich, take counsel with me a second time 10:9 that Rav never changed his mind once he had promised a gift. . Rebbi Joḥanan gave denars to a relative of his for oil. The oil rose in price. He went and asked Rebbi Yannai who told him, by Torah standards money acquires, but why did they say it does not acquire? Lest [the seller] tell him, your wheat was burned in the storage room81b , 7:1 (24d l. 3); Ḥulin 83a ; Qiddušin 26a , 28b ; Ševi‘it 8:1 (38a l. 2) Note 15 . The opinion attributed here to R. Yannai is that of R. Joḥanan in the Babli, of R. Simeon ben Laqish in the Yerushalmi Erubin and Ševi‘it . . Rebbi Samuel ben Sosartai in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: If [the seller] told him, your wheat was burned in the storage room, he is trustworthy. Rebbi Isaac objected: Where do we hold? If his money had acquired for him, his property would have been burned. But if his money had not acquired for him, the other’s property was burned. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A person who gave ten denars to another and told him, I have to get from you 100 (denars) is the reading of the Leiden ms. and the editio princeps ; but it is impossible. Barrels is the reading of E, supported by the quote in Sefer Ha‘iṭṭur I, p. 22 (Note 92): גרבין חמרא Wine barrels, copied in Mordekhai Bava meṣi‘a #449 as גריוי 10. gold denars would be an appropriate price for 100 clay barrels of wine. [barrels] from that house, is permitted; from that vineyard, is prohibited 5:5, Note 113 . . What is the difference between house and vineyard? A house is not expected to collapse, a vineyard occasionally collapses. Rebbi Yose said, you understand from this that if a person gave ten denars to another and told him, I have to get 100 barrels from you, once he (accepted by Mordekhai, loc. cit .), R. Yose states that for wine, already stored in barrels, the argument of R. Yannai does not apply and the sale was concluded by the seller accepting the money. This argument is justly rejected by R. Joseph Caro ( Bet Yosef Ḥošen Mišpaṭ 199,2) as against talmudic principles. In addition, while wine in clay barrels stored in a stone cellar is not likely to be burned, it easily may be lost by breakage of the barrels. Therefore, it seems that this paragraph is a direct continuation of the previous one and R. Ḥanina’s ruling that practice follows R. Simeon is qualified further in that the seller has lost his right of refusal once he used the money in his business. The biblical expression שָׁלַח יָד בְּ ( Ex. 22:7 ) means “illegally to take” (for one’s own use). used them he is required to deliver the merchandise. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “or buying from your neighbor’s hand” 25:14 , containing the prohibition of overcharging or underpaying in commercial transactions. , from you neighbor’s hand you need an act of acquisition; you do not need an act of acquisition from the Gentile’s hand. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, why does one deliver a person to “Him Who exacted retribution” deliver a person to “Him Who …”? ? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it follows the Tanna who stated: “Nobody dealing in words only may one deliver to “Him Who exacted retribution” 10:9, Notes 129–130; Babli 49a , Tosephta 3:14 . As long as there was no action of acquisition, the person who goes back on his word can be considered untrustworthy but is not subject to judicial censure. .

הַהוֹנָאָה אַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף לַסֶּלַע שְׁתוּת לַמֶּקַח. עַד אֵימָתַי מוּתָּר לְהַחֲזִיר עַד כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּרְאֶה לַתַּגָּר אוֹ לִקְרוֹבוֹ. הוֹרָה רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן בְּלוֹד הַהוֹנָיָיה שְׁמוֹנָה כֶסֶף לַסֶּלַע שְׁלִישׁ לַמֶּקַח וְשָׂמְחוּ תַגָּרֵי לוֹד. אָמַר לָהֶן כָּל הַיּוֹם מוּתָּר לְהַחֲזִיר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ יַנִּיחַ לָנוּ רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן אֶת מְקוֹמֵינוּ וְחָזְרוּ לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. אֶחָד הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְאֶחָד הַמּוֹכֵר יֵשׁ לָהֶם הוֹנָיָיה. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוֹנָיָיה לַהֶדְיוֹט כָּךְ הוֹנָיָיה לַתַּגָּר. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵין לַתַּגָּר הוֹנָיָיה. מִי שֶׁהוּטַּל עָלָיו יָדוֹ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ תֶּן לִי אֶת מָעוֹתַי אוֹ תֶן לִי מַה שֶׁהוֹנִיתַנִי. הָאוֹנָאָה אַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף כול׳. רַב אָמַר שִׁיעוּר הוּא. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. לֵית הוּא שִׁיעוּרָא. רַב אָמַר. כָּל הַנּוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן בִּמְנַת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אוֹנָאָה יֵשׁ לוֹ אוֹנָאָה. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי לֵוִי. הָאוֹנָאָה פְרוּטָה וְהַהוֹנָאָה פְרוּטָה. אֶלָּא הוֹנָאָה עַצְמָהּ מַהוּ. תַּנֵּי. נִקְנֶה הַמֶּקַח חוֹזֵר לוֹ הוֹנָיָיתוֹ. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. בָּטֵל מִקְחוֹ. כַּהֲנָא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רַב. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהַמּוֹכֵר מִתְאוּנֶּה מִתְאוּנֶּה עַד חוֹמֶשׁ. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהַלּוֹקֵחַ מִתְאוּנֶּה מִתְאוּנֶּה עַד שְׁתוּת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הִיא הוֹנָיָיתוֹ וּמִצְטָרְפִין עַד שְׁתוּת. מָכַר לוֹ שָׁוֶה ה̇ בְּו̇ יְכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ. חַד דֵּינָר אִיגְרַבְתְּ. סַב דֵּינָרָךְ. אֲמַר רִבִּי זֵירָא. יְכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ. לֵית אִיקְרִי דִיהֲוֹן בִּרְיָיתָא אָמְרִין. פְּלוֹנִי אִיגְחָךְ. וְאִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר. יְכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ. לֵית הוּא יְקָרִי מַלְבּוּשׁ בְּה̇ דֵּינָרִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה אָמְרֵי. מַה טַעֲמָא דְאָהֵן תַּנָּיָיא. יְדַע אֲנָא דְּלָא הֲוָות מִיקָמְתִי טָבָא אֶלָּא ה̇ דֵּינָרִין. עַל דַּהֲוָות דְּחִיק לֵיהּ יְהָבִי אשִׁתָּה דֵינָרִין. סַב דִּידָךְ וְהַב דִּידִי. מָכַר לוֹ שָׁוֶה ה̇ בְּו̇. לֹא הִסְפִּיק לִישָּׂא וְלִיתֵּן עַד שֶׁהוֹקִיר מִשֶּׁבַע. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁבָּטֵל מֶקַח מֵאֵצֶל זֶה כָּךְ בָּטֵל מִזֶּה. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. אַרְבַּע מִידּוֹת בַּמּוֹכְרִין. מָכַר לוֹ חִטִּים יָפוֹת וְנִמְצְאוּ רָעוֹת לוֹקֵחַ יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. רָעוֹת וְנִמְצְאוּ יָפוֹת מוֹכֵר יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. [הָא הַלּוֹקֵחַ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ.] אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. וַתְיָיא כְּהֵן תַּנָּא. הַנּוֹשֵׂא וְהַנּוֹתֵן בִּדְבָרִים אֵין מוֹסְרִין אוֹתוֹ לְמִי שֶׁפָּרַע.

MISHNAH: Cheating25:14 . Overcharges of less than 16 2/3% are not recoverable in court. is four obols per tetradrachma of 24 obols, one sixth of the sale price. Until when may one return [the merchandise]? Until one can show it to a trader or a relative. Rebbi Tarphon instructed in Lydda that cheating is eight obols per tetradrachma, a third of the sale price, and the traders of Lydda were rejoicing. He told them, one may return [the merchandise] the entire day; they said, let Rebbi Tarphon keep our place quiet; they returned to the words of the Sages. Just as a private person can be cheated, so a trader can be cheated. Rebbi Jehudah says, a trader has no claim of being cheated. The person overcharged has the advantage; if he so desires, he says, give me my money back, or give me back by what you overcharged me. HALAKHAH: “Cheating is four obols,” etc. Rav said, this is the rate; Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is not the rate. Rav said, if somebody trades on condition that the rules of cheating not apply to him, the rules of cheating do apply to him 9:1 . . Rebbi Levi stated: Cheating applies to a peruṭah, cheating can be by a peruṭah ) In the Babli, Rav Cahana denies the applicability. E reads וההודאה שוה פרוטה “the confession of a peruṭah ’s worth” instead of וההונאה פרוטה. This is an echo of Mishnah 6 and Šebuot 6:1 and is out of place here. . But what is the status of cheating? It was stated: The item was acquired, he returns the overcharge, the words of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince; Rebbi Joḥanan said, the sale is annulled. Cahana asked before Rav: If the seller is being cheated, he is cheated up to a fifth; if the buyer is being cheated, he is cheated up to a sixth! He answered him, it and the amount of cheating add up to a sixth. If he sold him what was worth five for six, can [the seller] not say, you were taken in for a denar, take your denar! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the other can say to him, it is not to my honor that people say, this one was made a laughing stock. Some say, he can say to him, it is not to my honor to wear a garment of five denars. Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Hoshaia say, what is that Tanna’s reason? “I know that my merchandise was worth only five denars, but because he needed it, I gave it to him for six. Take yours and return mine.” If he sold him what was worth five for six; [the buyer] did not have time to ask around until it appreciated to be worth seven. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Since the sale is annulled for one, it also is annulled for the other. There, we have stated 5:8 . : “Four situations in sales. If he sold him high quality wheat and it turned out to be low quality, the buyer can annul the transaction. Low quality and it turned out to be high quality, the seller can annul the transaction.” [Therefore, the buyer cannot annul the transaction.] was quoted to contradict R. Joḥanan’s statement that the seller can annul the sale because the buyer could. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it follows this Tanna: “Nobody dealing in words only may one deliver to “Him Who exacted retribution” 10:9, Notes 129–130; Babli 49a , Tosephta 3:14 . As long as there was no action of acquisition, the person who goes back on his word can be considered untrustworthy but is not subject to judicial censure. 83b/84a flatly rejects the possibility that a dishonest trader enjoy a privilege from which the honest trader was barred. .

וְכַמָּה תְהֵא הַסֶּלַע חֲסֵירָה וְלֹא יְהֵא בָהּ הוֹנָיָיה. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר אַרְבָּעָה אִיסּוֹרוֹת מֵאִיסָּר לַדֵּינָר. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אַרְבָּעָה פוּנְדְיוֹנוֹת מִפּוּנְדְּיוֹן לַדֵּינָר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר שְׁמוֹנֶה פוּנְדְיוֹנוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי פוּנְדְיוֹנוֹת לַדֵּינָר. וְכַמָּה תְהֵא הַסֶּלַע חֲסֵירָה כול׳. תַּנֵּי. יוֹתֵר מִיכֵּן מוֹצִיאָהּ בְּשָׁוֶה. סֶלַע עַד שֶׁקֶל דֵּינָר עַד רוֹבַע. פָּחוֹת מִיכֵּן אֲפִילוּ הוּא כְאִיסָּר אֵין יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאָהּ. הָיְתָה יוֹצָא עַל אֲסֵימוֹן בְּסֶלַע וְעַל הַמַּטְבֵּעַ בְּשֶׁקֶל. עַל אֲסֵימוֹן בְּשֶׁקֶל וְעַל הַמַּטְבֵּעַ בְּסֶלַע. אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא צוּרַת הַמַּטְבֵּעַ. לֹא יִתְּנָהּ לֹא לְחָרַם וְלֹא לְהָרַג מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְרַמִּין בָּהּ אֶת אֲחֵרִים. אֶלָּא נוֹקְבָהּ וְתוֹלָהּ בְצַוָאר בְּנוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. בְּדֵינָרִין וּבִסְלָעִין. אֲבָל בְּדֵינָר זָהָב וּבְמַטְבֵיעוֹת כֶּסֶף מוֹצִיאִין בְּשָׁוֵייהֶן. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמּוֹצִיאִין לַחוּלִין כָּךְ מוֹצִיאִין לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִתְכַּוֵּין לְהוֹצִיאָן.

MISHNAH: By how much could a tertradrachma be deficient without it being cheating? Rebbi Meïr says four assarii, one assarius per denar. Rebbi Jehudah says four dupondii, a dupondius per denar. Rebbi Simeon says eight dupondii, two dupondii per denar = 12 dupondii = 24 assarii. R. Simeon holds that the standards for coins are the universal standards for everything else. R. Jehudah admits a tolerance of 8.33%, R. Meïr only 4.166%. . HALAKHAH: “By how much could a tertradrachma be deficient,” etc. It was stated: “More than that he spends it for its worth, a tetradrachma up to a šeqel is two denars, half a tetradrachma (a Tyrian šeqel). The quarter šeqel then is half a denar. , a denar up to a quarter [ šeqel ]. If it is less than this even by an assarius, he may not spend it. If it was circulating as a blank for a tetradrachma or as a šeqel coin, as a blank for a šeqel or as a tetradrachma coin, he only has the shape of the coin. He should give it neither to a person who condemns property 3:4–5, Note 97 . nor to a tax assessor 3:4–5, Note 97 . since they defraud people, but he drills a hole into it and hangs it on his son’s neck. When has this been said? About tetradrachmas and denars. But gold denars and silver coins one may spend according to their value. Just as one spends it for profane things one may spend it for Second Tithe provided one does not plan it 2:7, Note 96). .”

עַד אֵימָתַי מוּתָּר לְהַחֲזִיר. בַּכְּרַכִּין עַד כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּרְאֶה לַשּׁוּלְחָנִי וּבַכְּפָרִין עַד עַרְבֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת. אִם הָיָה מַכִּירָהּ אֲפִילוּ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ מְקַבְּלָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ וְאֵין לוֹ עָלָיו אֶלָּא תַּרְעוֹמֶת. וְנוֹתְנָהּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֶלָּא נֶפֶשׁ רָעָה. הַהוֹנָיָיה אַרְבָּעָה כֶסֶף. וְהַטַּעֲנָה שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף. וְהַהוֹדָיָיה שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. חָמֵשׁ פְּרוּטוֹת הֵן הַהוֹדָיָיה שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה וְהָאִשָּׁה מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת בְּשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. הַנֶּהֱנֶה שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ מָעַל. הַמּוֹצֵא שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז. הַגּוֹזֵל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה וְנִשְׁבַּע לוֹ יוֹלִיכֶנּוּ אַחֲרָיו אֲפִילוּ לְמָדַי. חֲמִשָּׁה חוּמְשִׁין הֵן. הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי וְהַחַלָּה וְהַבִּיכּוּרִים מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ. הַפּוֹדֶה נֶטַע רְבָעִי וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁלּוֹ מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ. הַפּוֹדֶה אֶת הֶקְדֵּישׁוֹ מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ. הַנֶּהֱנֶה שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ. הַגּוֹזֵל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה וְנִשְׁבַּע לוֹ מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ. עַד אֵימָתַי מוּתָּר לְהַחֲזִיר כול׳. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. לְצוֹרְפָהּ בִּירוּשָׁלֵם מְצָרְפָהּ כְּיָפָה. בָּא לְחַלְּלָהּ בִּגְבוּלִין מְחַלְּלָהּ בְּרָעָה. וְהָתַנִּינָן. בּוֹרֵר הַיָּפָה שֶׁבָּהֶן וּמְחַלְּלָן עָלֶיהָ. וְיָבוֹר הָרָעָה וְיַעֲשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ [כְּיָיפָה]. אָמַר. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא הָכָא שֶׁכְּבָר הוּכַח בּוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי. נוֹתְנָהּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֶלָּא נֶפֶשׁ רָעָה. יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי סִימוֹן. כָּל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקַרְנוֹ שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה אֵין מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. כָּל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי שֶׁאֵין בְּחוּמְשׁוֹ שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה אֵין מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ. אִית מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָה לְדֵין וְאִית מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָה לְדֵין. דְּתַנֵּי. מִמַּעְשְׂרוֹ. פְּרָט לְפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. הָדָא אָמְרָה. עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בְקַרְנוֹ שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. תַּנָּיֵי חוֹרָן תַּנֵּי. מִמַּעְשְׂרוֹ חֲמִישִּׁיתָיו. פְּרָט לְפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. הָדָא אָמְרָה. עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בְחוּמשׁוֹ שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. אָמַר רָבִין בַּר מָמָל. מַתְנִיתָא לָא כְהָדֵן וְלָא כְהָדֵן. דְּתַנִּינָן. ה̇ פְרוּטוֹת הֵן. וְלֹא תַנִּינָן עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בְקַרְנוֹ שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. וְתַנִּינָן ה̇ חוּמְשִׁין הֵן. וְלֹא תַנִּינָן עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בְחוּמְשׁוֹ שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה.

MISHNAH: How much time does one have to return it? In walled cities until one can show it to a banker, in villages until Sabbath eve. If he recognizes it, he should take it back even after twelve months, but he has only a complaint against him. He may use it for Second Tithe without hesitation since it is only miserly 2:7, Note 96). ’ 1:1, Note 3 ) when food can no longer be eaten in purity, the coin has to be destroyed. For that purpose it even is preferable to use defective coins. . Cheating is by four oboli, claim is about two oboli, confession is about one peruṭah Mishnah Šebuot 6:1. . There are five peruṭot appears as minimal standard in five legal categories. : Confession is about one peruṭah Mishnah Šebuot 6:1. ; a woman is preliminarily married by one peruṭah ’s worth 1:1 . ; one who used one peruṭah ’s worth of Temple property committed larceny 5:15–16 . ; one who finds one peruṭah’ s worth has to make it public; one who robbed another of one peruṭah ’s worth and swore about it, has to return it to him even in Media 9:7 . . There are five fifths: He who eats heave, or heave of the tithe 6:1; Lev. 22:14 , Num. 18:26 . , or heave of the tithe of demay (produce of which it is not known whether it was tithed), but not to the heave of its tithe; Mishnah Demay 1:2, Note 67 . , or ḥallah 15:20 . , or first fruits 2:1 . , adds a fifth. He who redeems his vineyard in the fourth year19:24 , 27:31 . or his Second Tithe 5:5; Deut. 14:25 . , adds a fifth. He who redeems his own gifts to the Temple, adds a fifth. He who used one peruṭah ’s worth of Temple property, adds a fifth 5:15–16 . . He who robbed another of one peruṭah ’s worth and swore about it, adds a fifth 5:24 . . HALAKHAH: “How much time does one have to return it,” etc. 2:7, Notes 96–98. It is clear that an underweight coin in Jerusalem in Temple times, when silver coinage was honest silver, could be spent according to its true value by weight. The Mishnah permits to redeem Second Tithe by an underweight coin as if it were full weight. The question asked is why Mishnah Ma‘aśer Šeni 2:6 requires one to choose the better one for Second Tithe if two similar coins, one of Second Tithe and one profane, were commingled and it is not known which one is the sanctified one. Since one may use an underweight coin for redemption, why does one have to choose the fuller weight coin in case of doubt? Ḥizqiah said, to add it for Jerusalem, he adds it as good coin. If he uses it to redeem in the countryside, he redeems with the underweight coin. But did we not state: “He chooses the better one of the two and exchanges it for them”? Why can he not take the worse [coin] and treat it [as a good one]. He: R. Jonah. said, there is a difference here because it already was shown to be Second Tithe. “He may use it for Second Tithe without hesitation since it is only miserly.” 4:3, Notes 57–63. Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simon R. Yose ben R. Simon) in the name of R. Joḥanan. : One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which in itself is not worth a peruṭah. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭah quotes only the second opinion. . A baraita supports the one, a baraita supports the other. As it was stated: “From its tithe,. 27:31 . ” except what is worth less than a peruṭah .12(10 ); Babli 53b . This means, not unless itself is worth a peruṭah. Another Tanna states: “From its tithe. 27:31 . , its fifths 5:23 . The plural “fifths” is interpreted to mean that if somebody is obligated to pay a fifth and then reneges and swears falsely that he does not owe it, the first fifth becomes principal on which another fifth is due. This may continue until the fifth becomes less that a peruṭah. Sifra Wayyiqra Parašah 13(12); Babli 53b . ” except if it is worth less than a peruṭah. This means, not unless the fifth is worth a peruṭah. Rebbi Abin bar Mamal he is called Abba bar Mamal. There, it is shown that quite a number of “ perutot” are missing from the Mishnah. said, our Mishnah follows neither one since we have stated “there are five peruṭot ”, but we did not state “not unless itself is worth a peruṭah ”; we have stated “there are five fifths”, but we did not state “not unless the fifth is worth a peruṭah ”.

וְאֵילּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן הוֹנָיָיה. הָעֲבָדִים וְהַשְּׁטָרוֹת וְהַקַּרְקָעוֹת וְהַהֶקְדֵּישׁוֹת. אֵין בָּהֶן לֹא תַשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְלֹא תַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר קֳדָשִׁים שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב בְּאַחֵרָיוּתָן יֵשׁ לָהֶן הוֹנָיָיה וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָיב בְּאַחֵרָיוּתָן אֵין לָהֶן הוֹנָיָיה. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אַף הַמּוֹכֵר סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה בְּהֵמָה וּמַרְגָּלִית אֵין לָהֶן הוֹנָיָיה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא אֶת אֵילּוּ. וְאֵילּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן הוֹנָיָיה כול׳. תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. אַף סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה בְּהֵמָה וּמַרְגָּלִית אֵין לָהֶן אוֹנָאָה. סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה אֵין קֵץ לְדָמָיו. בְּהֵמָה וּמַרְגָּלִית צְרִיכִין לְזַוְוגָּם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. וַהֲלֹא הַכֹּל אָדָם רוֹצֶה לְזַוֵּיג. תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָה אוֹמֵר. סַיִיף וְסוּס וּתְרִיס בַּמִּלְחָמָה אֵין לָהֶן הוֹנָיָיה.

MISHNAH: The following are not under the rules of cheating: Slaves 25:45 , Gentile slaves are put under the rules of real estate. , securities 25:14 ) is the paper; therefore the IOU is not under the rules of that verse. , real estate 25:14 only refers to movables. , and Temple property 25:14 only refers to “your neighbor,” not to public property. ; they are not under the rules of double or quadruple or quintuple restitution. An unpaid trustee does not have to swear, a paid trustee does not pay. Rebbi Simeon says, sacrifices which he is obligated to warrant 25:14 . But if he vows to offer “this animal”, he has fulfilled his duty at the moment the animal was delivered to the Temple. After that it is Temple property; cf. Mishnah Bava qamma 7:5 . are under the rules of cheating; those for which he is not obligated to warrant are not under the rules of cheating. Rebbi Jehudah says, also he who sells a Torah scroll, an animal, or a pearl is not under the rules of cheating. They told him, they said only these. HALAKHAH: “The following are not under the rules of cheating,” etc. It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, also a Torah scroll, an animal, and a pearl are not under the rules of cheating. A Torah scroll, for its value is infinite. An animal and a pearl need to be paired. They said to him, does not a person want to pair everything?” It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says, a sword, a horse, and a shield are not under the rules of cheating at wartime.”

כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוֹנָיָיה בְּמֶקַח וּבְמִמְכָּר כָּךְ הוֹנָיָיה בִדְבָרִים. לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ בְּכַמָּה חֵפֶץ זֶה וְהוּא אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לִיקַּח. אִם הָיָה בַעַל תְּשׁוּבָה לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ זְכוֹר מַעֲשֶׂיךְ הָרִאשׁוֹנִים. אִם הוּא בֶּן גֵּרִים לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ זְכוֹר מַה הָיוּ מַעֲשֵׂה אֲבוֹתֵיךָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְגֵר לֹא תוֹנֶה וְלֹא תִלְחָצֶנּוּ כִּי גֵרִים הֱיִתֶם בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. אֵין מְעָרְבִין פֵּירוֹת בְּפֵירוֹת אֶפִילוּ חֲדָשִׁים בַּחֲדָשִׁים וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר חֲדָשִׁים בִּישָׁנִים. בֶּאֱמֶת בַּיַּיִן הִתִּירוּ לְעָרֵב קָשֶׁה בְרַךְ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַשְׁבִּיחוֹ. אֵין מְעָרְבִין שִׁמְרֵי יַיִן בְּיַיִן אֲבָל נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת שְׁמָרָיו. מִי שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב מַיִם בְּיֵינוֹ לֹא יִמְכְּרֶנּוּ בַּחֲנוּת אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הוֹדִיעוֹ וְלֹא לַתַּגָּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹדִיעוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְרַמּוֹת בּוֹ. מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַטִּיל מַיִם יִטִּילוּ. הַתַּגָּר נוֹטֵל מֵחָמֵשׁ גְּרָנוֹת וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹךְ מְגוּרָה אַחַת מֵחָמֵשׁ גִּיתּוֹת וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹךְ פִּיטָם אֶחָד וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִתְכַּוֵּן לְעָרֵב. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר לֹא יְחַלֵּק הָחֶנְוָונִי קְלָיוֹת וֶאֱגוֹזִין לַתִּינּוֹקוֹת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַרְגִּילָן לָבֹא אֶצְלוֹ וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין. וְלא יִפְחוֹת אֶת הַשַּׁעַר וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים זָכוּר לַטּוֹב. לֹא יָבוֹר אֶת הַגְּרִיסִין כְּדִבְרֵי אַבָּא שָׁאוּל וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין. וּמוֹדִין שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹר מֵעַל פִּי הַמְּגוּרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא גּוֹנֵב אֶת הָעַיִן. אֵין מְפַרְקְסִין לֹא אֶת הָאָדָם וְלֹא אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְלֹא אֶת הַכֵּלִים. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהאוֹנָאָה בְּמֶקַח וּבְמִמְכָּר כול׳. אֵין מְפַרְקְסִין. רִבִּי אֶבְדּוֹמָא מַלָּחָא הֲוָה מְפַתֵּר סְרָדָוָותֵיהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. וְהָתַנִּינָן. אֵין מְפַרְקְסִין. מִילְּתֵיהּ אָמְרָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ פִּירְקוּס בָּאוֹכְלַין. רִבִּי זֵירָא הֲוָה עֲסַק בְּהָדָא כִיתְנָא. אֲתַא גַבֵּי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מָה אֲנָא מְשַׁפְּרָה עִיבִידִיתֵהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אֵיזִיל עֲבִיד מַה דְאַתְּ יְדַע. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ הֲוָה עֲסִיק בְּאִילֵּין לְסוֹטַיָּא. אֲתַא שְׁאַל לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מְנָן בְּאִילֵּין לְסוֹטַיָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אֵיזִיל עֲבִיד מַה דְאַתְּ יְדַע. רַבָּה שָׂקַר טָהֵר. תַּנָּה רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב עֶמָּסּוֹנַיָיא. מַהוּ אֵין מְפַרְקְסִין. דְּלָא יֵימָא לֵיהּ. צוֹר גַּרְמָךְ.

MISHNAH: Just as there is cheating in trade so there is cheating by words. One should not say to another: how much for this object, if he is not interested in buying. If somebody was a repentant sinner, one should not say to him: remember your earlier deeds. If somebody was the son of a proselyte, one may not say to him: remember the deeds of your forefathers, for it is written 22:20 ; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 18, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 210. : “A sojourner you may neither cheat nor oppress, for you were sojourners in the Land of Egypt.” One does not mix produce, not even new with new; no need to say new with old. In truth they permitted to mix strong wine with weak since it improves it. One does not mix wine lees with wine but one delivers the lees with the wine. If water became mixed with somebody’s wine, he should not sell it in the store unless he declares it, and not to a trader for that one would only use it to trick people; at a place where they usually put water into the wine they may do so. The trader may buy from five threshing floors and put into one chest, wine from five wine presses and put into one barrel, on condition that he not intend to mix. Rebbi Jehudah says, a store owner should not distribute roasted kernels and nuts to children because he induces them to come to him, but the Sages permit. He should not reduce the price, but the Sages say, may he be remembered as a benefactor. He should not clean the groats following Abba Shaul, but the Sages permit it. However, they agree that he may not clean the upper layer of the chest since that gives a dishonest impression. One may not put makeup on humans, animals, or vessels. HALAKHAH: “Just as there is cheating in trade,” etc. “One may not put on make-up.” Rebbi Eudaimon the salt dealer was mollifying his spread. Jacob bar Aḥa said to him, did we not state: “one may not put on make up”? His word implies that there is make-up on food. Rebbi Ze‘ira was working with flax. He went to Rebbi Abbahu and asked him, may I make my work look good? He told him, go and apply all you know. Rebbi Abbahu was working on those shawls 4, 8b l. 69 translates רדדים ( Is. 3:23 ) by לסוטות. . He came to ask Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, how am I with those shawls? He told him, go and apply all you know. Rebbi Abba painted a bathtub. Rebbi Jacob from Emmaus stated: What means: “one may not put on make up”? One may not say to him, paint yourself.