## Bava Metzia Daf 46b

###### Bava Metzia 46b:1
[Bava Metzia 46b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/46b:1)

כׇּל הַנִּישּׁוֹם דָּמִים בְּאַחֵר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁזָּכָה זֶה נִתְחַיֵּיב זֶה בַּחֲלִיפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **all** items **that** can be **appraised** when used **as monetary** value **for another** item, i.e., their value can be appraised relative to the value of another item, excluding a coin, whose value is apparent, **once one** party in the transaction **acquires** the item he is receiving, **this** party **is obligated** with regard to the item being **exchanged for it.** The novelty of the mishna is that all items, not only vessels, can be used to perform the act of acquisition of exchange. Therefore, one should not infer that the *halakha* is the same with regard to coins.


###### Bava Metzia 46b:2
[Bava Metzia 46b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/46b:2)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: כֵּיצַד? הֶחְלִיף שׁוֹר בְּפָרָה אוֹ חֲמוֹר בְּשׁוֹר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **So too, it is reasonable** to interpret the mishna in that manner, **from** the fact **that the latter clause** of that mishna **teaches: How so?** If **one exchanges an ox for a cow, or a donkey for an ox,** once this party acquires the animal that he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it. This clause apparently explains the previous clause, and employs the example of animals, not coins. The Gemara concludes: **Learn from it** that the reference in the mishna is to movable property, not to coins.


###### Bava Metzia 46b:3
[Bava Metzia 46b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/46b:3)

וּלְמַאי דִּסְלֵיק אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא – מַטְבֵּעַ, מַאי ״כֵּיצַד״? הָכִי קָאָמַר, וּפֵירֵי נָמֵי עָבְדִי חֲלִיפִין, כֵּיצַד – הֶחְלִיף שׁוֹר בְּפָרָה אוֹ חֲמוֹר בְּשׁוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** with regard **to what entered our minds initially,** that **a coin** effects symbolic **exchange, what** is the meaning of the clause: **How so;** if one exchanges an ox for a cow, once this party acquires the animal that he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it? This example does not involve a coin. The Gemara explains that it was assumed that **this is what** the mishna **is saying:** Not only can a coin be used in the act of acquisition of exchange, **but produce,** i.e., movable property, **can also effect exchange. How so?** If **one exchanged** the meat of **an ox for a cow, or** the meat of **a donkey for an ox,** once this party acquires the item that he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it.


###### Bava Metzia 46b:4
[Bava Metzia 46b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/46b:4)

הָנִיחָא לְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת, דְּאָמַר פֵּירֵי עָבְדִי חֲלִיפִין, אֶלָּא לְרַב נַחְמָן, דְּאָמַר: כְּלִי – אִין, אֲבָל פֵּירֵי לָא עָבְדִי חֲלִיפִין, מַאי ״כֵּיצַד״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **This works out well according to** the opinion of **Rav Sheshet, who said: Produce effects** a transaction of **exchange. But according to** the opinion of **Rav Naḥman, who said: A vessel, yes,** it effects a transaction of exchange, **but produce does not effect** a transaction of **exchange, what** is the meaning of the continuation of the mishna beginning with the question: **How so?**


###### Bava Metzia 46b:5
[Bava Metzia 46b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/46b:5)

הָכִי קָאָמַר: יֵשׁ דָּמִים שֶׁהֵן כַּחֲלִיפִין, כֵּיצַד? הֶחְלִיף דְּמֵי שׁוֹר בְּפָרָה אוֹ דְמֵי חֲמוֹר בְּשׁוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **this** is what the mishna **is saying: There is** a purchase with **money** where one acquires the purchase item without pulling it **that is like** a transaction of **exchange. How so?** It is in a case where **one exchanged** the **monetary** value of **an ox for a cow, or** the **monetary** value of **a donkey for an ox.** In this case, one sold his ox to another for an agreed sum of money, and after the buyer acquired the ox by pulling it, he then offered to give the seller his cow in exchange for the money that he owes him. In this case the cow is acquired without the seller having to pull it. Although this acquisition initially was to be an exchange, it is ultimately a purchase for money, as the second animal is acquired as a result of the forgiving of the monetary debt.


###### Bava Metzia 46b:6
[Bava Metzia 46b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/46b:6)

מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן? סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּאָמַר: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה מָעוֹת קוֹנוֹת. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ מְשִׁיכָה קוֹנָה – גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמַר לוֹ: נִשְׂרְפוּ חִטֶּיךָ בָּעֲלִיָּיה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara inquires: **What is the reason** for the opinion **of Rav Naḥman?** The Gemara explains: Rav Naḥman **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says: By Torah law money effects acquisition,** i.e., when one pays money he acquires the item, even if he has not yet performed another act of acquisition. **And for what reason did** the Sages **say** that **pulling acquires** an item and money does not? This is a rabbinic **decree lest** the seller **say to** the buyer after receiving the money: **Your wheat was burned in the upper story.** If a fire breaks out or some other mishap occurs after a seller receives the money, he will not bother to save the goods in his house because they no longer belong to him, and the buyer may incur a loss.


###### Bava Metzia 46b:7
[Bava Metzia 46b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/46b:7)

וּמִלְּתָא דִּשְׁכִיחָא – גְּזַרוּ בֵּיהּ רַבָּנַן. מִלְּתָא דְּלָא שְׁכִיחָא – לָא גְּזַרוּ בֵּיהּ רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages therefore decreed that acquisition takes effect only when a buyer pulls the item. The mishna allows a transaction that indicates that one can effect acquisition using only money because that case of the mishna as explained by Rav Naḥman is an uncommon occurrence. It is rare for one who has sold his animal in exchange for money to change his mind and request an animal from the purchaser instead. **And** it is only **with regard to a common matter** that **the Sages issued a decree,** whereas **with regard to an uncommon matter, the Sages did not issue a decree.** Consequently, the Sages did not apply their decree to this situation.


###### Bava Metzia 46b:8
[Bava Metzia 46b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/46b:8)

וּלְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּאָמַר מְשִׁיכָה מְפוֹרֶשֶׁת מִן הַתּוֹרָה, הָנִיחָא אִי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת, מְתָרֵץ לַהּ כְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how is the mishna explained **according to** the opinion of **Reish Lakish, who** disagrees with Rabbi Yoḥanan and **says** that **pulling** is **explicitly** stated **in the Torah?** Reish Lakish maintains that the acquisition of movable property cannot be performed with money by Torah law, and therefore there can be no distinction between common and uncommon cases. **This works out well if** Reish Lakish **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Sheshet,** who says that produce effects exchange. If so, he can **explain** the mishna **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Sheshet.**


###### Bava Metzia 46b:9
[Bava Metzia 46b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/46b:9)

אֶלָּא אִי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַב נַחְמָן, דְּאָמַר: פֵּירֵי לָא עָבְדִי חֲלִיפִין וּמַטְבֵּעַ לָא קָנֵי, הֵיכִי מְתָרֵץ לַהּ? עַל כֻּרְחָךְ כְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת מְתָרֵץ לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But if he holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Naḥman, who says** that **produce does not effect exchange and a coin does not effect acquisition** by Torah law or by rabbinic law, **how does he explain** the mishna? The Gemara answers: **Perforce** Reish Lakish **explains** the mishna **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Sheshet.**


###### Bava Metzia 46b:10
[Bava Metzia 46b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/46b:10)

תְּנַן: כׇּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין קוֹנִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: וַאֲפִילּוּ כִּיס מָלֵא מָעוֹת בְּכִיס מָלֵא מָעוֹת! תַּרְגְּמָא רַב אַחָא: בְּדִינָר אַנְ[יָ]קָא וַאֲנִיגְרָא, אֶחָד שֶׁפְּסָלַתּוּ מַלְכוּת, וְאֶחָד שֶׁפְּסָלַתּוּ מְדִינָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in the mishna: With regard to those who exchange **all** forms of **movable property, each acquires** the property of **the other. And Reish Lakish says:** The expression: All forms of movable property, includes **even** a case where they exchange a money **pouch full of coins for** a money **pouch full of coins.** Apparently, coins effect exchange and are acquired by means of a transaction of exchange. The Gemara rejects this: **Rav Aḥa interpreted** that the exchange of coins is referring to the exchange of a money pouch filled **with *anka*** dinars **and** a money pouch filled **with *anigera* dinars. One** is a coin **that the kingdom invalidated,** as the king decreed that the coin will no longer be used, **and one** is a coin **that** the residents of **a province invalidated,** as they no longer use it as currency.


###### Bava Metzia 46b:11
[Bava Metzia 46b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/46b:11)

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן פְּסָלַתּוּ מַלְכוּת – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא סָגֵי כְּלָל. אֲבָל פְּסָלַתּוּ מְדִינָה, דְּסָגֵי לֵיהּ בִּמְדִינָה אַחֲרִיתִי – אֵימָא אַכַּתִּי מַטְבֵּעַ הוּא וְאֵין מַטְבֵּעַ נִקְנֶה בַּחֲלִיפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** it is **necessary** to teach the *halakha* in both cases, **as, if** the *tanna* **taught us** this *halakha* only with regard to a coin that **the kingdom invalidated,** I would have said it is not a coin **due to** the fact **that it does not circulate at all,** as the king banned its use. **But** with regard to a coin that the residents of **a province invalidated, which circulates in a different state, say** that **its** legal status **is still** that of **a coin, and money cannot be acquired by means of** a transaction of **exchange.**


###### Bava Metzia 46b:12
[Bava Metzia 46b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/46b:12)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן פְּסָלַתּוּ מְדִינָה – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא סָגֵי לֵיהּ לָא בְּצִנְעָא וְלָא בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא. אֲבָל פְּסָלַתּוּ מַלְכוּת, דְּסָגֵי לֵיהּ בְּצִנְעָא – אֵימָא אַכַּתִּי מַטְבֵּעַ הוּא, וְאֵין מַטְבֵּעַ נִקְנֶה בַּחֲלִיפִין. צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the *tanna* **taught us** this *halakha* only with regard to a coin that the residents of **a province invalidated,** I would have said it is not a coin **due to** the fact **that** in that place **it neither circulates in private nor in public,** as the local residents do not use it as currency. **But** with regard to a coin that **the kingdom invalidated, which** could **circulate in private, say** that **its** legal status **is still** that of **a coin, and money cannot be acquired by means of** a transaction of **exchange.** Therefore, it was **necessary** to teach the *halakha* in both cases.


###### Bava Metzia 46b:13
[Bava Metzia 46b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/46b:13)

אָמַר רַבָּה אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: ״מְכוֹר לִי בְּאֵלּוּ״, קָנָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabba says** that **Rav Huna says:** If one said to another: **Sell me** your item **for these** coins that are in my hand, and when taking the money the owner of the item did not determine the sum, the buyer **acquired** the article and the transaction is complete, and neither can renege on the deal.