## Bava Metzia Daf 47b

###### Bava Metzia 47b:1
[Bava Metzia 47b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/47b:1)

בְּמָרוֹקָא. ״לְמִקְנְיָא״ – לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּלֵוִי, דְּאָמַר בְּכִלְיוֹ שֶׁל מַקְנֶה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן ״לְמִקְנְיָא״ וְלָא ״לְ[אַ]קְנוֹיֵי״. ״בֵּיהּ״ – רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: לְמַעוֹטֵי מַטְבֵּעַ. וְרַב זְבִיד, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לְמַעוֹטֵי אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**with date pits** used for cleaning and smoothing parchment. The term **to acquire** items serves **to exclude** the opinion **of Levi, who says** that the symbolic exchange is effected **by means of the vessels of the one transferring ownership** of the item. This latter expression **teaches us** that the vessel is given **to acquire and not to transfer ownership** to the other. With regard to the term: **With it, Rav Pappa said:** It serves **to exclude a coin,** which cannot effect a symbolic exchange. **And Rav Zevid, and some say Rav Ashi, said:** It serves **to exclude items from which** deriving **benefit is prohibited.**


###### Bava Metzia 47b:2
[Bava Metzia 47b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/47b:2)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: ״בֵּיהּ״ – אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְמַעוֹטֵי מַטְבֵּעַ. ״דְּכָשַׁר״ – אָמַר רַב זְבִיד, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב אָשֵׁי: לְמַעוֹטֵי אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה. אֲבָל מוֹרִיקָא לָא אִצְטְרִיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say** a different version of the dispute, as follows. With regard to the term: **With it, Rav Pappa said:** It serves **to exclude a coin,** which cannot effect a symbolic exchange. With regard to the term: **That is fit, Rav Zevid, and some say Rav Ashi, said:** It serves **to exclude items from which** deriving **benefit is prohibited. But** according to this version, a verse to exclude **date pits** is **not necessary,** as they are of no significance at all.


###### Bava Metzia 47b:3
[Bava Metzia 47b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/47b:3)

אֲסִימוֹן קוֹנֶה אֶת הַמַּטְבֵּעַ וְכוּ׳. מַאי ״אֲסִימוֹן״? אָמַר רַב: מָעוֹת הַנִּיתָּנוֹת בְּסִימָן לְבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to an analysis of a passage in the mishna. When one party takes possession of **an *asimon*,** the other party **acquires the** minted **coin.** The Gemara asks: **What** is **an *asimon*? Rav said:** It is one of the **coins given as a token** to gain entry **into the bathhouse,** for which the bathers would pay later.


###### Bava Metzia 47b:4
[Bava Metzia 47b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/47b:4)

מֵיתִיבִי: אֵין מְחַלְּלִין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי עַל אֲסִימוֹן וְלֹא עַל מָעוֹת הַנִּיתָּנוֹת בְּסִימָן לְבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ. מִכְּלַל דַּאֲסִימוֹן לָאו מָעוֹת הַנִּיתָּנוֹת בְּסִימָן לְבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ! וְכִי תֵּימָא פָּרוֹשֵׁי קָמְפָרֵשׁ – וְהָא לָא תַּנָּא הָכִי: מְחַלְּלִין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי עַל אֲסִימוֹן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי דּוֹסָא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מְחַלְּלִין. וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאֵין מְחַלְּלִין עַל מָעוֹת הַנִּיתָּנוֹת בְּסִימָן לְבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: **One desacralizes second-tithe** produce **neither with an *asimon* nor with** one of the **coins given as a token** to gain entry **into the bathhouse.** This proves **by inference that an *asimon* is not** one of the **coins given as tokens in a bathhouse. And if you would say** the *tanna* **is explaining** the meaning of the term *asimon*, there is a difficulty with that explanation. **But wasn’t it taught** in another *baraita* **like this: One desacralizes second-tithe** produce **with an *asimon*;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Dosa. And the Rabbis say: One does not desacralize** second-tithe produce with an *asimon*. **And they agree that one does not desacralize** the second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity **onto** one of the **coins given as a token** to gain entry **into the bathhouse.** It is clear from this *baraita* that an *asimon* is not a token given in a bathhouse.


###### Bava Metzia 47b:5
[Bava Metzia 47b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/47b:5)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי אֲסִימוֹן – פּוּלְסָא. וְאַזְדָּא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי דּוֹסָא וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד, רַבִּי דּוֹסָא – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מַאי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְצַרְתָּ הַכֶּסֶף בְּיָדְךָ״ – לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל דָּבָר הַנִּצְרָר בַּיָּד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו צוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What** is **an *asimon*?** It is **a blank,** i.e., a piece of metal in the shape of a coin that was not yet imprinted. The Gemara comments: **And Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his** standard line of **reasoning, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Dosa and Rabbi Yishmael said the same thing. Rabbi Dosa, as we stated,** said that the legal status of an *asimon* is that of a coin. With regard to **Rabbi Yishmael, what is** his statement? It is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **“And you shall bind up [*vetzarta*] the money in your hand”** (Deuteronomy 14:25). This serves **to include any type** of money **that is bound [*hanitzrar*] in** one’s **hand,** i.e., that has monetary value; this is **the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says:** It serves **to include any type** of money **that has an imprint [*tzura*].** Rabbi Akiva requires a minted coin in order to desacralize a second-tithe produce coin, while Rabbi Yishmael says that a blank can be used as well.


###### Bava Metzia 47b:6
[Bava Metzia 47b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/47b:6)

כֵּיצַד: מָשַׁךְ הֵימֶנּוּ פֵּירוֹת וְלֹא נָתַן לוֹ מָעוֹת – אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה מָעוֹת קוֹנוֹת, וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ מְשִׁיכָה קוֹנָה – גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמַר לוֹ ״נִשְׂרְפוּ חִטֶּיךָ בָּעֲלִיָּיה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **How so?** If the buyer **pulled produce from** the seller, **but** the buyer **did not** yet **give** the seller their value in **coins, he cannot renege** on the transaction, but if the buyer gave the seller coins, but did not yet pull produce from him, he can renege on the transaction, as the transaction is not yet complete. **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 47b:7
[Bava Metzia 47b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/47b:7)

סוֹף סוֹף, מַאן דִּשְׁדָא דְּלֵיקָה בָּעֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי! אֶלָּא: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא תִּפּוֹל דְּלֵיקָה בְּאוֹנֶס. אִי מוֹקְמַתְּ לְהוּ בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ – מָסַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ, טָרַח וּמַצֵּיל. וְאִי לָא – לָא מָסַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ, טָרַח וּמַצֵּיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Ultimately, the one who ignited the fire is required to pay** for the damage caused, and the one who purchased the movable items with money will be reimbursed for his loss, so why was there a need to issue this decree? **Rather,** it is a rabbinic **decree lest a fire be ignited** spontaneously **due to circumstances beyond** one’s **control,** where no one is liable to pay for the damage caused. **If you establish** the purchase item **in** the **possession** of the seller, **he will expend** great **effort, exert himself, and rescue** the item, as it is still his own property. **But if** you do **not** establish the purchase item in the possession of the seller, **he will not expend** great **effort, exert himself, and rescue** the item. That is the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.


###### Bava Metzia 47b:8
[Bava Metzia 47b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/47b:8)

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מְשִׁיכָה מְפוֹרֶשֶׁת מִן הַתּוֹרָה. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר לַעֲמִיתֶךָ אוֹ קָנֹה מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ״, דָּבָר הַנִּקְנֶה מִיָּד לְיָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish says:** The act of acquisition of **pulling is explicit in the Torah,** and it is not merely by rabbinic decree that payment of money does not effect acquisition of movable property. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for the opinion **of Reish Lakish?** He derives it from the Torah, as **the verse states: “And if you sell to your colleague an item that is sold, or acquire from your colleague’s hand,** you shall not exploit his brother” (Leviticus 25:14), and the reference is to **an item that is acquired from hand to hand,** i.e., by means of pulling.


###### Bava Metzia 47b:9
[Bava Metzia 47b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/47b:9)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: ״מִיַּד״ – לְמַעוֹטֵי קַרְקַע, דְּלֵית בַּהּ אוֹנָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** The term **“from** your colleague’s **hand”** is not teaching that an item can be acquired by pulling. Rather, it serves **to exclude land, which is not** subject to the *halakha* of **exploitation** because it is not physically handed over from one to another.


###### Bava Metzia 47b:10
[Bava Metzia 47b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/47b:10)

וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, אִם כֵּן לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא: ״וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ אַל תּוֹנוּ״, ״אוֹ קָנֹה״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לִמְשִׁיכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how does **Reish Lakish** respond to that explanation? The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish agrees that the verse serves to exclude land from the *halakha* of exploitation. But **if** it is **so** that this was its only purpose, **let the verse write: And if you sell, from your colleague’s hand, an item that is sold, you shall not exploit. Why do I** need the additional phrase **“or acquire”? Learn from it** that acquisition by Torah law is effected **by means of pulling.**


###### Bava Metzia 47b:11
[Bava Metzia 47b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/47b:11)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״אוֹ קָנֹה״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר אַל תּוֹנוּ״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְאַנָּה לוֹקֵחַ, נִתְאַנָּה מוֹכֵר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹ קָנֹה אַל תּוֹנוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** as for **Rabbi Yoḥanan, what does he do with** the phrase **“or acquire”?** What *halakha* does he derive? The Gemara answers: **He requires** that phrase **for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: From the phrase in the verse: **“And if you sell** to your colleague **an item that is sold…you shall not exploit,” I have** derived **only** a case **where the buyer was exploited. From where** is it derived that the *halakha* is the same in a case where the **seller was exploited? The verse states: “Or acquire…you shall not exploit,”** indicating that it is prohibited for the one who acquires the item to exploit the seller.


###### Bava Metzia 47b:12
[Bava Metzia 47b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/47b:12)

וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: תַּרְתֵּי גָּמַר מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** from where does **Reish Lakish** derive this *halakha*? **He derives two** *halakhot* **from** the phrase “or acquire from your colleague’s hand.” He derives that it is prohibited to exploit the seller and that movable items are acquired by means of pulling.


###### Bava Metzia 47b:13
[Bava Metzia 47b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/47b:13)

תְּנַן, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁהַכֶּסֶף בְּיָדוֹ – יָדוֹ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה. מוֹכֵר הוּא דְּמָצֵי הָדַר בֵּיהּ, לוֹקֵחַ לָא מָצֵי הָדַר בֵּיהּ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא מָעוֹת קוֹנוֹת – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי מוֹכֵר מָצֵי הָדַר בֵּיהּ, לוֹקֵחַ לָא מָצֵי הָדַר בֵּיהּ. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מָעוֹת אֵינָן קוֹנוֹת – לוֹקֵחַ נָמֵי לִיהְדַּר בֵּיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in the mishna that **Rabbi Shimon says: Anyone who has the money in his possession has the advantage.** It is the **seller who can retract** from the transaction; the **buyer cannot retract** from the transaction. The Gemara asks: **Granted, if you say** that giving **money effects acquisition** of movable property, it is **due to that** reason that the **seller can retract** from the transaction and the **buyer cannot retract** from the transaction. Rabbi Yoḥanan explained that the Sages instituted pulling to complete the transaction for the benefit of the buyer so that the seller will expend great effort and rescue the item, as it is still his own property. But the seller acquires the money immediately. **But if you say** in general **that** giving **money does not effect acquisition** of movable property, **let** the **buyer also renege** on the transaction.


###### Bava Metzia 47b:14
[Bava Metzia 47b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/47b:14)

אָמַר לָךְ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – לָא קָאָמֵינָא, כִּי קָאָמֵינָא – אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Reish Lakish** could have **said to you: I did not state** my opinion **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Shimon; when I stated** my opinion it was **in accordance with** the opinion **of the Rabbis.**


###### Bava Metzia 47b:15
[Bava Metzia 47b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/47b:15)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ – הַיְינוּ דְּאִיכָּא בֵּין רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְרַבָּנַן. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְרַבָּנַן? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא. דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁתִּקְּנוּ מְשִׁיכָה בַּמּוֹכְרִין כָּךְ תִּקְנוּ מְשִׁיכָה בַּלָּקוֹחוֹת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, רַבָּנַן אִית לְהוּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted, according to Reish Lakish, that is** the dispute **between** the opinions of **Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis,** as Rabbi Shimon holds that money effects acquisition of the item and the Rabbis hold that only pulling the item effects its acquisition. **But according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, what** difference **is there between** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon and** that of **the Rabbis?** The Gemara responds: The difference **between them is** with regard to the statement **of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda says: Just as** the Sages **instituted pulling for the sellers, likewise, they instituted pulling for the buyers.** Until the item is pulled, the buyer can also renege on the transaction. **Rabbi Shimon does not hold** in accordance with the statement **of Rav Ḥisda,** and **the Rabbis hold** in accordance with the statement **of Rav Ḥisda.**


###### Bava Metzia 47b:16
[Bava Metzia 47b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/47b:16)

תְּנַן: אֲבָל אָמְרוּ, מִי שֶׁפָּרַע מִדּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל – הוּא עָתִיד לִיפָּרַע מִמִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד בְּדִיבּוּרוֹ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא מָעוֹת קוֹנוֹת – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָאֵי בַּ״אֲבָל״, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מָעוֹת אֵינָן קוֹנוֹת, אַמַּאי קָאֵי בַּ״אֲבָל״? מִשּׁוּם דְּבָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in the mishna: **But** the Sages **said: He Who exacted payment from** the people of **the generation of the flood,** and from the generation of the dispersion, **will** in the future **exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement. Granted, if you say** that giving **money effects acquisition** of movable property, it is **due to that** reason that one who reneges on the transaction after the money is paid **stands subject to** the curse: **But** the Sages said: He Who exacted payment. **But if you say** that giving **money does not effect acquisition** of movable property, **why does** one who reneges after the money is paid **stand subject to** the curse: **But** the Sages said: He Who exacted payment? The Gemara answers: It is **due to** the fact that he reneged on **a statement** of his committing himself to buy the item.


###### Bava Metzia 47b:17
[Bava Metzia 47b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/47b:17)

וּבִדְבָרִים מִי קָאֵי בַּ״אֲבָל״? וְהָתַנְיָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** does one who reneged on **a statement** of commitment **stand subject to** the curse: **But** the Sages said: He Who exacted payment? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: