Everything which is made money for something else [The gemara explains: Everything which is assessed as money for something else; everything which, if it is to be given as money for something else, must be assessed — that is, all chattel (metaltelin), aside from currency] — once the one appropriates it, the other is responsible for its exchange. [That is, once one of them pulls it (as an act of acquisition), the other is responsible for its exchange if it were lost or died, wherever it (what was thereby acquired) may be, even though he (the buyer) did not pull it. For by the seller's pulling the scarf or a (different) object, the purchased object is acquired by the buyer wherever it may be, even though the object whereby it is acquired is not worth a p'rutah, so long as it not be a coin or fruits, these not effecting such acquisition. And all things are acquired by (such) exchange (chalifin) — metaltelin, bondsmen, and land — with the exception of currency, which is not acquired by chalifin, one's mind-set being on the figure (impressed) in the currency and not on the substance itself; and the figure is susceptible of effacement. Therefore, if one took currency without weight or count and said: "This is chalifin for that field, or bondsman, or object," once the other (the seller) pulls it, he (the buyer) is responsible for its exchange. For the fact that it was not weighed or counted makes it manifest that there was no mind-set on the (imprinted) figure. And no means avails for the acquisition of currency which is not immediately at hand except agav, (acquisition of the currency) together with land.] How so? If an ox were exchanged for an ass, or an ass for an ox, once the first appropriates (either animal), the other is responsible for its exchange. The domain of the Temple (acquires with) money, and the domain of the laity, with chazakah. [If the Temple treasurer gives money for a beast, even (if the beast were) "in the end of the world," he acquires it; but the laity acquire only with chazakah, i.e., pulling. And if a lay person gave money for something, so long as he did not pull it, he does not acquire it, and the seller must return the money if he (the buyer) backs out, and he (the one who backs out) comes under (an imprecation, viz.:) "He who punished (…will punish him who does not keep his word.") But if the buyer pulled the object, even if he did not yet pay the stipulated amount, neither can back out. And if he neither gave the money nor pulled the object, but only reached an agreement with the seller to buy at a certain price — even if he said: "You are my witnesses," there is nothing (binding) in this, and he does not even come under an imprecation (if he backs out)]. One's "saying" to the Temple is like one's "giving" to the laity. [If one says: "This ox is a burnt-offering; this house is consecrated" — even if it were "in the end of the world," the Temple acquires it. But with the laity, there is no acquisition until he (the buyer) pulls the animal or performs an act of chazakah in the house.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Kiddushin
כל הנעשה דמים באחר – The Gemara explains (Kiddushin 28a-b): whatever is assessed as an equivalent (i.e., an exchange is meant and not a sale for cash), [for] anything – if one comes to give him money for another thing, must assess its value, that is, all the movables except for coins.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Kiddushin
Introduction
The first half of the mishnah discusses acquiring things through barter. The second half of the mishnah delves into the difference between the laws of acquisition for the Temple and those for an ordinary person.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Kiddushin
כיון שזכה זה – that is to say, once the first [person] pulls, the second is obligated for an exchange (I.e., a form of possession by handing to the purchaser an object as a symbolical substitute), in every place that they are, and if they died or lost it, and even though he had not pulled, since through the pulling by the seller of the scarf or the object, the object is acquired by the purchaser in whatever place he is in. And even though the object that they are purchasing is not worth at least a penny, and as long as it is not a coin or produce, with these – we do not acquire through them. And all things are acquired by exchange – movables, slaves and property, except for coinage which is not acquired through exchange, since the minds of people are [focused] on the form of the coin and not on its substance. For its form is likely to become nullified. Therefore, if a person purchased a coin without weight or without number, and said: “these are in exchange for a certain field,” or a certain slave, or a certain object, since this one pulled it, the other is liable in its exchange, for he has revealed his thought that he is not strict about its form since he didn’t weigh it or count it. For there is no way that the acquisition of the coin will take effect where it is lacking in his eyes, other than to acquire it along with land.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Kiddushin
Whatever can be used as payment for another object, as soon as this one takes possession [of the object], the other one assumes liability for what is given in exchange. How so? If one exchanges an ox for a cow, or a donkey for an ox, as soon as this one takes possession, the other one assumes liability for what is given in exchange. The general rule of acquiring things through exchange is illustrated simply in the example of the cow and ox. If Reuven and Shimon exchange an ox for a cow, when Reuven takes physical possession of Shimon’s cow, Shimon becomes owner of the ox, even if Shimon doesn’t take physical possession. The implication would be that if the ox dies or is stolen, Shimon is out of luck for it is his ox that died or was stolen. Alternatively, if the oxen market rises dramatically Shimon wins out. For better or for worse, in an exchange once one party takes possession of one of the objects being exchanged, the other party automatically owns the other object.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Kiddushin
רשות הגבוה בכסף – the treasurer who gave monies for the animal for the needs of the Temple treasury, even if it is at the end of the world, he has acquired it. But regarding a commoner who cannot acquire other than through claim based upon undisturbed possession, that is until he pulls it. And if the commoner gave money for the object, as long as he didn’t pull the object, he did not acquire it, and the seller can return the monies if he retracts from the sale of the object, and he accepts upon himself [the curse] of “he who punished” ( see Mishnah Bava Metzia, Chapter 4, Mishnah 2) (for not standing by his word). But if the purchaser pulled the object, even though he had not given the monies that he had stipulated, neither party of them can retract. And if he did not give the monies and did not pull the object, but rather, were pardoned on the sale in the presence of witnesses and he (i.e., the purchaser) was reconciled that her would purchase it for such-and-such an amount, and his fellow was reconciled to sell it for such-and-such an amount, even if he said: “you are my witnesses,” there is nothing in those words, and even [the curse] “he who punished” (for not standing by his word) is not here.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Kiddushin
The sanctuary’s title to property [is acquired] by money; the title of an ordinary person to property by hazakah. Ordinary people cannot acquire movable property by using money (see mishnah five), but the Temple can use money to acquire movable property. So if the Temple’s treasurer wants to buy a cow, once he gives the cow’s owner money the cow is sanctified and belongs to the Temple.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Kiddushin
אמירתו לגבוה כמסירתו להדיוט – He who says: “This bull is for a burnt-offering” or “this house is devoted to the Temple treasury, even if it is at the end of the world, he has acquired it. And the common person does not acquire until he pulls the animal’ and takes hold of the house.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Kiddushin
Dedication to the sanctuary is equal to delivery to an ordinary person. A verbal declaration is not sufficient to transfer ownership. In other words, if I just pick up an object and say “This belongs to Reuven”, the object does not yet belong to Reuven. However, when it comes to dedicating something to the Temple, a verbal declaration is sufficient. If I state, “This cow belongs to the Temple,” the cow belongs to the Temple and is considered sacred. We can see through both of these sections that the Temple more easily acquires property than does an ordinary human being.
