Bava Batra 10
גֵּט פָּשׁוּט, עֵדָיו מִתּוֹכוֹ. וּמְקֻשָּׁר, עֵדָיו מֵאֲחוֹרָיו. פָּשׁוּט שֶׁכָּתְבוּ עֵדָיו מֵאֲחוֹרָיו וּמְקֻשָּׁר שֶׁכָּתְבוּ עֵדָיו מִתּוֹכוֹ, שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּסוּלִים. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, מְקֻשָּׁר שֶׁכָּתְבוּ עֵדָיו מִתּוֹכוֹ, כָּשֵׁר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ פָשׁוּט. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, הַכֹּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה:
A plain get (bill, deed, etc.) [such as ours, which is not sewn and folded] — its witnesses (sign) on the inside [as we do]. And a folded get — (its witnesses sign) on the outside. [He writes one or two lines and folds it on the (inner) surface and sews, and one witness signs on the fold outside. And he writes another two lines or more on the inside and folds it on the surface, and a second witness signs on the fold outside, and so, a third witness. The rabbis instituted a folded get by reason of "irate Cohanim," who might write a divorce precipitously to their wives and regret it and not be permitted to take them back. A "folded get" was instituted for them, so that, not being able to write it quickly, they might calm down in the process. And just as "a folded get" was instituted for a bill of divorce, so was it instituted for other bills, the sages not differentiating in this regard.] A plain get, whose witnesses signed on the outside, and a folded get, whose witnesses signed on the inside — both are pasul (invalid), [not having been prepared as per rabbinic ordinance.] R. Chanina b. Gamliel says: A folded get whose witnesses were signed on the inside is kasher because it can be made plain. [i.e., If the sewing is undone and the get is opened, it becomes "plain."] R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: All is in accordance with the custom of the land. [The (practical) difference between the first tanna and R. Shimon b. Gamliel obtains in a place where both a plain get and a folded get are used, where one said: "Make me a folded get," and the other made a plain one, or vice versa. The first tanna holds that he is particular (that only the type he specified be used) and it (the other type) is pasul, and R. Shimon b. Gamliel holds that since the custom of the land is to use both, he is not particular.]
גֵּט פָּשׁוּט, עֵדָיו בִּשְׁנָיִם. וּמְקֻשָּׁר, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. פָּשׁוּט שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ עֵד אֶחָד, וּמְקֻשָּׁר שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים, שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּסוּלִין. כָּתַב בּוֹ זוּזִין מְאָה דְאִנּוּן סִלְעִין עֶשְׂרִין, אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא עֶשְׂרִין. זוּזִין מְאָה דְאִנּוּן תְּלָתִין סִלְעִין, אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא מָנֶה. כְסַף זוּזִין דְּאִנּוּן, וְנִמְחַק, אֵין פָּחוּת מִשְּׁתָּיִם. כְּסַף סִלְעִין דְּאִנּוּן, וְנִמְחַק, אֵין פָּחוּת מִשְּׁנָיִם. דַּרְכּוֹנוֹת דְּאִנּוּן, וְנִמְחַק, אֵין פָּחוּת מִשְּׁתָּיִם. כָּתוּב בּוֹ מִלְמַעְלָה מָנֶה וּמִלְּמַטָּה מָאתַיִם, מִלְמַעְלָה מָאתַיִם וּמִלְּמַטָּה מָנֶה, הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַתַּחְתּוֹן. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה כוֹתְבִין אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹן, שֶׁאִם תִּמָּחֵק אוֹת אַחַת מִן הַתַּחְתּוֹן, יִלְמַד מִן הָעֶלְיוֹן:
A plain get is signed by two witnesses, and a folded get by three. If a plain get were signed by one or a folded get by two, both are pasul. [This is the intent: Just as a plain get signed by one witness is pasul by Torah law, so is a folded get signed by two witnesses.] If it were written (in the get): "a hundred zuzin, which are twenty sela'in," he receives only twenty. [Even though a hundred zuzin are twenty-five sela'in, the holder of the bill (of debt) has the lower hand, it being interpreted: a hundred inferior zuzin, which are only twenty sela'in.] (If it were written:) "a hundred zuzin, which are thirty sela'in," he receives only a hundred (zuzin) [i.e., twenty-five sela'in, the bill being interpreted: a hundred zuzin, which are thirty light, inferior sela'in, which are worth twenty-five good ones.] (If it were written:) "silver zuzin, which are…", and it [the amount following] were erased, he receives no fewer than two. "silver sela'in, which are…", and it were erased, he receives no fewer than two. "darconoth, which are…", and it were erased, he receives no fewer than two. If it were written above, "a hundred" and below, "two hundred," or above, "two hundred," and below, "one hundred," all goes according to the lower, [so long as it not be written on the last line.] If so, [i.e., If it is repeated at the end of the bill: "And I have taken upon myself indebtedness for this and this amount"], why is the upper written? So that if a letter were erased from the lower, it could be derived from the upper.
כּוֹתְבִין גֵּט לָאִישׁ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ, וְהַשּׁוֹבֵר לָאִשָּׁה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בַּעְלָהּ עִמָּהּ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא מַכִּירָן, וְהַבַּעַל נוֹתֵן שָׂכָר. כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר לְלֹוֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַלְוֶה עִמּוֹ, וְאֵין כּוֹתְבִין לְמַלְוֶה, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא לֹוֶה עִמּוֹ, וְהַלֹּוֶה נוֹתֵן שָׂכָר. כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר לְמוֹכֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹקֵחַ עִמּוֹ. וְאֵין כּוֹתְבִין לְלוֹקֵחַ, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא מוֹכֵר עִמּוֹ, וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ נוֹתֵן שָׂכָר:
A get ( a writ of divorce) is written for a man [and it is signed (by witnesses) and he may divorce his wife with it] even if his wife is not with him, [for she may be divorced even against her will.] And a receipt [written by a woman to her husband, stating that she has received her kethubah] (is written) for a woman even if her husband is not with her, [for it is a liability for her and an asset for her husband, and "a man may be benefited (even) when he is not present."], so long as the scribe recognizes them [i.e., so long as the scribe and the witnesses recognize the man and the woman, both for a get and a receipt. For if he does not recognize them, perhaps he will write a get for a different married woman whose husband's name is the same as his, and the woman will be divorced through a get which is not valid for her; likewise, with a receipt.] And the husband pays the (scribe's) fee. A bill (of indebtedness) is written for a borrower even if the lender is not with him; but it is not written for the lender unless the borrower is with him. And the borrower pays the fee. [Even if it is a transaction of half-loan, half-pledge, the receiver pays the entire fee to the scribe.] A bill (of sale) is written for a seller even if the buyer is not with him; but it is not written for the buyer unless the seller is with him. And the buyer pays the fee.
אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָרֵי אֵרוּסִין וְנִשּׂוּאִין אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶם, וְהֶחָתָן נוֹתֵן שָׂכָר. אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָרֵי אֲרִיסוּת וְקַבְּלָנוּת אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶם, וְהַמְקַבֵּל נוֹתֵן שָׂכָר. אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָרֵי בֵרוּרִין וְכָל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵית דִּין אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶם, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם נוֹתְנִין שָׂכָר. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, שְׁנֵיהֶם כּוֹתְבִין שְׁנַיִם, לָזֶה לְעַצְמוֹ וְלָזֶה לְעַצְמוֹ:
Writs of betrothal and marriage are written only with mutual consent, and the groom pays the fee. Writs of tenant-farming, [working and guarding a field for a half, a third, or a quarter (of the produce)] and land contracting, [so many and so many kor a year, whether it did or did not produce] are written only with mutual consent, and the receiver pays the fee. Writs of selection and (of) all acts of beth-din are written only with mutual consent. [("writs of selection":) One (of the litigants) selects one judge, and the other selects one, and they write: "This (litigant) selected this judge, and his claims are such and such, etc.," so that they not repeat their claims.] And both pay the fee. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: The two [litigants] write two, each (writing one) for himself, [so that their claims be well ordered. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon b. Gamliel, but the claims of the two litigants and the judge that each selected are written in one bill.]
מִי שֶׁפָּרַע מִקְצָת חוֹבוֹ וְהִשְׁלִישׁ אֶת שְׁטָרוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ, אִם לֹא נָתַתִּי לְךָ מִכָּאן וְעַד יוֹם פְּלוֹנִי תֶּן לוֹ שְׁטָרוֹ, הִגִּיעַ זְמַן וְלֹא נָתַן, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, יִתֵּן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לֹא יִתֵּן:
If one paid part of his debt and gave his bill (of indebtedness) to a third person [i.e., If the lender and the borrower gave the bill to a third person on whom they relied, it being bothersome to them to write a receipt], and he (the borrower) said to him (the third person): "If I have not given you (the balance) from now until this and this day, give him (the lender) his receipt" — If the time arrived and he did not give it, R. Yossi says: He should give it (the bill, to the lender). R. Yehudah says: He should not give it. [R. Yossi holds that asmachta effects acquisition, viz.: If one promises his neighbor something on condition that he do something for him in the future, and he is confident ("somech") in his heart at the time of the condition that it can be fulfilled, and when the time arrived, it could not be fulfilled, this is called "asmachta," and, according to R. Yossi, it effects acquisition. As to the halachah, asmachta does not effect acquisition, unless they acquired (authority) from his hand in a distinctive beth-din, and he relegated his rights to that beth-din, assigning it his bills and certifications and said: "If I do not come from now until thirty days, let my rights be annulled." My teachers explain that every expert beth-din, which is acquainted with the laws of asmachta is regarded as a "distinctive" beth-din in this regard; but Rambam says that only a beth-din ordained in Eretz Yisrael qualifies as "distinctive."]
מִי שֶׁנִּמְחַק שְׁטַר חוֹבוֹ, מְעִידִין עָלָיו עֵדִים, וּבָא לִפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְעוֹשִׂין לוֹ קִיּוּם, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בֶן פְּלוֹנִי נִמְחַק שְׁטָרוֹ בְּיוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עֵדָיו. מִי שֶׁפָּרַע מִקְצָת חוֹבוֹ, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, יַחֲלִיף. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, יִכְתּוֹב שׁוֹבֵר. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, נִמְצָא זֶה צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת שׁוֹמֵר שׁוֹבְרוֹ מִן הָעַכְבָּרִים. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, כָּךְ יָפֶה לוֹ, וְלֹא יוּרַע כֹּחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה:
If one's bill of indebtedness were erased [and there are witnesses who saw it being erased (i.e., losing its impression) of itself or being blurred by water], he secures for it witnesses [who know when it was written and what was written it], and they certify it [before beth-din, writing for him all that was written in that bill, viz.]: "This man, the son of this man — his bill was erased on this and this day, and this man and that man are his witnesses."] If one paid part of his debt, R. Yehudah says: He should exchange it. [i.e., He should tear up that bill and another should be written for the balance.] R. Yossi says: He should write a receipt. R. Yossi said: "This one, then, [the borrower] must guard his receipt from the mice!" [For if it is lost, the lender can claim the entire debt!] R. Yossi said to him: "It is better for him [the lender] thus" [that the borrower be required to guard his receipt, so that he hasten to repay the (entire) debt], and this one's [the lender's] power should not be weakened [by having to write another bill ( of indebtedness). For the date of his (original) debt was earlier, and now (with a new bill), it will be later, and he will be able to seize bound property only from the time of the second bill. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi, that a receipt is written.]
שְׁנֵי אַחִין, אֶחָד עָנִי וְאֶחָד עָשִׁיר, וְהִנִּיחַ לָהֶן אֲבִיהֶן מֶרְחָץ וּבֵית הַבַּד, עֲשָׂאָן לְשָׂכָר, הַשָּׂכָר לָאֶמְצַע. עֲשָׂאָן לְעַצְמָן, הֲרֵי הֶעָשִׁיר אוֹמֵר לֶעָנִי, קַח לְךָ עֲבָדִים וְיִרְחֲצוּ בַמֶּרְחָץ, קַח לְךָ זֵיתִים וּבֹא וַעֲשֵׂם בְּבֵית הַבָּד. שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ בְעִיר אַחַת, שֵׁם אֶחָד יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן וְשֵׁם אַחֵר יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן, אֵין יְכוֹלִין לְהוֹצִיא שְׁטָר חוֹב זֶה עַל זֶה וְלֹא אַחֵר יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיא עֲלֵיהֶן שְׁטָר חוֹב. נִמְצָא לְאֶחָד בֵּין שְׁטָרוֹתָיו שְׁטָרוֹ שֶׁל יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן פָּרוּעַ, שְׁטָרוֹת שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּרוּעִין. כֵּיצַד יַעֲשׂוּ, יְשָׁלֵשׁוּ. וְאִם הָיוּ מְשֻׁלָּשִׁים, יִכְתְּבוּ סִימָן. וְאִם הָיוּ מְסֻמָּנִין, יִכְתְּבוּ כֹּהֵן. הָאוֹמֵר לִבְנוֹ, שְׁטָר בֵּין שְׁטָרוֹתַי פָּרוּעַ וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶהוּ, שְׁטָרוֹת כֻּלָּן פְּרוּעִין. נִמְצָא לְאֶחָד שָׁם שְׁנַיִם, הַגָּדוֹל פָּרוּעַ וְהַקָּטָן אֵינוֹ פָרוּעַ. הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ עַל יְדֵי עָרֵב, לֹא יִפָּרַע מִן הֶעָרֵב. וְאִם אָמַר עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֶפָּרַע מִמִּי שֶׁאֶרְצֶה, יִפָּרַע מִן הֶעָרֵב. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אִם יֵשׁ נְכָסִים לַלֹּוֶה, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ לֹא יִפָּרַע מִן הֶעָרֵב. וְכֵן הָיָה רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, הֶעָרֵב לָאִשָּׁה בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ וְהָיָה בַעְלָהּ מְגָרְשָׁהּ, יַדִּירֶנָּה הֲנָאָה, שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשׂוּ קְנוּנְיָא עַל נְכָסִים שֶׁל זֶה וְיַחֲזִיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ:
If there were two brothers, one poor and one rich, and their father left them a bathhouse and an olive press — If he made them for profit, the profit falls between them; if he made them for personal use, the rich brother may tell the poor one: "Get yourself bondsmen and let them bathe in the bathhouse; get yourself olives, and come and press them in the olive press." [("Get yourself bondsmen": to heat the bathhouse for you. For just as our father left it, so will it be forever. And though it was taught in the first chapter that with something for which there is no law of division, one can say: "You sell me" (your share) "or I will sell you" (my share), it is different here, for the poor brother cannot say that he will buy the other's share, having nothing with which to buy it.] If there were two men in one city called "Yosef ben Shimon," they cannot issue a bill of indebtedness against each other, [for each can claim: "This bill in your hand — I returned it to you when you paid me the money that I lent you."], and another cannot issue a bill of indebtedness against them. [For each can "shunt him off" to the other.] If among one's bills there were found a paid bill of "Yosef ben Shimon," the bills of both are (accounted) paid. What can they do? (to avoid this confusion)? They "third." [i.e., they write the name of the grandfather.] And if they were "thirded"? [i.e., if their names, their fathers' names, and their grandfathers' names were the same], they write a sign, [e.g., "the one who is red-spotted," or "long," or "short."] And if they were alike in their signs, they write "Cohein" [if one were a Cohein, and the other, an Israelite.] If one says to his son: "A bill among my bills is paid, and I do not know which one," the bills of all (his debtors) are paid. If there were found for one (borrower) two (bills, from two loans that he made of him), the larger is (considered) paid, and the smaller, not paid. [For he said "one bill" among his bills, and not two.] If one lends his neighbor through a guarantor (arev), he does not exact payment from the guarantor [first] [before claiming (payment) from the borrower first and having him declared liable in beth-din, after which — if he has nothing to pay with — he exacts from the guarantor.] And if he said: "on condition that I exact payment from whom I wish," he exacts payment form the guarantor. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: If the borrower has property, in either event, he does not exact payment from the guarantor. [Not that the first tanna says that if the borrower has property he does exact payment from the guarantor. But the Mishnah is defective, and this is what was taught: "If one lends his neighbor through a guarantor, he does not exact payment from the guarantor. And if he said: 'On condition that I exact payment from whom I wish,' he exacts payment from the guarantor. When is this so, when the borrower has no property; but if the borrower has property, he does not exact payment from the guarantor. And a kablan (one who undertakes to pay a debt for another) — Even though the borrower has property, he exacts payment from the kablan. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: Both with a guarantor and a kablan — If the borrower has property, he does not exact payment from them." The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon b. Gamliel. ("arev" - a guarantor, one who says: "Give him (a loan) and I guarantee for him." "kablan": one who says: "Give him and I will give you.")] And, likewise, R. Shimon said: If one were a guarantor for a woman's kethubah, and her husband divorced her [and he had no property, and the guarantor has to pay for the kethubah], he (the husband) should vow to withhold benefit from her, lest they (the man and his wife) scheme against this one's property and he take back his wife. [He (the guarantor) should not pay for the kethubah until her husband vows to withhold benefit from her on public cognizance, a vow from which there is no release, so that he not be able to take her back. For we fear that he might have the intention of taking her back and eating from (the property she received for) her kethubah after having collected it from the guarantor. As to the halachah: The guarantor for a kethubah, does not commit himself and he is not bound to pay, even if the husband has no property. Why so? For he did a mitzvah, and caused her no loss. And if he guaranteed for the kethubah of his son, he does commit himself, a father "binding" himself for the sake of his son. And a kablan for a kethubah does commit himself (for payment), and the woman may claim it from him first, even if the husband has property — this, on condition that the husband first vows to withhold benefit from her on public cognizance.]
הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בִּשְׁטָר, גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים. עַל יְדֵי עֵדִים, גוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. הוֹצִיא עָלָיו כְּתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ, גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. עָרֵב הַיּוֹצֵא לְאַחַר חִתּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת, גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. מַעֲשֶׂה בָא לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְאָמַר, גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. אָמַר לוֹ בֶּן נַנָּס, אֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה לֹא מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים וְלֹא מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. אָמַר לוֹ, לָמָּה. אָמַר לוֹ, הֲרֵי הַחוֹנֵק אֶת אֶחָד בַּשּׁוּק וּמְצָאוֹ חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ הַנַּח לוֹ, פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא עַל אֱמוּנָתוֹ הִלְוָהוּ. אֶלָּא אֵיזֶהוּ עָרֵב שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב, הַלְוֵהוּ וַאֲנִי נוֹתֵן לְךָ, חַיָּב, שֶׁכֵּן עַל אֱמוּנָתוֹ הִלְוָהוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיַּחְכִּים, יַעֲסוֹק בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, שֶׁאֵין לְךָ מִקְצוֹעַ בַּתּוֹרָה גָּדוֹל מֵהֶן, שֶׁהֵן כְּמַעְיָן הַנּוֹבֵעַ. וְהָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיַּעֲסוֹק בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, יְשַׁמֵּשׁ אֶת שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן נַנָּס:
If one lends his neighbor on a bill (of debt), he (the creditor) collects from bound property. [Even if property commitment is not included therein, he collects from bound property; for we rule that (omission of) commitment is an error of the scribe, and it is as if it were included.] (If one lends his neighbor) through witnesses, he collects from free property. If he issues a writ of indebtedness [without other witnesses], he collects from free property [and not from bound property. For since witnesses are lacking, there is no "report" (of the debt), and (prospective) buyers (of the property) have no knowledge of it to guard themselves (from buying the property)]. If a guarantor comes forth after the signing of the bill [i.e., if after the witnesses have signed the bill, he writes: "I, so and so, son of so and so, am a guarantor"], he (the creditor) collects from the [guarantor] from the free property [alone. For since the witnesses are not signed on the guarantee, it is like a verbal loan]. Once, such a case came before R. Yishmael, and he said: He collects from the free property. Ben Naness said to him: He collects neither from the bound property nor from the free property. R. Yishmael: Why? Ben Naness: If one man were choking another in the marketplace and someone came along and said: "Let him go" (and I will pay you), he is exempt (from payment) — for he (the creditor in our instance) did not lend him on his trust (in the guarantor). But who is a guarantor who is liable? If one says: "Lend him, and I will pay you," he is liable. R. Yishmael said: If one would grow wise, let him occupy himself with monetary law, for there is no department of Torah transcending that. It is like a bubbling fount. And one who would occupy himself with monetary law, let him pay attendance upon Shimon ben Naness [("Ben Naness said to him, etc.":) Ben Naness holds that every guarantor (who comes forward) after the money has been given is not a guarantor, for he (the creditor) did not lend him on (the basis of) his trust in the guarantor. And even though R. Yishmael praised Ben Naness, the halachah is in accordance with R. Yishmael. And a guarantor after the money has been given requires a kinyan (an act effecting acquisition), lacking which he does not commit himself. And before the giving of the money, he does not require a kinyan.]