Commento su Bava Metzia 4:1
הַזָּהָב קוֹנֶה אֶת הַכֶּסֶף, וְהַכֶּסֶף אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה אֶת הַזָּהָב. הַנְּחֹשֶׁת קוֹנָה אֶת הַכֶּסֶף, וְהַכֶּסֶף אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה אֶת הַנְּחשֶׁת. מָעוֹת הָרָעוֹת קוֹנוֹת אֶת הַיָּפוֹת, וְהַיָּפוֹת אֵינָן קוֹנוֹת אֶת הָרָעוֹת. אֲסִימוֹן קוֹנֶה אֶת הַמַּטְבֵּעַ, וְהַמַּטְבֵּעַ אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה אֶת אֲסִימוֹן. מִטַּלְטְלִין קוֹנִים אֶת הַמַּטְבֵּעַ, וְהַמַּטְבֵּעַ אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה אֶת הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין קוֹנִין זֶה אֶת זֶה:
L'oro acquista argento e l'argento non acquista oro. Il rame acquista argento e l'argento non acquisisce rame. [Tutto ciò che è considerato come valuta e che passa facilmente in commercio ha lo status di moneta e non acquisisce la sua controparte che non è considerata come valuta e non passa altrettanto facilmente in commercio. Quest'ultimo ha lo status di frutto e tirarlo è un atto di conferma. Pertanto, quando uno tira dinari d'oro, l'altro acquisisce dinari d'argento ovunque si trovino e nessuno dei due può ritirarsi. Poiché i dinari d'oro sono frutti relativi ai dinari d'argento. E l'argento non acquisisce oro. Per i dinari d'argento, che passano prontamente nel commercio, hanno lo status di denaro rispetto ai dinari d'oro. In modo che se uno di loro ha tirato dinari d'argento, l'altro non ha acquisito un dinaro d'oro fino a quando non l'ha tirato, perché il denaro non ha effetto sull'acquisizione. E questa è anche la ragione per cui il rame acquisisce argento. Poiché la p'rutoth di rame, che non è una valuta così facilmente spiegata, sono frutti relativi ai dinari dell'argento e l'argento non acquisisce rame.] Il denaro cattivo [vale a dire, invalidato] acquisisce denaro buono e il denaro buono non acquisisce denaro cattivo . Un asimon [(un pezzo di metallo) a forma di moneta, ma non ancora fissato con un disegno] acquisisce una moneta e una moneta non acquisisce un asimon. Mitaltelin (oggetti mobili) acquisisce una moneta, ma una moneta non acquisisce mitaltelin. Questa è la regola: tutti i mitaltelin si acquisiscono l'un l'altro. [Se uno fosse scambiato con l'altro, tirando l'acquisizione dell'uno effetto dell'altro. "Tutto" arriva a includere anche (uno scambio) di un sacchetto pieno di soldi per un altro.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia
Copper acquires silver, but silver does not acquire copper.
Bad coins acquire good coins but good coins do not acquire bad coins.
An unminted coin acquires a minted coin, but a minted coin does not acquire an unminted coin.
Movable property acquires coined money, but coined money does not acquire movable property.
This is the general rule: movable property acquires other movable property.
The first two mishnayoth of chapter four deal with what constitutes the finalizing of a transaction of movable property (movable property includes things and animals and does not include land). The importance of this halacha is that when the transaction is final neither side may retract the sale. For instance if an animal is sold and then dies before the seller can bring it to the buyer it is important to know if the sale was final. If the sale was final then the buyer’s animal died. If it was not final than the seller’s animal died. The general rule that is important to note in the outset is that the transfer of money does not cause the acquisition to be final. In other words if Reuven gave Shimon 100 zuz for his cow the cow does not belong to Reuven until he takes possession of it (this can be done in various ways).
As explained in the introduction, money does not acquire movable property, but the transfer of movable property does obligate the buyer to give the money. Our mishnah defines what money is in relation to movable property. To understand this mishnah one must keep in mind that in those times coins were based on their weight in silver and the authority of the government who had minted the coin. Most coins were made of silver but there were gold and copper coins as well. Silver coins were more easily accepted in the marketplace than gold or copper coins. Section one teaches that gold is “movable property” in relation to silver which is “money”. Therefore if the owner of the silver takes the gold from its owner he is obligated to give him the silver, even if he were to change his mind. If, however, the owner of the silver gave the silver to the owner of the gold, the sale is not final and the owner of the gold may still retract the exchange.
The remainder of the mishnah similarly defines property vis a vis money. Copper is “property” compared to silver. Bad, worn out and unminted coins do not fall into the category of “money” but are rather closer on the spectrum to being “movable property”. Finally, if two pieces of movable property are being exchanged, the acceptance of one creates an obligation for the other to be given as well.
Examples relevant to this mishnah will be given in the next mishnah.
What might be a possible connection between those of the generations of the Flood and the Dispersion and those who don’t keep their word?