Chalifin and Chalifin Prime
Looking through recent sugyot, I got the sense that there were two forms of chalifin. The first is one that is commonly thought of as kinyan sudar, in which the glove / sandal / handkerchief / pen is purely symbolic in nature. If effectuates the transaction, since that the target item (e.g. produce) is acquired, and parallel to that is created a monetary obligation, a hitchayvut mamon. The other, which I’d label chalifin prime, is a real barter-trade, in which one item of value is exchanged with the other person for another item of value.
There is no separate monetary obligation created. Both of these might even be called chalifin, such that it is almost a homonym. Confusion may then result in certain gemaras.
As evidence that these two different chalifins exists, consider this brayta in Bava Metzia 47a:
כתנאי (רות ד, ז) וזאת לפנים בישראל על הגאולה ועל התמורה לקיים כל דבר שלף איש נעלו ונתן לרעהו גאולה זו מכירה וכן הוא אומר (ויקרא כז, כ) לא יגאל תמורה זו חליפין וכן הוא אומר (ויקרא כז, י) לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר אותו
The Gemara comments: This dispute between Rav and Levi is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im. The verse states: “Now this was the custom in former time in Israel concerning redemption and concerning substitution, to confirm all matters; a man drew off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbor” (Ruth 4:7). The verse is interpreted: “Redemption”; that is a sale. And likewise it says: “Neither shall be sold nor shall be redeemed” (Leviticus 27:28). “Substitution”; that is the transaction of exchange. And likewise it says: “He may neither exchange it nor substitute it” (Leviticus 27:10).
Rashi explains for mechira:
גאולה זו מכירה - שמכר לו מכירה גמורה בדמים ולא קיבל מעות ובאין לקיים דברי מכירתן על ידי קנין:
and for chalifin:
זו חליפין - שמחליף כלי זה בחפץ שכנגדו:
So there really is only one chalifin. The first one is not a type of chalifin, but a regular mecher, but they establish their words by making a kinyan. Alternatively, we might consider one of the two — and I’m not sure which — to be chalifin prime. For instance, the “mecher” is where there is a sale, so there is a monetary obligation, to call that regular chalifin, while the swap is chalifin prime.
See also Tosafot / Rabbeinu Tam who change the girsa, explain the “geula” as something else, and then give two separate forms of chalifin related to other terms:
תמורה זו חליפין של שוה בשוה דמהני לכ"ע אפי' בפירי. לקיים כל דבר לרבות אינו שוה בשוה למר אף במטבע ופירי ולמר דוקא בכלי:
So temura is a barter-trade of equivalent values, where shaveh beshaveh works, even with fruit (even for Rav Nachman) as a the “handkerchief”. That is what I would call chalifin prime. And next in the pasuk, lekayem kol davar, is the popularly conceived chalifin, which is where it is not equal amounts, just symbolic. And in there, we have the disputes whether coin and fruit work or just vessel.
On 46a, there is a dispute whether a coin can be used for chalifin. They cite a proof that it can be used from a Mishna in Kiddushin 28a, which may have used a rather unlucky word choice, or maybe it was precise:
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל הַנַּעֲשֶׂה דָּמִים בְּאַחֵר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁזָּכָה זֶה – נִתְחַיֵּיב זֶה בַּחֲלִיפָיו. כֵּיצַד? הֶחְלִיף שׁוֹר בְּפָרָה אוֹ חֲמוֹר בְּשׁוֹר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁזָּכָה זֶה – נִתְחַיֵּיב זֶה בַּחֲלִיפָיו.
MISHNA: The mishna discusses a transaction involving the barter of two items. With regard to all items used as monetary value for another item, i.e., instead of a buyer paying money to the seller, they exchange items of value with each other, 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. Therefore, if it is destroyed or lost, he incurs the loss. 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.
The gemara first focuses on the phrase כׇּל הַנַּעֲשֶׂה דָּמִים בְּאַחֵר, ignoring context, and suggests that we are referring to actual damim, money, and thus a coin, effecting chalifin. In that first statement of the Mishnah, it states נִתְחַיֵּיב זֶה בַּחֲלִיפָיו, so that would indicate chalifin, and we are thinking, standard chalifin. (Or that both forms are equivalent.) But reading the context of כֵּיצַד, it is swapping an ox for a cow. How is one damim for the other? We have this strange-ish statement from Rav Yehuda in our sugya, and also in the Kiddushin parallel:
אמר רב יהודה ה"ק
Rav Yehuda said: This is what the mishna is saying:
כל הנישום דמים באחר כיון שזכה זה נתחייב זה בחליפין
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.
ה"נ מסתברא מדקתני סיפא כיצד החליף שור בפרה או חמור בשור שמע מינה
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.
What in the world does Rav Yehuda mean? Rashi has an explanation, but it seems forced to me, in both intent and how to parse the words as a normal Hebrew sentence.
כל הנישום דמים באחר - כל שרגילים לשום אותו כשנותנין אותן דמים באחר דהיינו כל המטלטלים אם בא אדם לתתם דמים בחפץ אחר דרכן לשומן בכמה ינתנו לו:
Thus, anything that is assessed to find its value when given as “money” for something else. That is, any form of metaltelin, moveable objects. So it is a fancy way of saying all metaltelin can be used to effectuate chalifin. But, I think, this is still regular chalifin, with a hitchayvut mamon.
I would say something slightly different in interpreting the Mishnah and Rav Yehuda, though I can’t vouch for it being what the gemara itself meant. When currency fluctuates, it becomes more common to engage in barter-trade, and avoid using the currency — something I saw in Daniel Sperber’s article. So, people might assess how much an ox is worth. It is worth the same as a cow. Or perhaps, one cow plus one sheep. In this way, the Mishnah is saying that the one item IS the damim, the actual purchasing currency, for the other item. How much is that ox worth? One cow. Thus, move one to acquire it, the other party automatically gets the other. And, it is this special kinyan called chalifin prime. There is no kinyan kesef, and there is no hitchayvut mamon. Move one and the transaction is over. And, that is what Rav Yehuda is saying by כל הנישום דמים באחר, anything which is assessed to be the cost of something else.
A bit later in the gemara, they say this works for Rav Sheshet, who says that fruit / commodities (such as a cow) can accomplish chalifin. But how shall we resolve Rav Nachman, who requires a vessel, how should we understand the Mishnah?
הניחא לרב ששת דאמר פירי עבדי חליפין אלא לר"נ דאמר כלי אין אבל פירי לא עבדי חליפין מאי כיצד
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?
(At this point, I would point to the idea above, as appearing in Tosafot 47. If this is chalifin prime, then even Rav Nachman would agree to fruit / cow as a mechanism. I don’t know that this is how the gemara / Stamma answers it. I don’t know that the Stamma necessarily makes these distinctions, which can be why we have all sorts of problems. But maybe I need to read the gemara again.
Indeed, now that I look, Tosafot point this out and ask this very question, based on Rabbeinu Tam:
ולרב נחמן דאמר פרי לא עבדי חליפין מאי כיצד - וא"ת ולפר"ת לוקמיה בחליפין שוה בשוה
That is, what’s the question. Just say that it is chalifin prime! And they answer, based on considerations in the phrasing of the Mishna and kol hanishom. But Tosafot’s approach is to explain how things work, so they often answer the questions. Often, the questions are stronger than the answer, and are worthwhile looking at by themselves, even as we offer other answers, which might run counter to the Stamma. Something I picked up from Dr. Steinfeld.)
So this is the question. And the answer? Reread the reisha of the Mishnah, that we are talking about money, but one that still is somehow chalifin. See Rashi, see Tosafot, see possible girsaot about besar shor. Thus, the gemara:
הכי קאמר יש דמים שהן כחליפין
כיצד החליף דמי שור בפרה או דמי חמור בשורThe 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.
These Rishonim again explain the mechanism in a way that seems forced to me. There are all sorts of contortions, like you first bought the ox and moved it, thus establishing an hitchayvut mamon. Then, the other party offers his cow in exchange for that. It immediately works. But see Artscroll and its lengthy footnote, explaining something like that, then emending it to make it work with the language of the Mishna.
The gemara goes on to tie this in to a Rabbi Yochanan position that kinyan kesef works on a Biblical level for animals. And in this, Reish Lakish argues, and says it need be meshicha, even on a Biblical level. For Rabbi Yochanan, there is a Rabbinic decree, but it wouldn’t apply in this weird situation.
If I were explaining it, I would do it differently that the Rishonim, in what I think is simpler fashion. Again, I don’t know for sure that it would work with the gemara, which seems to bring it back to ordinary coinage currency, even as a monetary obligation. Let us see those words again, so I can render it otherwise:
הכי קאמר יש דמים שהן כחליפין
כיצד החליף דמי שור בפרה או דמי חמור בשור
There is “damim” / value which operates similar to chalifin. But it is not chalifin, nor is it chalifin prime, which doesn’t exist. How so? If the value of an ox is given in exchange for a cow, or the value of a donkey for an ox.
That is, there is a kinyan kesef. We see it by Kiddushin, that one may betroth a woman by giving her kesef. That need not be actual coins. We derive from elsewhere that shaveh kesef, something worth money, harei hu kechesef, has the same status as money. So, if you are using the ox as currency, we are NOT talking about chalifin prime, which doesn’t exist. We are talking about kinyan kesef where the shor is used as its value, as its shaveh kesef.
We also need to think through how this plays out in various chalifin questions, as discussed by the gemara. For instance, a bag of coins for a bag of coins. That would seem to be chalifin prime, but the Stamma would have problems as a matbea; and indeed, Rav Acha, a named albeit late Amora, says that it refers to two types of invalidated coins. Or, the proof of the swap with the moneychanger so that you can pay your workers, where paying a little extra for the immediate availability of that dinar isn’t ribbit if you have the extra coin in your house, where Rav Ashi spoke, לעולם בדמים ובפרוטטות כיון דאית ליה נעשה כאומר הלויני עד שיבא בני או עד שאמצא מפתח, that it is with value and (perhaps indeed not minted coins), and it is like saying lend to me until my son brings it or until I find the key. And similarly the earlier gold dinar for gold dinar case involving Rabbi Chiya’s daughter, where the same answer as Rav Ashi is given by the Stamma.
Why not say that this is effectively chalifin prime, and that that could work even on coins, and that is why it is fine? So, maybe that is indeed a valid answer. Or perhaps coins don’t work even for chalifin prime. Or, perhaps this is indeed Rav Ashi’s answer. Since the coin is actually there, it is not a standard chalifin, but a value-oriented chalifin, namely chalifin prime, and that does work. Or, most obviously, if you are doing a chalifin prime with coins, focused on their value, that isn't chalifin, but an attempt at kinyan kesef.