In Defense of Rav Pappa
In today’s daf (Bava Metzia 46a), and yesterday’s, Rav Pappa said that even according to the one (either Rav or Levi) who says that a coin cannot act as the handkerchief of chalifin, it can still be the target of chalifin. His argument is by analogy to Rav Nachman. Rav Nachman maintained that the handkerchief of chalifin could not be produce, but something more akin to the naal (sandal, glove) of Ruth between Boaz and Ploni Almoni, while Rav Sheshet held produce could be the handkerchief. Yet, even Rav Nachman would agree that produce could be the target of chalifin.
The Talmudic Narrator first attacks Rav Pappa position via a Mishnah, which presented a contorted way of performing deconsecration of maasar sheini onto a coin in a way that didn’t impose a surcharge - that it wouldn’t be his own coin on his own produce. If chalifin worked on coins, the Stamma argues, this would be a preferable method, since it would be clearer that the person was technically a nachri, stranger, to the produce. I’m not sure that I find this compelling - in either case, one is still a nochri, this is also a contortion, and maybe the author of the Mishnah just wanted to present this chiddush, an innovative method of accomplishing the task. I think Rav Pappa could readily defend himself.
However, the Stamma then says that even Rav Pappa himself retracted. How so?
וְאַף רַב פָּפָּא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ. כִּי הָא דְּרַב פָּפָּא הֲווֹ לֵיהּ תְּרֵיסַר אַלְפֵי דִּינָרֵי בֵּי חוֹזָאֵי, אַקְנִינְהוּ לְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַחָא אַגַּב אַסִּיפָּא דְּבֵיתֵיהּ. כִּי אֲתָא, נְפַק לְאַפֵּיהּ עַד תְּווֹךְ.
The Gemara relates: And even Rav Pappa retracted his previous statement that coins are acquired by means of a transaction of exchange, as in this incident in which Rav Pappa had twelve thousand dinars that he lent to another in Bei Ḥozai. He transferred ownership of the dinars to his agent, Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa, by means of granting acquisition of the threshold of his house to him, to enable the agent to demand repayment of the loan on his own behalf. This obviated the need for him to consult Rav Pappa in the case of every contingency, which would complicate matters. It is apparent from the fact that the transaction was effected by means of granting acquisition of the threshold that Rav Pappa concedes that coins are not acquired by means of a transaction of exchange. When Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa came after repayment of the loan, Rav Pappa was so pleased that he went out as far as Tevakh to meet him.
I would challenge this interpretation in several ways.
We have Rav Pappa’s statement and Rav Pappa’s action. How do we know which was first and which was second? Maybe his innovation occurred to him later? However, I think we could answer this, in that Rav Shmuel bar Acha was his sixth-generation student, so this could be chronologically placed when Rav Pappa was already a teacher. We don’t know when he made the analogy to Rav Nachman’s law of fruit.
For the Mishnah, at least we had the reason of it being more evident that the person was a nochri. Here, I’m not so convinced that kinyan agav based on the threshold is less preferable to a chaifin kinyan sudar, so why should his conduct here have any bearing on this? (Similarly, they didn’t use chalifin with the Sages on the ship, to designate and give over various forms of maasar.)
We know from other Talmudic stories that Rav Pappa was a very savvy businessman, and cutthroat, such that colleagues and teachers suggested he ease off a bit. Here, 12,000 dinarim were at stake. OK, probably not that precise amount, because that is the language of guzma, exaggeration. But still, a large sum of coins. The whole purpose of this kinyan agav was that those in physical possession of the money in Bei Chozai were reluctant to hand it over to an emissary, rather than Rav Pappa himself. If it were stolen en route to Rav Pappa in Naresh, they would still be on the hook for the money. Therefore, he perform a kinyan with Rav Shmuel bar Acha so that the money now belonged to him, and he could claim it, and assume responsibility.
Now, but yourselves in the minds of the residents of Bei Chozai. If you found out they Rav Pappa used a kinyan sudar on coins, and this was a Rav Pappa innovation, and his colleagues wouldn’t necessarily agree that this was a valid kinyan, would you rely on it? Of course not! (And indeed, that gemara is claiming that Rav Pappa himself held it worked and then himself retracted, so they would be good to be wary. Though that’s circular.) Rav Pappa was anxious about this money, and was so elated that he traveled a distance to greet it. I would therefore expect Rav Pappa to use as uncontroversial a kinyan as possible, which here would be kinyan agav. So this does not prove retraction.Finally, as noted by the Rosh, this story also appears in Bava Kamma (104b) and Bava Batra (77b, 150b). I’d add that I believe it is being borrowed here for a purpose, and is not primary. Yet. when we check Bava Kamma, he didn’t have — hava leih — those 12,000 coins in physical form, as a deposit. Rather, masik, he was owed this money.
כִּי הָא דְּרַב פָּפָּא הֲוָה מַסֵּיק תְּרֵיסַר אַלְפֵי זוּזֵי בֵּי חוֹזָאֵי, אַקְנִינְהוּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ לְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא אַגַּב אַסִּיפָּא דְבֵיתֵיהּ. כִּי אֲתָא, נְפַק לְאַפֵּיהּ עַד תְּוָאךְ.
The Gemara notes: And this is like that course of action of Rav Pappa, who was owed twelve thousand dinars by a resident of Bei Ḥozai, and he transferred his claim to the money to Rav Shmuel bar Abba by means of the acquisition of the threshold of his house. When Rav Shmuel bar Abba came from Bei Ḥozai with the money in hand, Rav Pappa went out as far as Tavakh toward him in his excitement to receive the money.
If so, he was not dealing with a target of coins at all. He was dealing with a hitchayvut mammon, a value that someone in Bei Chozai owed him. And sure, he didn’t opt for chalifin to transfer this, but that is irrelevant, because we aren’t speaking of physical coins in a known place as the target.
There may be room to side with the named Amora, Rav Pappa, over the possibly Savoraic Stamma, about coins as a target.
In the Rif, regarding the question of using coins as the handkerchief of kinyan sudar, he notes the dispute between the anonymized Rav and Levi, then adds that (on today’s daf) several Amoraim concur that coins cannot be used to effectuate chalifin. Therefore, yachid vs. rabbim, we rule like the majority. He adds that, also. Rav Pappa says that it doesn’t work to effectuate chalifin, and fifth-generation Rav Pappa is the batrai.
I’m not so persuaded by this last argument. Rav Pappa (on yesterday’s daf) had provided a rationale for the one (either Rav or Levi) who said that money doesn’t work as the handkerchief. But, providing rationale, what they would say, doesn’t necessarily mean endorsement. Then, Rav Pappa works within the one who disallows it as the handkerchief. “Even according to the one who disallows it as the sudar, it can be the target.” I don’t know that that is endorsement either. It might even indicate the opposite, trying to limit what this position holds, but refraining from standing with him in the first place. Perhaps the Rif has Rav Pappa’s retraction in mind. For, if coins cannot even be the target, then certainly they cannot be the source! But then, I have my doubts, expressed above, about whether Rav Pappa indeed retracted.
Update: Of course, Rif was correct in saying that the gemara had Rav Pappa (as batra) say a coin couldn’t be used as the handkerchief of chalipin. See my correction post here:
