Shiur on Kiddushin 28
All about chalifin.
Although he’d swap his sister for a new transistor [radio], we know that women do not agree to chalifin, since it also works for something less than a shaveh peruta. On to today’s daf!
(1) The Mishnah really reads as if, for chalipin, it is keilav shel koneh making chalifin. One party pulls the ox, thus acquiring the ox, and by doing so, the other party acquires the matching cow.
This is a dispute elsewhere between Rav and Levi, with Rav saying that is keilav shel koneh. So Tosafot here work out how the Mishnah reads according to each opinion.
כיצד החליף שור בפרה או חמור כו' - לרב ניחא שפיר והכי פירושא החליף הקונה שורו בעבור הפרה כדי לקנות הפרה בכ"מ שהיא אבל ללוי קשה היאך יפרש לוי החליף שור בפרה והלא גם השור וגם הפרה נותן המקנה לקונה דתרוייהו של מקנה ואומר ר"י שיש לפרש החליף המקנה את השור בהנאת קבלת הפרה שהקונה מקבלה הימנו בעבור דבר שהוא נותן לו:
Also, there are some variants of the Mishnah and Gemara in which the second זה is missing. This will impact how to read it, according to both Rav and Levi. That is another Tosafot:
כל הנעשה דמים באחר - פי' בקונטרס כל שדרכו לתתו בדמים כשקונין חפץ דהיינו מטבע וקס"ד דמטבע נעשה חליפין אתא לאשמועינן דמיירי שנתן בתורת חליפין ולא בתורת דמים אלא כעין שקונין בסודר כדכתיב (רות ד׳:ז׳) שלף איש נעלו כיון שזכה זה נתחייב זה בחליפיו רב ולוי פליגי פרק הזהב (ב"מ דף מז.) אי חליפין בכליו של קונה או בכליו של מקנה דרב סובר בכליו של קונה ולוי סובר בכליו של מקנה לרב ניחא שפיר אי גרסינן כיון שזכה זה נתחייב זה הקונה והכי נפרש כיון שזכה זה דהיינו המקנה שזוכה במטבע של קונה נתחייב זה הקונה באונסי חליפין שהם ברשות המקנה בכל מקום שהם ואם נאבדו יאבדו לו ואי ל"ג זה פי' הכי כיון שזכה זה קנה בחליפין כלומר כיון שזכה המקנה במטבע או בסודר של קונה נתחייב המקנה להשיב לקונה חליפיו ולא מצי הדר ביה וללוי דאמר בכליו של מקנה כלומר שיתן המקנה פרוטה לקונה אי גרס נתחייב זה צריך לומר כיון שזכה זה הקונה נתחייב זה דהיינו המקנה להשיב לו חליפיו שאינו יכול לחזור בו ואי לא גרסינן זה הכי נפרש כיון שזכה זה דהיינו הקונה נתחייב הוא עצמו באונסי חליפין כדפרישית:
On Hachi Garsinan, the only one missing a zeh is Munich 95. The Mishnah (larger) has both zehs, but the gemara’s citation will lack it.
Our Vilna gemara omits the second zeh, but this isn’t in the earlier printings or other manuscripts.
(2) Also interesting is — once you omit the second zeh, where do you place the one and only zeh, with the first or second clause.
Artscroll, and Rav Steinsaltz in Hebrew, have what I think is correct:
כיון שזכה זה בדבר נתחייב השני בחליפין. ומעירים: דיקא נמי [מדויק גם כן] מלשון המשנה להסביר בדרך זו: דקתני [ששנה] בה לאחר מכן: כיצד? — החליף שור בפרה או חמור בשור, משמע שמסביר את הדברים שנאמרו קודם. ומסכמים: אכן, שמע מינה [למד מכאן] שכן הוא, שמדובר במשנה בקנין חליפין של חפצים ולא בכסף.
By placing the word badavar it is evident that it is: “Once this one [zeh] acquires, [the second] is obligated in the exchanged item.
But the English translation deviates from this, placing the “this” after the comma:
כֵּיוָן שֶׁזָּכָה זֶה נִתְחַיֵּיב בַּחֲלִיפִין. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: כֵּיצַד? הֶחְלִיף שׁוֹר בְּפָרָה אוֹ חֲמוֹר בְּשׁוֹר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
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 same is the halakha with regard to coins. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches afterward: 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 summarizes: Learn from this clause that the mishna is referring to acquisition through the exchange of items, not money.
(3) We hold like Rav, that it is keilav shel koneh:
Practically, in terms of selling your chametz, is the kinyan chalipin when the rabbi hands you the handkerchief, or when you hand it back?
Here is what Rav Schachter says about it, in a Bava Basra shiur from 2 years ago.
starting at around the 10 minute mark.
When the shul member appoints the rabbi to sell the chametz
"So when the rabbi, when the balabatim appoint the rabbi as a shliach, so the Rambam writes that the minhag is, when you appoint the rabbi as a shliach, be-keilav shel koneh, the rabbi gives his handkerchief to the baal habos, to acquire the right to act as his shliach on his behalf, it's called the keilav shel koneh. The rabbi is the shliach, he's the koneh, he's koneh the right to act…”
For get, when the husband gives the power of attorney to the shliach
, so the minhag is, the Rambam writes, the minhag is, the shliach [I think this was an error for "husband"] gives a handkerchief to the rabbi - what, he's selling him his wife? He's not selling his wife. He's giving, the shliach is acquiring, he's the koneh, he's acquiring the ability to act on behalf of the husband.. so bekeilav shel koneh, he gives the handkerchief to the husband. In exchange for that, he's acquiring the ability to act on behalf of the husband....
When the rabbi sells the chametz to the goy.
... So then, later on, when the rabbi sells the chametz to the goy, so who's the koneh? The goy is the koneh. So the goy has to give his handkerchief to the rabbi. Some rabbis make a mistake - I was in the practicing rabbinate for a few years, so I would sell chametz. So one of the rabbis - all the rabbis come together - so one of the rabbis thought that just like when the rabbi gets the right to sell the chametz on behalf of the bal habos, the rabbi gives his handkerchief to the baal habos, so the rabbi thought he gives his handkerchief to the goy. No! Be-keilav shel koneh!"
(4) I am a little unhappy with the initial sevara of the Bavli. It seems so farfetched, and the keitzad seems like something obvious, not just a dayka nami.
I’m also not quite happy with the way the gemara takes Rav Yehuda’s position, placing it as a rejection of the above idea that a matbe’a effects chalifin. As Rashi understands Rav Yehuda, when you do chalifin, he is saying that you must assess the item being pulled, so that you know its value. I find that problematic because once you appraise it to know its value, just as you do for kinyan kesef — see the earlier dispute between Rav Yehuda and Rabba about whether shirai need appraisal — then how is this shaveh kesef any different from a kinyan kesef which does not work.
I would have read the Mishnah, כׇּל הַנַּעֲשֶׂה דָּמִים בְּאַחֵר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁזָּכָה זֶה – נִתְחַיֵּיב זֶה בַּחֲלִיפָיו, that whatever is being considered the “currency” to acquire the other item, as soon as one pulls it, the kinyan takes effect. So the cow and the ox, if he pulls the cow, the cow is the currency, even if you don’t know its value. The value of the ox is “this one cow”.
I’d point to the parallel sugya existing in Bava Metzia, in perek Hazahav. It is called perek Hazahav in Bavli because the Mishnah reads that the gold acquires the silver, but the silver doesn’t acquire the gold. In the paralllel Yerushalmi, the perek is called Hakesef, because the Mishnah is flipped. The silver acquires the gold, and the gold doesn’t acquire the silver. There was a difference, a shift, in realities between Bavel and Eretz Yisrael in terms of what was the currency and what was the material being acquired, based on the monetary standards employed in each locale.
So here, the cow is הַנַּעֲשֶׂה דָּמִים בְּאַחֵר, effectively becoming the “currency" for the other.
And I’d read that into Rav Yehuda’s words as well:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל הַנִּישּׁוֹם דָּמִים בְּאַחֵר,
it is appraised to be the money of the other item, not like Rashi, that it actually should be appraised to determine its value.
I would point to the Yerushalmi parallel:
and align myself, and Rav Yehuda, with what Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedat says. If the items are appraised, then it is a kinyan kesef, not a kinyan chalipin. Here, the thing which becomes the damim, currency, of the other item, is the thing which tzarich, means still requires because it is missing, lashum, to be assessed.
(5) I like to learn the Rosh with the gemara. Here, the Rosh points us to perek hazahav, to the parallel sugya, so that he doesn’t have to repeat himself (or even risk inconsistency). There is a single point where he discusses the sugya — I’d suggest the primary point, since so much of Kiddushin is a haavara, a sugya drawn from another location.
I’ll discuss this in my article this coming week, but essentially, the Rif and Rosh cover this. Within the false premise that matbe’a naaseh chalifin, Rav Nachman is aligned with Rabbi Yochanan. Rav Nachman → Rabbi Yochanan. And Reish Lakish is aligned with Rav Sheshet. Reish Lakish → Rav Sheshet. Though (Rav Nachman, Rav Sheshet) are one pair of disputants and (Rabbi Yochanan, Reish Lakish) are the other. [I’d interject: does it follow that the arrows reverse?]
Because of this alignment, and because elsewhere Rava says that we always hold like Rabbi Yochanan over Reish Lakish except in three cases, and this isn’t one of them, the Rif says we rule like Rav Nachman. Even though this is all within a rejected hava amina. Because of this complaint, Rosh doesn’t consider this a valid proof. He still says we hold like Rav Nachman, but for a different reason.
My article is going to question whether we really always rule like Rabbi Yochanan, and whether that is really what Rava said. A michlal hein ata shome’a lav??