Thirteen Thousand Coins
(1) On Friday’s daf, Bava Batra 150b, the Talmudic Narrator goes through different items which are properly classified as nechasim. One of these is coins:
זוּזֵי אִיקְּרִי ״נִכְסֵי״, דִּתְנַן: וְשֶׁאֵין לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת נִקְנִין עִם נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת – בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. כִּי הָא דְּרַב פָּפָּא הֲווֹ לֵיהּ תְּרֵיסַר אַלְפֵי זוּזֵי בֵּי חוֹזָאֵי, אַקְנִינְהוּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ לְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַחָא אַגַּב אַסִּיפָּא דְבֵיתֵיהּ. כִּי אֲתָא, נְפַק לְאַפֵּיהּ עַד ״תְּווֹךְ״.
Money [zuzei] is called property, as we learned in that same mishna: And property that does not serve as a guarantee can be acquired together with property that serves as a guarantee by means of money, by means of a deed, or by taking possession of it. Money is among the types of property that can be acquired by means of the acquisition of land, as is evident from this incident involving Rav Pappa, who had twelve thousand dinars loaned to the people of Bei Ḥozai. Rav Pappa transferred ownership of the money to Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa, who was traveling to Bei Ḥozai, by means of transferring ownership of the threshold of his house, so that Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa could collect the money. When Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa came back with the money, Rav Pappa was so pleased that he went out as far as Tavakh to meet him
This sugya appears in multiple places in Shas, and there are manuscript variants for each. For instance, here, in Hamburg 165,
it is tleisar instead of treisar, thirteen instead of twelve. While the resh and lamed are somewhat orthographically similar, this seems like an oral error, as these letters are part of the lamnar group.
Does twelve vs. thirteen make any difference? Possibly, because 13 is one of those magic numbers that indicates a guzma, an exaggeration.
A more important distinction is between הֲווֹ לֵיהּ, as it appears in this secondary sugya — it is secondary since this is the Talmudic Narrator trying to prove a point from that other story — and הֲוָה מַסֵּיק, that appears in Bava Kamma.
The various sugyot:
In Bava Kamma, it is clearly repayment for a loan:
לְסוֹף אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי כָּתַב לָךְ נָמֵי ״הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי״, לָאו כְּלוּם הוּא; דִּלְמָא אַדְּאָתֵית שָׁכֵיב רַבִּי אַבָּא, וְנָפְלוּ זוּזֵי קַמֵּי יַתְמֵי, וְ״הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי״ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא לָאו כְּלוּם הוּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְאֶלָּא מַאי תַּקַּנְתָּא? זִיל נַקְנִינְהוּ לָךְ אַגַּב אַרְעָא, וְתָא אַתְּ כְּתוֹב לַן ״הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי״.
Ultimately, Rava said to him: Even if he writes you a document stating: I have received payment, it is nothing, since perhaps by the time you arrive back here, Rabbi Abba will have died and the money will fall before his orphans as an inheritance, and the document stating: I have received payment, that was written by Rabbi Abba, will be nothing, as the debt is no longer owed to him, but rather, to his heirs. Rav Safra said to him: Rather, what is the rectification? Rava replied: Go, and Rabbi Abba will transfer to you the rights to the money owed to him by means of acquisition of land from him, and then you should come and write for us a document stating: I have received payment. Then, we will pay you.
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.
as opposed to transfer of the actual monies.
I wrote about this in a post on Bava Metzia, where the claim is that Rav Pappa retracted. But this purported retraction is based on hava leih instead of hava masik. See the post here:
(2) Tangentially related to this was Rava’s statement from the immediately preceding daf, which had me running the Rav Pappa sugya through my mind. In Bava Batra 149a,
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁהוֹדָה, מַהוּ? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאִיסּוּר גִּיּוֹרָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ תְּרֵיסַר אַלְפֵי זוּזֵי בֵּי רָבָא. רַב מָרִי בְּרֵיהּ – הוֹרָתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּקְדוּשָּׁה, וְלֵידָתוֹ בִּקְדוּשָּׁה הֲוַאי; וּבֵי רַב הֲוָה.
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of a person on his deathbed who admitted that he owed money to a certain person, where it was possible that he did not actually owe him money, what is the halakha? Does his admission qualify as the gift of a person on his deathbed? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a proof, as Issur the convert had twelve thousand dinars deposited in the house of Rava. Rav Mari, Issur’s son, whose conception was not in the sanctity of the Jewish people, i.e., he was conceived before his father converted, but his birth was in the sanctity of the Jewish people, i.e., he was born after his father converted, was in a study hall elsewhere when his father was on his deathbed.
אָמַר רָבָא: הֵיכִי נִיקְנִינְהוּ רַב מָרִי לְהָנֵי זוּזֵי? אִי בִּירוּשָׁה – לָאו בַּר יְרוּשָּׁה הוּא. אִי בְּמַתָּנָה – מַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע כִּירוּשָּׁה שַׁוְּיוּהָ רַבָּנַן; כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בִּירוּשָׁה – אִיתֵיהּ בְּמַתָּנָה, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּלֵיתֵיהּ בִּירוּשָׁה – לֵיתֵיהּ בְּמַתָּנָה.
Rava reasoned that he would acquire possession of the deposit for himself, as he said: How can Rav Mari acquire these dinars? If he attempts to acquire the money as inheritance, he is not fit to inherit from Issur. Since he was conceived before his father converted, he is therefore not halakhically considered his son. If he attempts to acquire it as a gift, the Sages equated the halakhic status of the gift of a person on his deathbed with that of inheritance. Therefore, anywhere that the property can be acquired as inheritance, it can also be acquired as a gift, and anywhere that the property cannot be acquired as inheritance, it cannot be acquired as a gift.
אִי בִּמְשִׁיכָה – לֵיתַנְהוּ גַּבֵּיהּ. אִי בַּחֲלִיפִין – אֵין מַטְבֵּעַ נִקְנֶה בַּחֲלִיפִין. אִי אַגַּב קַרְקַע – לֵית לֵיהּ אַרְעָא. אִי בְּמַעֲמַד שְׁלָשְׁתָּן – אִי שָׁלַח לִי לָא אָזֵילְנָא.
If he attempts to acquire the dinars by pulling them, which is a formal act of acquisition, he will not be able to do this, as the dinars are not with him. If he attempts to acquire them by means of symbolic exchange, a pro forma act of acquisition effecting the transfer of ownership of an article, money cannot be acquired by means of symbolic exchange. If he attempts to acquire them by means of the acquisition of land, Issur does not have any land. If he attempts to acquire them by means of verbal instruction made by his father in the presence of all three parties, i.e., the giver, the recipient, and the bailee, if he sends for me, the bailee, I shall not go, as without the presence of the bailee he cannot transfer ownership of the money.
Whereupon Rav Ikka bereih deRav Ami proposed a mechanism for such transfer.
Rava discarded each possibility for pragmatic reasons (he doesn’t have land, he can’t access the coins to acquire, he lacks land) or for halachic reasons, which either appear elsewhere in Shas or don’t.
For chalipin, he claims אֵין מַטְבֵּעַ נִקְנֶה בַּחֲלִיפִין. This is surprising, because the famous argument between Rav and Levi in Bava Metzia 45b is מַטְבֵּעַ נַעֲשֶׂה חֲלִיפִין or אֵין מַטְבֵּעַ נַעֲשֶׂה חֲלִיפִין, whether a coin can be used as the sudar in kinyan sudar. Rav Pappa weighs in there on their motivating principle, but follows this up with:
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מַטְבֵּעַ נַעֲשֶׂה חֲלִיפִין – מֶיעְבָּד הוּא דְּלָא עָבֵיד חֲלִיפִין, אַקְנוֹיֵי מִיקְּנוּ בַּחֲלִיפִין, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַפֵּירֵא לְרַב נַחְמָן. פֵּירֵא לְרַב נַחְמָן, לָאו אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִינְהוּ לָא עָבְדִי חֲלִיפִין – אַקְנוֹיֵי מִקְּנוּ בַּחֲלִיפִין, טִבְעָא נָמֵי לָא שְׁנָא.
Rav Pappa says: Even according to the one who says: Money cannot be the item used to effect a transaction by means of exchange, this means only that money does not effect a transaction of exchange; but he concedes that money is acquired by means of a transaction of exchange. If one party pulls a vessel into his possession, the other party acquires silver coins in exchange, just as it is with regard to produce, according to the opinion of Rav Naḥman. Is it not the case that even though according to the opinion of Rav Naḥman produce itself does not effect a transaction of exchange, nevertheless produce is acquired by means of a transaction of exchange? Currency, too, is no different.
That is, Rav Pappa held that it can be the target of kinyan sudar. The Talmudic Narrator (who we might assume is post-Amoraic) then attacks Rav Pappa based on other sources. And then cites a story demonstrating that Rav Pappa himself retracted. Which story? The one above, but based on the reading of hava leih instead of hava masik; and assuming that Rav Pappa wouldn’t have looked out for his own interest by using a mechanism that was acceptable by everyone, when so much money was on the line. That was my post linked above, “defending” Rav Pappa.
So, this just strikes me as strange. Rava seems to be dependent on the conclusion of that other sugya, where the Stamma attacks Rava’s student Rav Pappa. That does not work out chronologically. Alternatively, he explicitly stated this. If so, it would have behooved the Stamma over there in Bava Metzia to cite Rava here, to show that the rebbe disagreed with the talmid. This would not be as strong a ta shema as the Tannaitic texts brought to bear, but would be an explicit disagreement by a prominent Amora.
My suspicion is that Rava in our sugya said a whole lot less. Just as the other sugya in Bava Metzia (in the very next segment to what was cited which analyzed a brayta source to showing that chalipin could not have been used) exhausted all possibilities, so too here, once Rava said that he couldn’t conceive of a way for Issar Giyora to transfer to his son, the gemara stepped in and placed words in Rava’s mouth, as to how none of the typical kinyanim were applicable. That would admittedly be a biggish leap, but not entirely out of character. I’d rather that than have Rava depend on the Stamma’s conclusion, of have Rava say something entirely ignored by his student Rav Pappa.