Starting on daf TB Baba Metzia 47b and continuing today’s daf TB Baba Metzia 48 we study the major sugiya on what constitutes explicit acquisition of an object. Rabbi Yoḥanan holds by Torah law that handing over the money is sufficient to acquire the object is a Torah law. Nevertheless, the rabbis overruled the Torah law and taught the buyer explicitly had to pull (meshikha-מְשִׁיכָה) the object to acquire it. Think of it as a buyer’s protection plan. “By Torah law money effects acquisition, i.e., when one pays money he acquires the item, even if he has not yet performed another act of acquisition. And for what reason did the Sages say that pulling acquires an item and money does not? This is a rabbinic decree lest the seller say to the buyer after receiving the money: Your wheat was burned in the upper story. If a fire breaks out or some other mishap occurs after a seller receives the money, he will not bother to save the goods in his house because they no longer belong to him, and the buyer may incur a loss.” (Sefaria.org translation) The rabbis wanted to “light a fire underneath the seller” to protect the interests of the buyer.
On the other
hand, Reish Lakish holds that handing over the money doesn’t acquire the object
at all. The buyer explicitly has to pull the object to acquired. “Reish
Lakish says: The act of acquisition of pulling is explicit in the Torah,
and it is not merely by rabbinic decree that payment of money does not effect
acquisition of movable property. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for
the opinion of Reish Lakish? He derives it from the Torah, as the
verse states: “And if you sell to your colleague an item that is sold, or
acquire from your colleague’s hand, you shall not exploit his brother”
(Leviticus 25:14), and the reference is to an item that is acquired from
hand to hand, i.e., by means of pulling.” (Sefaria.org translation)
If he is
correct, how does Reish Lakish understand
the Mishna which states “But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment
from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the
generation of the dispersion (the Tower of Babel episode, see Genesis 11-gg, will
in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement.” (Sefaria.org translation) Here is the problem.
“But if you say that giving money does not effect acquisition
of movable property, why does one who reneges after the money is paid stand
subject to the curse: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment?
The Gemara answers: It is due to the fact that he reneged on a
statement of his committing himself to buy the item.
“The Gemara
asks: And does one who reneged on a statement of commitment stand
subject to the curse: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment? But
isn’t it taught in a baraita:… And
one who negotiates,
where the negotiation culminates with a statement committing himself to
acquire the item, did not acquire the item without a formal act of
acquisition. But with regard to one who reneges on his
commitment, the Sages are displeased with him.” (Sefaria.org translation)
We see there
are three levels when comes acquisition of an object. The first level which is
the best both buyer and seller agree to the deal, money changes hands, and the
buyer acquires the object by explicitly pulling it. The second level discussed
in the Gemara which in my view is the worst is after money is exchanged one of
the parties reneges on the deal. God will punish him like He punished the
people during the people of the flood and the generation of the dispersion. The
third level is when a person commits himself to the deal, no money and no
formal acquisition occurs and he reneges afterwards. The sages are not happy
with this behavior at all for a person’s word should be as good as gold.
No comments:
Post a Comment