(Rabah citing Rav Huna): If Reuven held up money and said 'sell me your item for this', and Shimon agreed (even though he could not see how much money it was), the acquisition works, and Shimon can claim the Ona'ah. (If the money is a sixth less than the item's value, Reuven must give the amount he underpaid.)

The acquisition works, even though Reuven did not do Meshichah. Since Shimon was not concerned to see how much money was paid, this acquires, like Chalipin;

Shimon can claim the Ona'ah. Since he said 'sell', and not 'trade,' it is a sale (to which the law of Ona'ah applies), and it is not Chalipin.

(Rav Aba citing Rav Huna): If Reuven held up money and said 'sell to me your item for this', and Shimon agreed, the acquisition works, and Shimon cannot claim the Ona'ah.

Both agree that if the seller is not concerned to see how much money was paid, this acquires, like Chalipin.

Question: What is the law of Chalipin when the seller is particular about how much money was paid? (Is it like a Kinyan Kesef, and it is not final until Meshichah is done?)

Answer (Rav Ada bar Ahavah - Beraisa): If Reuven wanted to exchange his cow for Shimon's donkey, and after asking each other the price, Shimon was Moshech the cow, and the donkey died before Reuven was Moshech it, the cow was not acquired.

This teaches that when the seller is concerned about how much money is paid, it is like a regular sale.

Objection (Rava): People always care about the value, even in Chalipin!

The Beraisa discusses when Shimon wanted a cow and a lamb for his donkey. Since he was Moshech only the cow, the acquisition was never completed.

(Rav Huna): If Reuven held up money and said 'sell me your item for this', and Shimon agreed, the acquisition works, and Shimon can claim the Ona'ah.

Suggestion: Rav Huna (who says that he acquires because it is like Chalipin) says that coins can be acquired through Chalipin.

Rejection: No. Rather, he agrees with R. Yochanan, that mid'Oraisa, money acquires Metaltelim;

Chachamim enacted that Meshichah acquires (and not money), lest someone sell something in his house and be slothful about saving it from a fire, for it already belongs to the buyer and he has nothing to gain by saving it;

Chachamim decreed only in the usual case (when the seller is concerned about the money). In this case, we rule that the money acquires without Meshichah.

(Mar Huna brei d'Rav Nachman): We learned that Rav Huna explicitly said that coins cannot be acquired through Chalipin.

Question: Whose Kli is used to do Chalipin?

Answer #1 (Rav): The buyer's Kli is used. He wants the seller to get his Kli, in order that the seller will resolve absolutely that the buyer acquire the commodity.

Answer #2 (Levi): The seller's is used (we will explain why later).

Question (Rav Huna of Diskarta): According to Levi, the seller gives land (through Chalipin) through giving a Kli. A Mishnah teaches just the contrary!

(Mishnah): Metaltelim are acquired along with land.

Answer (Rava): The Kli does not acquire the land. Rather, with the pleasure the seller gets that the buyer accepted his Kli, he resolves to give the land.

Tana'im argue like Rav and Levi argue.

(Beraisa): "Al ha'Ge'ulah... he gave his shoe to the other." "Ge'ulah" refers to a sale; "Te'udah" refers to Chalipin;

Question: "Lekayem Kol Davar Shalaf Ish Na'alo" - who gave his shoe to whom?

Answer #1: Boaz (who acquired rights to redeem the field) gave to the (closer) redeemer.

Answer #2 (R. Yehudah): The redeemer gave to Boaz.

(Beraisa): A Kli does Chalipin, even if it is not worth a Perutah.

(Rav Nachman): That refers only to a Kli, but Peros do not work.

(Rav Sheshes): Even Peros work.

Question: What is Rav Nachman's reason?

Answer: The verse discusses a shoe (to show that a Kli is needed)!

Question: How does Rav Sheshes explain this?

Answer: "Na'alo" teaches that something specific must be used. This excludes half a fruit (when he did not specify which half).

Question (Rav Sheshes brei d'Rav Idi): We write in documents '(we acquired) with a Kli proper to acquire with it.' Whom is this like?

Answer: 'A Kli' excludes Rav Sheshes' opinion, that Peros make Chalipin. 'Proper' excludes Shmuel's opinion, that Maroka (Rashi - Kelim of dung; Tosfos - date pits) may be used;

'To acquire' - not to make (the other) acquire (i.e. the Kli is of the one acquiring);

Version #1 (Rav Papa): 'With it' excludes coins;

(Rav Zvid): 'With it' excludes something forbidden to benefit from it.

Version #2 (Rav Papa): 'With it' excludes coins;

(Rav Zvid): 'Valid' excludes something forbidden to benefit from it;

Obviously, Maroka is invalid. The text need not allude to it.

(Mishnah): An Asimon acquires coins...

Question: What is an Asimon?

Answer #1 (Rav): It is a coin given for a sign in the bathhouse (that one paid for a bath).

Question (Mishnah): We cannot redeem Ma'aser Sheni on an Asimon, nor on coins given like a sign in the bathhouse.

This shows that they are two different things!

Suggestion: The Mishnah explains that an Asimon is a coin given for a sign in the bathhouse.

Rejection (Mishnah - R. Dosa): We can not redeem Ma'aser Sheni on an Asimon;

Chachamim say, we can redeem on it;

Both agree that we cannot redeem on coins given for a sign in the bathhouse.

Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): Rather, an Asimon is a blank coin.

This is like R. Yochanan said elsewhere.

(R. Yochanan): R. Dosa (brought above) and R. Yishmael agree with each other.

(Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "V'Tzarta ha'Kesef b'Yadecha" includes anything that may be Nitzrar (wrapped) in the hand;

R. Akiva says, this includes any coin that has a Tzurah (form, i.e. mintage).

(Mishnah): If Reuven made Meshichah on Shimon's Peros to buy them and did not yet pay, Shimon cannot retract...

(R. Yochanan): Mid'Oraisa, money acquires Metaltelim;

Chachamim enacted that Meshichah acquires (and not money), lest one sell something in his house, and then tell the buyer 'it burned in a fire.'

Objection: The buyer will collect from the one responsible for the fire!

Retraction: Rather, the concern is lest a fire erupt through Ones;

If the item belongs to the seller (until Meshichah), he will strive to save it. If it belongs to the buyer, he will not strive to save it.

(Reish Lakish): The Torah explicitly teaches that Meshichah acquires.

Question: What is the source?

Answer: "Kanoh mi'Yad Amisecha" refers to something that is passed from hand to hand.

R. Yochanan explains that "mi'Yad" excludes land from the law of Ona'ah.

Reish Lakish: To teach only that, it should have said 'when you will sell mi'Yad Amisecha.' "Oh Kano" is extra, to teach Meshichah.

Question: What does R. Yochanan learn from "Oh Kano"?

Answer (Beraisa): "V'Chi Timkeru Memkar... Al Tonu" would teach (forbid) only when the buyer was afflicted (overpaid);

"Oh Kano... Al Tonu" includes when the seller was afflicted (the buyer underpaid).

Reish Lakish learns both laws from "Oh Kano."

Question (against Reish Lakish - Mishnah - R. Shimon): Whoever is holding the money has the upper hand;

The seller can retract, but the buyer cannot.

Granted, if (mid'Oraisa) coins acquire, it sufficed to enact that the seller can retract (he will save the item in order to profit. If it rises in value, he will cancel the sale.)

But according to Reish Lakish, coins do not acquire (mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan). Why can't the buyer retract?

Answer (Reish Lakish): Indeed, R. Shimon holds like R. Yochanan. I explain Chachamim.

Question: According to Reish Lakish, we understand the argument between Chachamim and R. Shimon;

According to R. Yochanan, what do they argue about?

Answer: They argue about Rav Chisda's law;

(Rav Chisda): Just like it was enacted that sellers can retract until Meshichah was done, also regarding buyers.

Chachamim hold like Rav Chisda, and R. Shimon does not.