(Mishnah): Any item that is used like money to buy something else, as soon as one person makes an acquisition, the other person becomes responsible for the other item.

For example, if an ox was exchanged for a cow, or a donkey for an ox, as soon as one person acquired, the other person becomes responsible.

Acquisition to and from Hekdesh is done with money; non-Hekdesh is done by taking possession.

Declaring that one is giving something to Hekdesh is like handing it over.

(Gemara - Mishnah in Maseches Bava Metzia): This is the rule - all movables can acquire each other i.e. by exchanging them. This is called a kinyan chalipin - an acquisition through exchange.

R. Ba/ Rav Huna citing Rav: Even if the exchange was done with the piles of items located in two different places.

Response (R. Elazar): The Mishnah is only discussing when the value of one of the items is unknown and needs evaluation, but if the values of both items are known, it is not a kinyan chalipin.

Rav Huna follows the opinion of R. Yochanan and R. Elazar follows his opinion elsewhere...

Mishnah (Maseches Shekalim): Brothers (who divided their father's estate and then became) partners who are obligated to pay kalbon (like any other pair of people who gave a whole shekel for both of them, instead of each giving a machatzis hashekel - half a shekel).(In Temple times, every Jewish male was required to give a machatzis hashekel - a half a shekel to the Temple. One opinion holds that whenever the machatzis hashekel is given, a kalbon - an extra coin is added. The other opinion holds that he must only give a kalbon if another denomination was used and needed to be exchanged), they are exempt from separating Maaser B'hemah (the tithe of one's animals given to the Kohen) for all animals born during the partnership (as there is a pasuk that exempts partners from separating it). Whenever partners are obligated in Maaser B'hemah, they are exempt from paying the kalbon.

R. Elazar: This applies as long as they divided the animals in a way that one received the kids and the other received the goats or vice-versa (as they did not truthfully received their actual inheritance but rather, an equivalent value). However, if at the very beginning, they divided and received equally each type of animal, it is considered that they received their actual inheritance and they must give Maaser B'hemah. (Note: This entry follows the understanding of the Pnei Moshe.)

R. Yochanan: Even if they received equally each type of animal, they are considered buyers and must separate Maaser B'hemah.

Proof (Mishnah in Bechoros): An animal that was bought or received as a gift is exempt from Maaser B'hemah. (However, the case in Maseches Shekalim of brothers who became partners who are obligated in paying the kalbon and are exempt from Maaser B'hemah, is discussing when they divided and then again became partners. But if they did not divide, they are obligated in Maaser B'hemah and exempt from kalbon. (This proves that R. Elazar follows his opinion that it is not called an acquisition unless an evaluation was first made. However, R. Yochanan holds that even if they did not evaluate and divide, it is considered to be an acquisition - this is like Rav Huna who said that a Kinyan Chalipin can be made without evaluation.)

R. Ba citing Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel: If a person owned a cow and another person owned a donkey and they exchanged; if the donkey owner performed meshichah on the cow and the cow owner came to perform meshichah on the donkey and found it to be dead - the donkey owner must bring a proof that his donkey had been alive at the time of the acquisition. This is because of the Torah concept that we apply here, "The onus of proof is upon the one who wishes to extract money''. The exception to this rule is the case of kinyan chalipin. (Since the one who took possession is actually in doubt over the acquisition, we rule in favor of the original owner.)

And whoever does not understand this law does not understand the laws of damages at all.

R. Zeira: But I do not agree to it.

Question (R. Ba to R. Zeira): There is a Beraisa that contradicts Shmuel...

If a betrothed woman was found to have blemishes whilst still in her father's house, her father must bring proof to her husband that those blemishes did not exist before the betrothal (in order for her to receive her Kesubah money).

Question: But according to Shmuel, shouldn't the husband also have to bring proof, since he is claiming that the marriage was under false pretenses and he would like his Kidushin money back from her father?

Answer (Students of R. Yona): The Kidushin money was only a small amount for which the husband would not usually reclaim.

There was once a story that Rav Huna, R. Pinchas and R. Chizkiyah went to visit R. Yosef to learn from him about the opinion of Shmuel.

They said to R.Yosef: We have a Beraisa that supports Shmuel... (Note: This section follows the explanation of the Pnei Moshe.)

If she entered the domain of her husband (and blemishes were discovered), the husband must bring proof (upon divorce in order not to pay her Kesubah, that the blemishes were present before betrothal).

Question: Shouldn't the father have to bring proof in order to extract the Kesubah money from the husband? (Rather, this supports Shmuel, that when the acquisition is in doubt, the onus of proof is on the one who is in possession.)

Rejection: Shmuel agrees that if the cow owner performed meshichah on the donkey, he must bring proof. Here also, since the husband married her, it is as if he performed meshichah and he must bring proof that she had these blemishes before she was married.

R. Ba/Rav Hamnuna / Rav Ada bar Achva citing Rav: If he agreed to sell him a cow but had not yet paid and the seller was pressuring the buyer for payment...

Seller: Give me the money!

Buyer: Why do you want the money?

Seller: I want to buy a donkey!

(The buyer offers a donkey to the seller, instead of payment, but it was not an acquisition of chalipin. Therefore,) if the cow-owner (i.e. the seller) took the donkey, the buyer did not acquire the cow (since it was not chalipin).

Question: But did the seller acquire the donkey?

R. Ba said that he did acquire it and R. Yosi said that he did not.

R. Ba thought that it was an act of chalipin, but in fact, it was actually a sale, so the seller had the wrong intent and there is no acquisition.

R. Mana citing R. Yosi: Sometimes this type of situation would work to make an acquisition as if it was the beginning of the deal for both of them.

How is that? He sold the cow for money and the buyer left some of the money with him. The next day, the buyer found the seller waiting for him and asked him why he was there.

Seller: I want the rest of my money.

Buyer: Why do you want the money?

Seller: I want to buy a donkey.

Buyer: Take this donkey!

The taking of each of them does not make an acquisition for the other (as it is not chalipin). Rather, each person's taking is a separate acquisition for himself.

The Mishnah taught: Acquisition to and from Hekdesh is done with money; non-Hekdesh is done by taking possession.

How is this? If a Temple treasurer gave Hekdesh money for movables, Hekdesh acquires it wherever it may be, as the pasuk states (Tehilim 24, 1), "To Hash-m is the earth and its contents, the land and those that inhabit it.

The Mishnah taught: Declaring that one is giving something to Hekdesh is like handing it over.

How is this? If a person bought a cow from Hekdesh for 200 zuz and before he had brought the 200, the price of the cow depreciated to 100 zuz, he must still pay 200. This is because declaring that one is giving something to Hekdesh is like handing it over.

If he bought a cow from Hekdesh for 100 and before he had brought the 100, it had appreciated in value to 200, he must pay 200, as the pasuk states (Vayikra 27, 19), "...he shall add 1/5th of the money value to it and it shall be his'' - if he adds to the price, it becomes his, but if not, it does not become his.

If a person said, "This ox is an Olah offering'' or "this house is an offering'', Hekdesh acquires them wherever they are, as the pasuk says (ibid), "To Hash-m is the earth and its contents etc.'' But if it was given to non-Hekdesh, the acquisition only takes place when he takes possession of it.