daf bit: Bava Metzia 47

[cellio]

The g'mara is in the midst of a discussion of items that can be used to acquire other items. (The best-known case of this is probably the wedding ring, with which the husband acquires the wife. As I understand it, this is why there is a halachic problem with double-ring ceremonies; she gives him a ring in exchange for a ring, instead of her wedding vow in exchange for a ring.) On today's daf there is a discussion of barter. Rabbi Adda ben Ahaba said: Come and hear: A man is standing in the market with a cow and his neighbor asks why, and he says "I need an ass". The neighbor says "I have an ass I will give you for your cow. What is the value of your cow?" So much. "What is the value of your ass?" So much. If the neighbor takes possession of the cow and the ass dies before the first man can take possession, the deal is cancelled -- both parts of the exchange are required. Rabba disagrees, saying that title is acquired when one party takes possession. (47a)

I presume, though it's not discussed here, that Rabba would say that the neighbor must pay the value of the ass (or the cow?), else he would be unlawfully withholding payment. But I don't know if that's how the law really works.

Comments

[zevabe.livejournal.com]

I think not. I think Rabba would say that the donkey wherever it is becomes the property of the man who had the cow. If the seller of the donkey did not disclose a defect (e.g. the donkey was very old), then the buyer of the donkey has a legitimate claim. Once the cow is acquired, the donkey is acquired, and its former owner is now a watchman over it. If he is negligent in watching it (e.g. before he delivers it, the donkey runs away) the buyer of the donkey has a claim. Otherwise, it is the buyers bad luck that his perfectly healthy donkey died.

[cellio]

Oh, that makes more sense. Thanks! (I didn't understand "title is acquired" to mean both titles, the cow and the donkey, but that reading invites difficulties.)

[geekosaur]

That halakhic issue with double rings strikes me as odd; I thought in those ceremonies both parties were exchanging rings for vows.