The gemara (Bava Metzia 47a) quotes a statement, and tries to figure out which opinions are (in)compatible with this statement:

אמר רב ששת בריה דרב אידי כמאן כתבינן האידנא במנא דכשר למקניא ביה במנא לאפוקי מדרב ששת דאמר קונין בפירות [...] ‏

R. Shesheth, the son of R. Iddi, said: In accordance with whom do we write nowadays, ‘with a utensil that is fit for acquiring possession therewith’? ‘With a utensil’ — that rejects the view of R. Shesheth, who maintains: A title may be effected by means of produce. [...]

(Soncino translation)

On the next page (47b), the discussion continues:

.ביה רב פפא אמר למעוטי מטבע

‘Therewith’ — R. Papa said: It is to exclude coins.

Does this discussion imply that a coin is a "מנא?" If coins are not utensils, shouldn't they have been previously excluded from the word "מנא"?


We discuss for Kinyan Chalipin.
The question is about the Hava Amina that entails an additional teaching to exclude the possibility of Chalipin with coin.

The answer can be found in Kesef Mishne

Introduction: The rationale is that when the Gemara says mana, the definition is a not-fruit. So coin may be a mana in this sense. And further the Gemara found two different versions of the statements of Rav Papa. the first is that coin is not equivalent to utensils, and the second says that coin is equivalent to utensils in matter of Chalipin (Not in Matter of hilchot Shabbat or hilchot Tum'at Kelim).
See bellow a snippet of Kesef Mishne Sefer Kinyan, Hilchot Mechira, chapter 5, Halacha 6, annotated: The whole text is here

ואמרו בגמרא במנא לאפוקי ממ"ד קונין בפירות ביה למעוטי מטבע ‏ שכיון שאמרו במנא נתמעטו בין מטבע בין שאר דברים דלא הוו כלי וביה למה לי למעוטי מטבע‏?‏‏
‏ י"ל דכל מילי מיקרו כלי לבד מפירות לפי שאין דומים כלל לנעל שאין משתמשים בהם בשום מלאכה ונרקבין ונפסדין במעט זמן ואין מתקיימין כנעל ‏ ‏‏ ומטבע כעין נעל הוא דראוי להשתמש בו לתלותו בצואר הבנות ולשקול בו משקלותיו ואינו נרקב [...] ‏

And it is said in the gemara, "A utensil" to exclude the opinion that holds that one can effect a chalipin with fruit, and "therewith" to exclude coins. [One might ask] since it is said "with a utensil," that should exclude both coins as well as anything else that is not a vessel, and why do we need "therewith" to exclude coin?

One could answer that anything can be called a vessel besides for fruit, because they are not at all similar to a shoe [see explanation below], because they cannot be used for any labor. Additionally, they rot and are lost after a short time and do not last like a shoe. And a coin is like a shoe because one can use it for [some form of] work, e.g. to hang it from the necklace of young girls, or to weigh things with it, and it doesn't rot [...]

(free translation)

The reason we care so much about comparing the object of chalipin to a shoe is because the inverse opinion of the one that was excluded from "mana" (Rav Nachman) holds that because the source of chalipin is "ושלף איש נעלו" (Rus 4:7), chalipin only works with something that is "similar to a shoe," in other words, a "kli."

| improve this answer | |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .