Yerushalmi Bava Metzia 4:2 ירושלמי בבא מציעא ד׳:ב׳

MISHNAH: How is this? If he collected from him the produce but did not give him the money²⁷He is in possession even though he is not yet the owner. The transaction was concluded. If the buyer does not pay, the seller has a valid case in court for collection of a debt., he cannot retract. If he gave the money but did not collect the produce, he can retract²⁸Since Mishnah 1 implies that handing over money is not an act of taking possession, both parties can still annul the contract. The seller can return the money and the buyer has no case for breach of contract; the buyer can ask for the money back and refuse to take delivery., but they said: He Who exacted retribution from the people of the Flood will in future collect from him who does not keep his word²⁹The injured party can go to court and ask for official moral condemnation of the party who reneged on the contract at the last minute.. Rebbi Simeon said, the one who holds the money is advantaged³⁰The moment the buyer paid, he lost his right to renege on the contract. Only the seller retains the option of returning the money and not delivering the goods if the contract is still open..

HALAKHAH: “How is this? If he collected the produce from him,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa said, it is written: “For the earth was filled with oppression because of them.³¹Gen. 6:13. Gen. rabba 31(5), in the name of R. Ḥanina.” What was their oppression? If a person came carrying a box full of lupines they all asembled and each one was taking less than the worth of a peruṭah, a case which cannot be brought before the judges³²The farmer in the end was left with nothing but so many thieves took only a minute amount that he did not have a case against anybody.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, “much, much”³³Gen. 6:5 about the generation of the flood; Gen. 18:20 about Sodom and Gomorrha, identical expressions. Gen. rabba 28(3); R. Berekhiah in the name of R. Joḥanan.. The acts of these were identical to the acts of those.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, practice follows Rebbi Simeon³⁴In the Babli, R. Joḥanan rules following R. Simeon (48b) but Rav Ḥisda explicitly disagrees (49b)., but we do not say this in all cases³⁵As explained later in this paragraph, the ruling does not apply to partial payments in all its forms.. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: A case came before Rebbi and he instructed following Rebbi Simeon. ³⁶A completely different version of this story is in the Babli, 48b; it is a contamination of this story with the next one. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph gave a denar for salt. That one reneged³⁷The seller refused to fill the contract and gave the money back to him.. He said, does he³⁸R. Ḥiyya bar Joseph told the seller to exert moral pressure on him even if he could not bring the case to court because of R. Ḥanina’s ruling. not know that already a sickle is put on the thigh of that man, “He Who exacted retribution from the people of the Flood will in the future collect from him who does not keep his word”? ³⁹A different version of this story is in Qiddušin 2:1, Notes 101–107. A person paid for raw silk⁴⁰Greek μέταξα.. He reneged³⁷The seller refused to fill the contract and gave the money back to him.. The case came before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph and Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, either he delivers for the amount of the pledge⁴¹Since the money was given as surety, not as payment, R. Simeon’s rule cannot be applied to the contract. But he holds that a contract can be enforced in parts. In the Babli, 49a, this is Rav’s position. or one may turn him over to “Him Who exacted retribution.”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, either he delivers the entire contract or one may turn him over to “Him Who exacted retribution.⁴²A partial payment validates the entire deal; cf. Qiddušin 2:1, Note 106.” Rebbi La said, it was a case of a pledge; Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he had given him partial payment⁴³There is no difference between the two situations as regards R. Simeon’s rule.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan in a sale which is not usually split, such as of a cow or a stole.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A ring does not have the status of a pledge⁴⁴Since it has to be returned as is, it is only a reminder without legal consequences. Cf. Ševi‘t 10:9, Note 131; Babli 48b.. Nobody dealing in words onlymay one deliver to “Him Who exacted retribution”⁴⁵Sevi‘it 10:9, Notes 129–130; Babli 49a, Tosephta 3:14. As long as there was no action of acquisition, the person who goes back on his word can be considered untrustworthy but is not subject to judicial censure.. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one promised a gift to another and wanted to renege on it, he may renege.⁴⁶Sevi‘it 10:9, Notes 133–142; Ma‘aśer Šeni 4:7 Note 129 Babli 49a. [Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Is that “true no, true yes⁴⁷Lev. 19:36.”?]⁴⁸Text added from E. Since the answer is given in L, the question must have been in the original text. For the duty to be honest in monetary matters as a biblical command, cf. Ševi‘it 10:9, Note 134; Giṭṭin 6:1, Note 39. He said, at the moment when he said it, he had to speak with full deliberation⁴⁹The obligation to be honest does not imply a prohibition to change one’s mind. In the Giṭṭin text, it is R. Jacob bar Zavdi who gives the answer to R. Yose [Babli 49a, Bekhorot 13b; Sifra Bekhorot Pereq 8(7)].. After that, if he changes his mind, he cannot change it, that is, if [the recipient] is poor⁵⁰Giving alms is not a gift to the poor but a gift to God and as such is final upon being promised (Mishnah Qiddušin 1:6.
Kaftor waPeraḥ Chapter 44 reads: “If somebody promised to give a gift and wants to change his mind, he may change his mind. But if he said, I am speaking with full deliberation, he cannot change his mind. That is, for a rich recipient. But for a poor recipient it becomes a vow.” This seems to be more of a paraphrase than an exact quote.. But for a rich person, is that a vow? Rav commanded his servant: If I tell you to give a gift to a person, if he is poor, give it to him immediately. But if he is rich, take counsel with me a second time⁵¹This contradicts the statement in Ševi‘t 10:9 that Rav never changed his mind once he had promised a gift..

Rebbi Joḥanan gave denars to a relative of his for oil. The oil rose in price⁵²And the relative wanted to annul the contract.. He went and asked Rebbi Yannai who told him, by Torah standards money acquires, but why did they say it does not acquire? Lest [the seller] tell him, your wheat was burned in the storage room⁵³Really ““the upper storey”, usually used as storage area in farmhouses. Cf. Babli 46b, 47a, 47b, Erubin81b, 7:1 (24d l. 3); Ḥulin 83a; Qiddušin26a,28b; Ševi‘it 8:1 (38a l. 2) Note 15. The opinion attributed here to R. Yannai is that of R. Joḥanan in the Babli, of R. Simeon ben Laqish in the Yerushalmi Erubin and Ševi‘it.. Rebbi Samuel ben Sosartai in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: If [the seller] told him, your wheat was burned in the storage room, he is trustworthy⁵⁴The testimony must be accepted by the court unless shown to be perjured by two independent witnesses.. Rebbi Isaac objected: Where do we hold? If his money had acquired for him, his property would have been burned⁵⁵Then the statement of R. Samuel ben Sosartai would have made sense. But since rabbinically money cannot acquire, if the seller claims that the wheat was burned after he had received payment, his claim is irrelevant since the wheat was not yet delievered. The seller has to provide the buyer with other grain irrespective of what happened.. But if his money had not acquired for him, the other’s property was burned.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A person who gave ten denars to another and told him, I have to get from you 100 (denars)⁵⁶Denars is the reading of the Leiden ms. and the editio princeps; but it is impossible. Barrels is the reading of E, supported by the quote in Sefer Ha‘iṭṭur I, p. 22 (Note 92): גרבין חמרא Wine barrels, copied in Mordekhai Bava meṣi‘a #449 as גריוי 10. gold denars would be an appropriate price for 100 clay barrels of wine. [barrels] from that house, is permitted; from that vineyard, is prohibited⁵⁷The “house” is the wine cellar. Since the object of sale already exists in the possession of the seller, the transaction is not a forbidden trade to circumvent the prohibition of interest. But a trade on futures of wine from yet ungrown grapes is impossible, cf. Ketubot 5:5, Note 113.. What is the difference between house and vineyard? A house is not expected to collapse, a vineyard occasionally collapses⁵⁸Occasionally there is no harvest.. Rebbi Yose said, you understand from this that if a person gave ten denars to another and told him, I have to get 100 barrels from you, once he⁵⁹In the interpretation of Sefer Ha‘iṭṭur (accepted by Mordekhai, loc. cit.), R. Yose states that for wine, already stored in barrels, the argument of R. Yannai does not apply and the sale was concluded by the seller accepting the money. This argument is justly rejected by R. Joseph Caro (Bet Yosef Ḥošen Mišpaṭ 199,2) as against talmudic principles. In addition, while wine in clay barrels stored in a stone cellar is not likely to be burned, it easily may be lost by breakage of the barrels. Therefore, it seems that this paragraph is a direct continuation of the previous one and R. Ḥanina’s ruling that practice follows R. Simeon is qualified further in that the seller has lost his right of refusal once he used the money in his business.
The biblical expression שָׁלַח יָד בְּ (Ex.22:7) means “illegally to take” (for one’s own use). used them he is required to deliver the merchandise.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “or buying from your neighbor’s hand”⁶⁰Lev. 25:14, containing the prohibition of overcharging or underpaying in commercial transactions., from you neighbor’s hand you need an act of acquisition; you do not need an act of acquisition from the Gentile’s hand⁶¹The principle that in biblical law payment transfers not only ownership but also possession is restricted to transactions involving Gentiles; for transactions between Jews the transfer needs an actual “taking” from the prior owner’s hand; Babli 47b.. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, why does one deliver a person to “Him Who exacted retribution”⁶²Since a deal between Jews is not valid in biblical law without actual transfer, why should the court be involved in a dispute regarding such a deal? E reads here: why does one not deliver a person to “Him Who …”?? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it follows the Tanna who stated: “Nobody dealing in words only may one deliver to “Him Who exacted retribution”^45,Sevi‘it 10:9, Notes 129–130; Babli 49a, Tosephta 3:14. As long as there was no action of acquisition, the person who goes back on his word can be considered untrustworthy but is not subject to judicial censure.⁶³This Tanna holds that taking the money is a “transfer from hand to hand”, which gives the transaction biblical status. The only case which the court will refuse to hear is one where no concrete action has yet taken place..