Reading: Hebrew · Simple EnglishHebrew · Faithful translationHebrew onlyHebrew · Simple EnglishHebrew · Faithful translationHebrew onlySimple English onlyFaithful translation onlySide by side

7:6:1

משנה: אָמַר לַחֶנְוָונִי תֶּן לִי בְדֵינָר פֵּירוֹת וְנָתַן לוֹ אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי הַדֵּינָר אָמַר לוֹ נְתַתִּיו לְךָ וּנְתַתּוֹ בְאָנְפָּלֵי יִישָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַבָּיִת. נָתַן לוֹ אֶת הַדֵּינָר אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי אֶת הַפֵּירוֹת אָמַר לוֹ נְתַתִּים לְךָ וְהוֹלַכְתָּן לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתֶךָ יִישָּׁבַע הַחֶנְוָונִי. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר כָּל שֶׁהַפֵּירוֹת בְּיָדוֹ יָדוֹ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה. אַָמַר לַשּׁוּלְחָנִי תֶּן לִי בְדֵינָר מָעוֹת וְנָתַן לוֹ אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי אֶת הַדֵּינָר אָמַר לוֹ נְתַתִּיו לְךָ וּנְתַתּוֹ בְאָנְפָּלִי יִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַבָּיִת. נָתַן לוֹ אֶת הַדֵּינָר אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי אֶת הַמָּעוֹת אָמַר לוֹ נְתַתִּים לְךָ וְהִשְׁלַכְתָּם לְתוֹךְ כִּיסֶךָ יִישָּׁבַע הַשּׁוּלְחָנִי. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵין דֶּרֶךְ הַשּׁוּלְחָנִי לִיתֵּן אִיסָּר עַד שֶׁיִּטּוֹל אֶת הַדֵּינָרִין:

MISHNAH: He said to the grocer, give me produce for a denar; that one delivered and said, give me the denar. He said to him, I gave it to you and you put it into anpalē83According to Rashi “a wallet for coins.” No etymology for this word has been given. At other occurrences in the Talmudim, the word seems to stand for ἐμπίλιον, impilia“felt socks.” This meaning is inappropriate here. A better explanation is ἀμφελόνη “garment, throw-around” (E. G.) or one might read with the Tosephta (6:4) אונכלי explained by Kohout as ἀνάκωλος [χιτωνίσκος] “a short sleeved outer garment.”: the householder has to swear84The simple statement, “I gave it to you,” is insufficient. The manner of delivery must be described.. If he gave him the denar and said, give me the produce; he said to him I delivered them to you and you brought then to your house: the grocer has to swear. Rebbi Jehudah says, the one in possession of the produce is advantaged85Since both parties agree that the transaction was not on credit, in his opinion the buyer does not have to swear since in his place cash transactions always implied delivery after payment. If the grocer claimed that the transaction did not follow the norm, the full burden of proof is on him as claimant..
He said to the money changer, give me oboloi for a denar; that one delivered and said, give me the denar. He said to him, I gave it to you and you put it into anpalē: the householder has to swear. If he gave him the denar and said, give me the oboloi; he said to him I delivered them to you and you threw them into you wallet: the money changer has to swear. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not the practice of money changers to give an as before he took the denarii86This is the same argument as in the preceding Mishnah. The money changer will not give out even an as, a quarter (or fifth) of an obolos, without first being paid..

MISHNAH: He said to the grocer, give me produce for a denar; that one delivered and said, give me the denar. He said to him, I gave it to you and you put it into anpalē83According to Rashi “a wallet for coins.” No etymology for this word has been given. At other occurrences in the Talmudim, the word seems to stand for ἐμπίλιον, impilia“felt socks.” This meaning is inappropriate here. A better explanation is ἀμφελόνη “garment, throw-around” (E. G.) or one might read with the Tosephta (6:4) אונכלי explained by Kohout as ἀνάκωλος [χιτωνίσκος] “a short sleeved outer garment.”: the householder has to swear84The simple statement, “I gave it to you,” is insufficient. The manner of delivery must be described.. If he gave him the denar and said, give me the produce; he said to him I delivered them to you and you brought then to your house: the grocer has to swear. Rebbi Jehudah says, the one in possession of the produce is advantaged85Since both parties agree that the transaction was not on credit, in his opinion the buyer does not have to swear since in his place cash transactions always implied delivery after payment. If the grocer claimed that the transaction did not follow the norm, the full burden of proof is on him as claimant..
He said to the money changer, give me oboloi for a denar; that one delivered and said, give me the denar. He said to him, I gave it to you and you put it into anpalē: the householder has to swear. If he gave him the denar and said, give me the oboloi; he said to him I delivered them to you and you threw them into you wallet: the money changer has to swear. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not the practice of money changers to give an as before he took the denarii86This is the same argument as in the preceding Mishnah. The money changer will not give out even an as, a quarter (or fifth) of an obolos, without first being paid..

7:6:2

הלכה: אָמַר לַחֶנְוָונִי תֶּן לִי בְדֵינָר פֵּירוֹת כול׳. רִבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר. בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה. אֵימָתַי. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָיְתָה הַקּוּפָּה מוּנַחַת בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶן. אֲבָל אִם הָיְתָה יוֹצְאָה מִתַּחַת יְדֵי אֶחָד מֵהֶן.

HALAKHAH: “He said to the grocer, give me produce for a denar;” etc. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is to be differentiated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If the container was lying between them. But if it was in the possession of one of them …88The statement of R. Jehudah in Mishnah 6 is not a statement flatly denying the opinion of the anonymous Tanna in the first case, but it has to be read in the light of a text close to Tosephta 6:4: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when has this been said? At a time when the container was lying (in houses) [between them], but if it was in the possession of either of them, the burden of proof is on the claimant.” The incomprehensible text in parentheses is from the Erfurt ms. (Zuckermandel), the text in brackets from the editio princeps. A similar text is quoted in the Babli, 48a. Five different explanations of the text are offered by the commentary Sifte Cohen(Šulḥan Arukh Ḥošen Mišpaṭ 91:1, Note 33) in more than 4 folio pages. Rashi does not comment on the text; the author of Šulḥan Arukh follows Maimonides who explains the expression “at a time when the container was lying between them” to mean that the transaction occurred in the public domain. If the container full of produce was in a private domain, the owner of that domain is in possession and there can be no oath; any claimant will have to produce proof according to the regular standards of civil trials. Sifte Cohen disagrees with this explanation since he reads בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת as “in dispute”; meaning that R. Jehudah disagrees with the anonymous Tanna. But this is the simple meaning of the Mishnah; if R. Ḥanina notes that the statement of R. Jehudah has to be interpreted following the Tosephta, he clearly states that the text has to be read as an explanation of the opinion of the anonymous Tanna as given in the translation.”

HALAKHAH: “He said to the grocer, give me produce for a denar;” etc. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is to be differentiated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If the container was lying between them. But if it was in the possession of one of them …88The statement of R. Jehudah in Mishnah 6 is not a statement flatly denying the opinion of the anonymous Tanna in the first case, but it has to be read in the light of a text close to Tosephta 6:4: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when has this been said? At a time when the container was lying (in houses) [between them], but if it was in the possession of either of them, the burden of proof is on the claimant.” The incomprehensible text in parentheses is from the Erfurt ms. (Zuckermandel), the text in brackets from the editio princeps. A similar text is quoted in the Babli, 48a. Five different explanations of the text are offered by the commentary Sifte Cohen(Šulḥan Arukh Ḥošen Mišpaṭ 91:1, Note 33) in more than 4 folio pages. Rashi does not comment on the text; the author of Šulḥan Arukh follows Maimonides who explains the expression “at a time when the container was lying between them” to mean that the transaction occurred in the public domain. If the container full of produce was in a private domain, the owner of that domain is in possession and there can be no oath; any claimant will have to produce proof according to the regular standards of civil trials. Sifte Cohen disagrees with this explanation since he reads בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת as “in dispute”; meaning that R. Jehudah disagrees with the anonymous Tanna. But this is the simple meaning of the Mishnah; if R. Ḥanina notes that the statement of R. Jehudah has to be interpreted following the Tosephta, he clearly states that the text has to be read as an explanation of the opinion of the anonymous Tanna as given in the translation.”

7:6:3

עוֹד הִיא בַמַּחֲלוֹקֶת. הָדָא דַּתָּ מַר בָּאַכְסְנַאי. אֲבָל בְּבֶן עִיר דַּרְכּוֹ לִיתֵּן אִיסָּר עַד שֶׁלֹּא יִטּוֹל דֵּינָרוֹ.

Also this89Also in Mishnah 7 does R. Jehudah point out a case where the anonymous Tanna will not follow the rules of his own Mishnah. needs to be differentiated. It is said about a stranger90Greek ξένος.. But to a fellow town dweller he will give an as before he takes his denar91With people known to him the money-changer will not refrain from deals involving credit..

Also this89Also in Mishnah 7 does R. Jehudah point out a case where the anonymous Tanna will not follow the rules of his own Mishnah. needs to be differentiated. It is said about a stranger90Greek ξένος.. But to a fellow town dweller he will give an as before he takes his denar91With people known to him the money-changer will not refrain from deals involving credit..

Texts

  • Hebrew: The Jerusalem Talmud, edition by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015 · License: CC-BY
  • English: The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015 · License: CC-BY

Where next