exchange

There, we have stated: If anything is given instead of money, if one entered in possession, the other is obligated for its exchange. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they stated this only about an ox for a cow, or a donkey for an ox; but heap against heap one did not acquire. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Even heaps among heaps he did acquire. Rebbi Abba bar Mina in the name of Rav: One who exchanged אברוקלון against אמברוקלון did acquire.

MISHNAH: If somebody paid off part of his debt, Rebbi Jehudah said, he shall exchange [his bond], but Rebbi Yose said, he shall write a receipt. Said Rebbi Jehudah, but then this one must guard his receipt from the rats! Rebbi Yose answered him, that comes to him rightly, not to impair the other one’s rights.

The second tithe or food belonging to the Sanctuary which had not been redeemed. This is evident ! No ; it is necessary [to mention it] for the case where it has been redeemed but not according to the Halakah. With "the second tithe," for instance, where he redeemed it with uncoined silver, whereas the All-merciful declared, "Thou shalt bind up the money in thy hand" (Deut. xiv. 25) — i.e. money which has a stamp upon it. With "food belonging to the Sanctuary" for which [for instance] he had given a piece of land in exchange but he had not redeemed with money ; whereas the All-merciful declared, "He shall add the fifth part of the money of thy valuation unto it, and it shall be assured to him" (Lev. xxvii. 19).

R. Elazar said: Sabbatical year produce is redeemed only by way of sale. But R. Yohanan said: Either by way of sale or by way of exchange. What is the reason of R. Elazar? As it is written, "In this year of Jubilee" (Leviticus 25:13) and then comes the following verse, "And if you sell something to your neighbor" [implying,] only by way of sale, but not by way of exchange.

R. Elazar said: Sabbatical year produce is redeemed only by way of sale. But R. Yohanan said: Either by way of sale or by way of exchange. What is the reason of R. Elazar? As it is written, "In this year of Jubilee" (Leviticus 25:13) and then comes the following verse, "And if you sell something to your neighbor" [implying,] only by way of sale, but not by way of exchange.

And what is the reason of R. Yohanan? — Since it is written, "For it is a Jubilee, it shall be holy" (Leviticus 25:12); just as sacred objects can be redeemed either by way of sale or by way of exchange, so the produce of the Sabbatical Year can be redeemed either by way of sale or by way of exchange.

And what is the reason of R. Yohanan? — Since it is written, "For it is a Jubilee, it shall be holy" (Leviticus 25:12); just as sacred objects can be redeemed either by way of sale or by way of exchange, so the produce of the Sabbatical Year can be redeemed either by way of sale or by way of exchange.

How so? The last object [purchased] assumes [the sanctity] of the Sabbatical Year, but the produce itself always remains prohibited. Now since the term "purchased" is repeatedly used, it is evident that only by way of sale [does it become redeemed], but not by way of exchange.

R. Ashi said: The dispute concerns only the original produce itself, but with regard to secondary produce, both agree that [it can be redeemed] either by way of sale or by way of exchange. And the reason that the term ‘purchased’ was repeated is that since in the first clause the term ‘purchased’ was used it was used in the latter clause also.

Ravina raised an objection against R. Ashi: [It has been taught]: If a man has a sela [gained through selling the produce of] the Sabbatical Year, and wishes to purchase with it a shirt, what should he do? Let him go to his regular shopkeeper and say to him, ‘Give me a sela worth of fruit’ and give it to him. Then he tells him, ‘Behold this fruit is given [back]] to you as a gift’, and [the shopkeeper] answers him, ‘And here is a gift for you of a sela.' And then he may purchase with it whatsoever he desires. Now here, surely, the sela is a secondary produce, and yet it teaches [that it may be redeemed only] by way of sale, and not by way of exchange?

Rather R. Ashi said: The dispute [of R. Elazar and R. Yohanan] is over secondary produce, but with regard to the original produce all agree that [it may be redeemed] only by way of sale, and not by way of exchange. "Both the produce of the Sabbatical Year and of the Second Tithe [may be redeemed by exchange]"— his refers to the money for which the produce is exchanged.

Rather R. Ashi said: The dispute [of R. Elazar and R. Yohanan] is over secondary produce, but with regard to the original produce all agree that [it may be redeemed] only by way of sale, and not by way of exchange. "Both the produce of the Sabbatical Year and of the Second Tithe [may be redeemed by exchange]"— his refers to the money for which the produce is exchanged.

Abaye b. Abin and R. Hananiah b. Abin used to exchange their meals with one another.

Acher asked this question of R. Meir, after he had gone forth into evil courses. What is the meaning of the passage, "Gold and glass cannot equal it: neither shall the exchange thereof be vessels of fine gold" (Job xxviii. 17). He said to him, These are the words of the Law, which are difficult to buy as vessels of gold and vessels of pure gold, and are easily lost as vessels of glass. He said to him, R. Akiba thy teacher did not say so, but he explained it as meaning that as vessels of gold and vessels of glass, although they are broken, may be mended, so a disciple of the wise, although he have sinned, may be mended. He said to him, Do thou also turn thyself back. He said to him, I have already heard from behind the curtain, "'Return, O backsliding children' (Jer. iii. 14), except Acher."