תלמוד על בבא מציעא 4:1

MISHNAH: A wife may be acquired¹In matters of criminal law, any relations the woman might have with another man would be adultery. The husband cannot live with his wife (and does not acquire any dowry she might bring with her) unless he accepts the financial responsibilities incumbent upon a husband in a public ceremony, attended by at least 10 witnesses (cf. Peah 6:2, Note 46). The acquisition, or betrothal, mentioned here only needs the presence of two witnesses. in three ways; she regains her autonomy in two ways. She is acquired by money²The woman agrees to be preliminarily married for a monetary consideration given in the presence of two witnesses., or by a document³A written promise of marriage., or by intercourse⁴Attested to by two witnesses. It is enough for the witnesses to confirm that the parties were together in a locked bedroom for a period of time sufficient for intercourse. Since one speaks of preliminary marriage, the couple is in principle forbidden to live together after such intercourse and before the definitive marriage. There is a midrashic doctrine that no woman can become pregnant from her first intercourse unless she had lesbian or autoerotic experiences [Gen.rabba45(5), 51(11); Pesiqta rabbati 42, p. 177].. By money, the House of Shammai say, by a denar⁵A Roman silver denar; under Augustus and his first successors about 3.5 g of silver. or a denar’s value; but the House of Hillel say, by a peruṭa or a peruṭa’s value. How much is a peruṭa⁶The peruṭa was a small Hasmonean copper coin which disappeared with the end of the Jewish commonwealth, more than 100 years before the compilation of the Mishnah. Therefore, its value has to be defined in terms of Roman coins.? One eighth of an Italic assarius⁷Corresponding to ¹/₁₉₂ of a denar. Assarius is the old name of the Roman as. In rabbinic practice, a peruṭa is defined as half a grain (¹/₉₆₀ of a troy oz. or 0.0324 g) of sterling silver.. She regains her autonomy by a bill of divorce or by the husband’s death. A sister-in-law⁸The widow of a brother who died childless; cf. Introduction to Tractate Yebamot. is acquired⁹In definitive marriage. By biblical standards there is no preliminary levirate marriage. by intercourse; she regains her autonomy by ḥaliṣah or by the brother-in-law’s death¹⁰Before she entered the levirate marriage. Once she is married, she is a wife in all respects and regains her autonomy by divorce or widowhood..

MISHNAH: For heave and First Fruits one incurs the penalty of death¹Eating them in impurity is a deadly sin. or a fine of a fifth²If misappropriated, the restitution must be 125% of what was taken; cf. Terumot 6, Note 1.; they are forbidden to lay persons, are Cohen’s property³They might be traded from one Cohen to another and a Cohen may use them as gifts to marry a wife since, even if she was a lay person before, she becomes a member of the Cohen’s family by marriage and may eat heave and First Fruits., may be lifted by one in 100, need washing of the hands⁴By rabbinic practice, hands are always impure in the second degree unless washed and watched after cleansing. Since heave and First Fruits can become impure in the third degree, touching heave or First Fruits with unwashed hands makes them unusable. and sundown⁵An impure person who cleansed himself by immersion in a miqweh is no longer impure, but he becomes pure for hallowed food only at sundown, cf. Terumot 5, Note 68.. This applies to heave and First Fruits but not to tithe⁶First tithe of which heave of the tithe was taken is totally profane..

There, we have stated: If anything is given instead of money, if one entered in possession, the other is obligated for its exchange¹⁷Cf. Note 2, Qiddušin 1:6, Note 521.. 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 acquire¹⁸Qiddušin 1:6, Note 525. If one of the parties took possession, the other party automatically obtained possession of the exchanged property.. Rebbi Abba bar Mina in the name of Rav: One who exchanged אברוקלון against אמברוקלון did acquire¹⁹The reading of R. Ḥananel and ‘Arukh is: One who exchanged אמבורקלין against אמבורקלין did acquire. Arukh explains as “bundles of sheets” which in Italian (dialect of Rome) would be called ברוקלי (variants ברוקלון, ברוקלו) or (תרצילו, טורצלי, תרוצולו, תורצלו) .טרצילו. The second word is identified by Krauss in Additamenta ad librum Aruch Completum as turzello. M. Sachs (J. Levy, S. Krauss) identifies אמבורוקלון as Latin involucrum “wrapper; covering; envelope”, from involvo “to wrap up, roll up.”. Turzello, from Latin tortus “a twisting, winding”, from torqueo “to twist, to turn” is an acceptable translation of involucrum. In this interpretation, the statement implies that the laws of barter also apply if something is exchanged against an object of the same kind. It is difficult to understand why this should not be so.
H. Y. D. Azulay, in his פתח עיניים, quotes from the ms. of R. Menaḥem di Lonzano בדיקלין באמה בדיקלין. E: אמלוקנין באמבוליקין.
However, Maimonides connects the statement with the later Mishnaiot whose subject is the cancellation of a sale because of overcharging by the seller or underpaying by the buyer. He reads the statement as meaning that a barter is concluded the moment one of the parties takes possession of the object coming to him, and no legal recourse exists for the party realizing that he made a bad bargain. He must hold that אברוקלון and אמבורוקלון are two different objects. It is possible that he reads the two words as “needle” and “silk cloth” since he writes (Mekhirah 13:1): “One who barters vessels agains vessels or animals against animals, even a needle for silk cloth or a kid goat for a horse, has no claim of overcharging since he might prefer a needle to silk cloth.” The horse is specifically exempt from the rules of overcharging in Halakhah 4, Note 132. (Ravad objects and thinks that Maimonides misunderstood the Yerushalmi.) The commentary Migdal ‘Oz (R. Šem-Ṭob Gabbai) readsאמבורקלין אמטרקלין, but gives no explanation of the words beyond noting that these clearly denote different objects..