Bava Metzia 47: Legislating for Cases of Exploitation

The rabbis continue their discussions about acquisition through exchange and through money.  Today's daf begins with an expressed concern regarding one'a, exploitation, where a seller might intentionally overcharge a buyer.  In the example of someone exchanging a cow for a donkey, the rabbis wonder whether a claim of exploitation might be levied if the cow's new owner pulled the cow but the donkey died before its new owner could take ownership of that animal.  Was this a fair exchange to begin with?  Was the act of pulling done properly?  Had the two parties determined the worth of each animal?  The rabbis wish to minimize the cases that might be brought to court.  

The rabbis consider whether or not money can be used as a means of completing an exchange.  The transfer of ownership is done in a number of different circumstances, and different context might require different standards.  Vessels can be used to transfer ownership, but substitutions are often complicated, particularly with regard to the redemption of an item.  We learn that items must be complete to act as 'vessels', and so a shoe would be a valid means of exchange, but a half-pomegranate would not.  

As the conversation turns to the amount required to effect an exchange, the rabbis consider whether or not an asimon, an unmarked coin (either because it has not yet been minted or because it is too small) can be used to effect an exchange.  The rabbis teach us that the asimon may have been used as a token to allow entry into the bathhouse.  Apparently one would pay for his/her use of the bathhouse some time after the fact.

Our daf ends with a conversation about Torah law versus rabbinical law.  According to Torah law, only money effects the transfer of ownership of movable property.  Rabbinic law understands 'pulling' as a form of acquisition, as well.  This is based on Leviticus (25:14): "if you sell to your colleague an item that is sold, or acquire from your colleague's hand, you shall not exploit his brother".   The rabbis understand the second clause in this verse, 'acquire from your colleague's hand', as representative of pulling as a form of acquisition.  

Having learned daily for the past four years (and three months), it is becoming exceedingly clear that most of our Talmudic debate considers the laws of ownership.  Whether we are understanding how to bring sacrifices to the temple, how to marry or divorce, how to draw boundaries, or how to properly transfer movable property, we are considering the concept of legal ownership. The rabbis were building legal structures to create order in their emerging society.  Rather than focus on purely spiritual practices and infractions, they incorporated the concept of ownership into their interpretations and ultimately their canonization of Jewish thinking.  I wonder if other options were even possible.