הלכות מכירה

Although produce cannot be used for chalifin, as explained, it can be acquired through chalifin like other movable property. With regard to a coin, by contrast, just as it cannot be used for chalifin, it cannot be acquired through chalifin. Thus, a coin cannot be acquired through a kinyan chalifin, and it cannot be used for a kinyan chalifin to acquire other articles.

Slabs of gold and silver are regarded in the same way as pieces of raw iron or copper. They are like other movable property and can be acquired through chalifin and exchanged for each other, as has been explained.
Coins of silver, gold and brass are all considered to be money received as payment for other movable property. If one gives one of these as payment for movable property, one does not acquire it until one performs meshichah or lifts it up, as has been explained. None of these coins can be acquired through kinyan chalifin, or used for such a kinyan.

When does the above apply? When one is acquiring other movable property, servants or landed property with these coins. When, however, gold dinarim are being exchanged for silver coins, the gold coins are considered to be "produce." Similarly, copper coins are considered to be "produce" with regard to silver coins.

What is implied? If a person gave a colleague a dinar of gold for 25 dinarim of silver, the owner of the gold acquires the silver even though it has not yet been transferred into his domain. The owner of the silver is obligated to give his colleague 25 silver dinarim, as he committed himself. If he committed himself to give new silver coins, he must give new ones; if he committed himself to give old coins, he must give old ones.
If, however, the owner of the silver gave 25 silver dinarim for one gold dinar, the transaction is not concluded until he takes the gold dinar. Both parties have the right to retract.

Similarly, if a person gave a colleague 30 isar of copper for a dinar of silver, the owner of the copper acquires the silver even though it has not yet been transferred into his domain. The owner of the silver is obligated to give his colleague a silver dinar, as he committed himself. If he committed himself to give a new silver coin, he must give a new one; if he committed himself to give an old coin, he must give an old one.
If, however, the owner of the silver gave a silver dinar for 30 copper isar, the transaction is not concluded until he takes the copper isarot. Both parties have the right to retract.

Similarly, bad coins that were disqualified by the ruling kingdom or municipal authorities, or dinarim that are not acceptable as legal tender in that country - i.e., coins that are not used for exchange unless they are changed for others, these are considered to be produce with regard to all matters.
They may be acquired through a kinyan chalifin; when they are transferred, money is acquired; and the transfer of money does not acquire them, as is true with regard to other produce.

There is no way in which a person can acquire a coin that is not in his physical possession, except by virtue of his acquisition of landed property -e.g., a person will purchase land and by virtue of its acquisition also acquire coins, or he will rent the place where the coins are held. In these instances, once the purchaser acquires the land through the transfer of money, a legal document, manifestation of his ownership or a kinyan chalifin, he acquires the money.
The above applies provided that the coins exist and are held for safekeeping in a specific place. If, however, Shimon owed Reuven money, and Reuven transferred land to Levi, and intended that by virtue of Levi's acquisition of the land, he acquire the debt owed to Reuven by Shimon, it appears to me that Levi does not acquire the debt.

If three people the lender, the borrower and a third party (the intended recipient) are standing together and the lender tells the borrower, "Give the maneh that you owe me (whether an entrusted article or a loan) to so and so the third party," that third party acquires the maneh in question. None of the three can retract. Our Sages described this law as a dictate whose reason cannot be explained. Therefore, one cannot derive any other precept from it.

If Reuven owed Shimon 100 zuz and told Levi: "Give Shimon the 100 zuz that I owe him, and I will repay you," or "...I will make a reckoning with you"- although both Levi and Shimon agree, all three have the potential to retract.
Even if Levi pays Shimon a portion of Reuven's debt he is not bound to pay the remainder. Therefore, if Levi does not pay Shimon the entire debt, Shimon may demand payment for the remainder of the debt from Reuven.

When a person sells a promissory note to a colleague or gives one to him as a gift, the physical transfer of the note does not bring about a transfer of the obligation it carries. For he transferred only the proof of the debt. And that proof is not something that can be grasped by the hand.

How indeed can the promissory note be acquired? The seller must write to the purchaser: "Acquire the promissory note of so and so and all the obligations associated with it," and then give him the promissory note. Thus, the note is acquired through the writing and through being transferred.
There is no need for witnesses with regard to the actual transfer. Witnesses are necessary, however, for the debt to be collected. The debtor can tell the purchaser: "Who is to say that my creditor did in fact write to you that the debt is transferred and give you the promissory note?"

The transfer of the ownership of promissory notes is a Rabbinical institution. According to Scriptural law, there is no way to acquire the proof of an obligation; only an actual object can be acquired. Therefore, a person who sells a promissory note to a colleague can still waive the debt. Even his heir has the right to waive the debt.

When a person transfers ownership of even the smallest amount of property to a colleague and by virtue of its transfer also transfers the ownership of a promissory note, the purchaser acquires the note regardless of where it was located, although a written statement was not made and the document was not transferred to the purchaser. It appears to me that in this instance as well, the original creditor has the right to waive payment after selling it.
Similarly, if a person sells land and writes a deed of sale even though the purchaser is not present, when the purchaser manifests his possession over the land he acquires the deed regardless of where it is located.

When a person transfers ownership of even the smallest amount of property to a colleague and by virtue of its transfer also transfers the ownership of a promissory note, the purchaser acquires the note regardless of where it was located, although a written statement was not made and the document was not transferred to the purchaser. It appears to me that in this instance as well, the original creditor has the right to waive payment after selling it.
Similarly, if a person sells land and writes a deed of sale even though the purchaser is not present, when the purchaser manifests his possession over the land he acquires the deed regardless of where it is located.

The following rules apply if a person tells a colleague: "Take possession of this field on behalf of so and so, and compose a deed of title for him." Although the agent manifests ownership over the land on behalf of the recipient, the giver can retract his statement concerning the legal record of the present unless it has already been given to the recipient, despite the fact that he cannot rescind his gift of the field.

If, however, the giver told the agent: "Take possession of the field with the stipulation that you write the deed of title," even though the agent manifests ownership over the land on behalf of the recipient, the original owner can retract both with regard to the deed and with regard to the field until the deed of title reaches the hand of the recipient of the gift.