In the beginning of laws of marriage in Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.
There is the subject of "kinyan Sudar" [buying by means of handkerchief]. That is is a way of buying as we see in the book of Ruth where at the end of the book it says there is a way to acquire or sell by means of taking off one's shoe and giving it to the party. Is it the category of barter, or buying by money?
So when Rav Shach writes at the end the Rambam holds kinyan sudar [buying by handkercheif] is a kind of buying by money This is hard to understand. [note 2]
We know the Raavad and the R''id [Rav Yeshaya of Trani]] hold that way.
But the Rambam?
For after all the Rambam is pretty consistent that kinyan sudar [barter] does not work to marry a woman. [note 1] So that means barter is not any kind of buying by money. And that also goes along with the fact that exchange of a needle with a coat of armor has no law of overcharging [that is the normal law that overcharge by 1/5 is not valid]. And Rav Shach right before that explained how the Rambam explains barter as being an exchange in which there is no object causing the deal to be valid. Rather when one person picks up the object he is getting --that is when he acquires it. And when the other picks up his object that is when he acquires it.
It is the the Tosphot Ri''d and the Raavad that hold if the handkerchief is worth more than a pruta penny, then the buying is because of a buying by money. You see that in the Tosphot Ri''d who actually says so openly. That is -that Kinya Sudar will not work to acquire a woman unless the handkerchief has more than the value of a penny. And the Raavad also says that kinyan sudar will work to let a slave go free. [So he also holds kinyan sudar works as money]
So someone ought to go to the original handwritten notes of Rav Shach and see what he actually wrote there. I am sure that the names Raavad and Rambam got mixed up.
[[note 1]]. I mean to say that the normal way of marrying a woman is by money, sex or a document. But something "worth money" also works. So you could give a woman a ring for example in order to marry her, and she says "yes", and this takes place in front of two witnesses, then the marriage is valid. Same with sex or a document. However a handkerchief would not work. So what does exchange by handkerchief usually mean? It is a kind of barter. I give you a handkerchief and by that I buy from you let's say a violin. That works. The deal is sealed by that, and neither party can go back,
However the Tosphot HaRi''d holds if the handkerchief is worth more than a pruta penny that works to marry the woman. However it looks clear to me the Rambam does not hold that way.
[note 2] It looks like the Rambam would disagree with the Tosphot R''id. To the Rambam there are two kinds of exchange, barter and handkerchief [or any vessel]. You see this in laws of selling perek 5. There is exchange by barter and then in law 5 the Rambam introduces the handkerchief and there says it does not have to be worth a pruta. So the laws of exchange up until then, [e.g. vessel for vessel, but not fruit for fruit] do need to be worth at least a prura penny. And that is because barter would be as a kind of money exchange.
There is the subject of "kinyan Sudar" [buying by means of handkerchief]. That is is a way of buying as we see in the book of Ruth where at the end of the book it says there is a way to acquire or sell by means of taking off one's shoe and giving it to the party. Is it the category of barter, or buying by money?
So when Rav Shach writes at the end the Rambam holds kinyan sudar [buying by handkercheif] is a kind of buying by money This is hard to understand. [note 2]
We know the Raavad and the R''id [Rav Yeshaya of Trani]] hold that way.
But the Rambam?
For after all the Rambam is pretty consistent that kinyan sudar [barter] does not work to marry a woman. [note 1] So that means barter is not any kind of buying by money. And that also goes along with the fact that exchange of a needle with a coat of armor has no law of overcharging [that is the normal law that overcharge by 1/5 is not valid]. And Rav Shach right before that explained how the Rambam explains barter as being an exchange in which there is no object causing the deal to be valid. Rather when one person picks up the object he is getting --that is when he acquires it. And when the other picks up his object that is when he acquires it.
It is the the Tosphot Ri''d and the Raavad that hold if the handkerchief is worth more than a pruta penny, then the buying is because of a buying by money. You see that in the Tosphot Ri''d who actually says so openly. That is -that Kinya Sudar will not work to acquire a woman unless the handkerchief has more than the value of a penny. And the Raavad also says that kinyan sudar will work to let a slave go free. [So he also holds kinyan sudar works as money]
So someone ought to go to the original handwritten notes of Rav Shach and see what he actually wrote there. I am sure that the names Raavad and Rambam got mixed up.
[[note 1]]. I mean to say that the normal way of marrying a woman is by money, sex or a document. But something "worth money" also works. So you could give a woman a ring for example in order to marry her, and she says "yes", and this takes place in front of two witnesses, then the marriage is valid. Same with sex or a document. However a handkerchief would not work. So what does exchange by handkerchief usually mean? It is a kind of barter. I give you a handkerchief and by that I buy from you let's say a violin. That works. The deal is sealed by that, and neither party can go back,
However the Tosphot HaRi''d holds if the handkerchief is worth more than a pruta penny that works to marry the woman. However it looks clear to me the Rambam does not hold that way.
[note 2] It looks like the Rambam would disagree with the Tosphot R''id. To the Rambam there are two kinds of exchange, barter and handkerchief [or any vessel]. You see this in laws of selling perek 5. There is exchange by barter and then in law 5 the Rambam introduces the handkerchief and there says it does not have to be worth a pruta. So the laws of exchange up until then, [e.g. vessel for vessel, but not fruit for fruit] do need to be worth at least a prura penny. And that is because barter would be as a kind of money exchange.
