Rav Shach brings the Tosphot Bava Metzia page 47 [in the beginning of Laws of Marriage in the Rambam] that says there are two kinds of exchange: (1) barter and (2) handkerchief. [It does not have to be a handkerchief. It could be any vessel.] The buyer takes a handkerchief and gives it to the seller and by that acquires the vessels or whatever the seller is selling. Now actual barter only works for vessels. Not fruit for fruit. But barter has to be for least a penny on both sides. The "kinyan sudar" does not need to be worth a pruta (penny).
But the barter does not have a law of overcharging, because this one wants a needle and that one wants a coat of armor. [In that way barter is not like monetary exchange. But kinyan Sudar is not like monetary exchange from the side of its own worth, but what about overcharging if it is used to seal a deal? There are so many questions here about the opinions and reasons for the Rambam I can see why Rav Shach just wrote this piece in short form.]
So barter has this odd kind of state. It is on the first way like a deal made with money. But the other side of things it is not like money. Deals made with money have a law of overcharging. [Up to 1/5 the money is returned. More than 1/5 the deal is nullified.]
So we know what the Tosphot R''id holds in terms of marriage. He spells it out. If the handkerchief is more than a penny's worth it is a deal made by money [so valid].
But the Rambam? Would he agree? I think not. After all the whole difference about the barter is not really relevant to the handkerchief. There seems to be no reason to think the Rambam would agree with the Ri''d.
But the barter does not have a law of overcharging, because this one wants a needle and that one wants a coat of armor. [In that way barter is not like monetary exchange. But kinyan Sudar is not like monetary exchange from the side of its own worth, but what about overcharging if it is used to seal a deal? There are so many questions here about the opinions and reasons for the Rambam I can see why Rav Shach just wrote this piece in short form.]
So barter has this odd kind of state. It is on the first way like a deal made with money. But the other side of things it is not like money. Deals made with money have a law of overcharging. [Up to 1/5 the money is returned. More than 1/5 the deal is nullified.]
So we know what the Tosphot R''id holds in terms of marriage. He spells it out. If the handkerchief is more than a penny's worth it is a deal made by money [so valid].
But the Rambam? Would he agree? I think not. After all the whole difference about the barter is not really relevant to the handkerchief. There seems to be no reason to think the Rambam would agree with the Ri''d.
