I suggest in my previous blog entry how Rav Shach might be explaining the Rambam in meila . However, it occurred to me on my way back from the sea to ask on this. In other words, my answer might be differentp that that of Rav Shach. The reason I say this is that he brings the Baal Hameor for a different reason than I do. He brings him because the Baal Hameor requires that both the money and bought object be in existence at the time of nullification of the sale. But that approach does not help at first for the reason that we are looking for a reason that if a Jew buys an object from another Jew without picking it up, he does not transgress meila because of the decree that” picking up acquires” unless both objects are around. If both the money and object are around, then money acquires according to the Baal Hameor, and therefore the buyer should be considered to transgress. [However, it is clear that Rav Shach intends to say that since the sale is not final, then there is no meila.] Rav Shach is thinking that it is not enough that the sale is now valid from the Torah because money acquires, but that we also need the buyer to benefit from the sale. This seems shaky to me. If he acquires the object, that would seem to mean that he gained benefit even if he can nullify the sale until he picks up the object.] At any rate, there are more questions that came shooting at me on my way back from the sea and i doubt if I can remember them all. Another question is the ''etnan zona'' payment of a sheep to a woman for sex. If she is a gentile, she acquires the sheep. If she is Jewish, she does not acquire until she picks up the sheep. Rav Shach here seems to depend on the achronim that say only benefit of hekdesh transgress, not change of domain. My question is that if the sheep is the payment for the sex, then he gained benefit and so the sheep should be an etnan[payment] since from the Torah, money acquires. But Rav Shach takes the approach that the act of sex is what is considered payment for the sheep, and that it can be reversed by paying for the sex with money. But if the sex is the payment, then he gained pleasure. However here I admit that Rav Shach is right that the question is not if he transgressed meila, but if the sheep became an etnan. Here she does not acquire unless she picks it up or brings it into her domain. At any rate, I see that Reb Aaron Kotler has a significantly different approach to this, that I see is very important,-----------------------I suggest in my previous blog entry how רב שך might be explaining the רמב''ם in מעילה . However, it occurred to me on my way back from the sea to ask on this. In other words, my answer might be different that that of רב שך. The reason I say this is that he brings the Baal Hameor for a different reason than I do. He brings him because the Baal Hameor requires that both the money and bought object be in existence at the time of nullification of the sale. But that approach does not help at first for the reason that we are looking for a reason that if a Jew buys an object from another Jew without picking it up, he does not transgress מעילה because of the decree that” picking up acquires” unless both objects are around. If both the money and object are around, then money acquires according to the בעל המאור, and therefore the buyer should be considered to transgress. [However, it is clear that רב שך intends to say that since the sale is not final, then there is no מעילה.] רב שך is thinking that it is not enough that the sale is now valid from the תורה because money acquires(מעות קונות) but that we also need to buyer to benefit from the sale. This seems shaky to me. If he acquires the object that would seem to means that he gained benefit even if he can nullify the sale until he picks up the object.] At any rate, there are more questions that came shooting at me on MY WAY back from the sea and I doubt if I can remember them all. Another question is the ''אתנן זונה'' payment of a sheep to a for sex. If she is a gentile, she acquires. if she is Jewish, she does not acquire until she picks up the sheep. רב שך here seems to depend on the אחרונים that say only benefit of הקדש transgress, not change of domain. my question is that if the sheep is the payment for the sex, then he gained benefit and so the sheep should be an אתנן[payment] since דאורייתא, money acquires. But רב שך takes the approach that the act of sex is what is considered payment for the sheep, and that it can be reversed by paying for the sex with money. But if the sex is the payment, then he gained pleasure. However here I admit that רב שך is right that the question is not if he transgressed מעילה, but if the sheep became an אתנן.