There is one more question i have about Tosphot Bava Mezia page 43 side a.
Tosphot is asking about buying. What is the status of the money before the deal is complete? If the seller who has the money at that point is like a borrower then there is a question from the barber. If he is like a paid guard then there is a question from the case of R. Yohanan. That is they made the decree that only drawing the fruit seals the deal because otherwise the buyer can say your fruit was burnt up in the attic. So if he is only a paid guard for the money then why can he not say your money was burnt up in the attic. On the opposite side of things if he is a borrower then why is the person that gives bedek habait to a barber not liable to meila until the haircut starts? Money that was donated to the Temple can not be used for private purposes. One that does use it for private purpose is transgressing "Meila" Usage of temple money.
My question that occurred to me as I was leaving a dip in the sea is this. Is not the barber hired? Not bought? That is it occurs to me and probably occurs to everyone else that there is something hard to understand about comparison of the bathhouse attendant and the barber to a buyer and seller.
Even though you can argue that the money given to the barber might have the same staאus as the money given to a seller until the point that the deal is sealed. That could be. But why does Tosphot assume it has to be?
יש לשאול על תוספות בבא מציעא מ''ג ע''א. תוספות שאול מן הדין של ספר. מי שהוא נתן כסף של בדק הבית לספר. הוא לא מעל עד שמתחיל התספורת. מזה יש ראיה שהמוכר שכבר יש לו את הכסף של העיסקא קודם שנגמר העיסקא הוא בכלל שומר שכר. אבל שעניין של הספר הוא עניין של שכירות לא מכירה. ולכן מה הדמיון?
Tosphot is asking about buying. What is the status of the money before the deal is complete? If the seller who has the money at that point is like a borrower then there is a question from the barber. If he is like a paid guard then there is a question from the case of R. Yohanan. That is they made the decree that only drawing the fruit seals the deal because otherwise the buyer can say your fruit was burnt up in the attic. So if he is only a paid guard for the money then why can he not say your money was burnt up in the attic. On the opposite side of things if he is a borrower then why is the person that gives bedek habait to a barber not liable to meila until the haircut starts? Money that was donated to the Temple can not be used for private purposes. One that does use it for private purpose is transgressing "Meila" Usage of temple money.
My question that occurred to me as I was leaving a dip in the sea is this. Is not the barber hired? Not bought? That is it occurs to me and probably occurs to everyone else that there is something hard to understand about comparison of the bathhouse attendant and the barber to a buyer and seller.
Even though you can argue that the money given to the barber might have the same staאus as the money given to a seller until the point that the deal is sealed. That could be. But why does Tosphot assume it has to be?
יש לשאול על תוספות בבא מציעא מ''ג ע''א. תוספות שאול מן הדין של ספר. מי שהוא נתן כסף של בדק הבית לספר. הוא לא מעל עד שמתחיל התספורת. מזה יש ראיה שהמוכר שכבר יש לו את הכסף של העיסקא קודם שנגמר העיסקא הוא בכלל שומר שכר. אבל שעניין של הספר הוא עניין של שכירות לא מכירה. ולכן מה הדמיון?
