I was again the local beit midrash that goes by the path of the Gra, (the Gaon of Villna), and looked again at the subject of money acquires. Then I went to the sea, and thought about the answer I gave yesterday, and when I came back from the sea, it occurred to me to expand on what Rav Shach answers. For the way I explained it yesterday, seems to me now to be lacking a bit of clarity. For the major question what in Rambam, laws of meila, chapter 6 law 10, where if a Jew buys from another Jew with money of hekdesh [without picking up the object], he is not liable for meila.] The way to answer this question does not seem to be answerable by the opinion of the Hameor (that the sages hold money acquires). That just makes the question stronger. At least with the Rif, we can say the sages nullified acquisition by money completely until there is picking up of the object. So, at this point, we have to come to a more complete answer for the Rambam. And that answer has to be based of several Gemaras, one about the bathhouse where the Gemara itself makes a distinction between bathhouse keeper that is a Jew or a gentile; and the case in Avoda Zara pg. 63 of the payment to a prostitute where again there is this same distinction. Therefore, the Rambam has a perfectly good reason to make this distinction. All that is left is to find a reasonable explanation to justify it. And that is not easy to find. If it is just a matter of being able to renege on the deal, then why when the Jew buys from the gentile he is liable, even though the deal can be broken by either party. It seems to me that the Rambam might be thinking that a decree of the sages cannot apply to gentiles. So, when the Jew buys from the gentile, we go by the law of the Torah that the Jew is liable for meila. But when the interaction is between two Jews, the sages nullified acquisition by money completely, and held that only picking up can cause acquisition.----------------------------------------I was again the local בית מדרש that goes by the path of the גר''א, (ווילנא גאון), and looked again at the subject of מעות קונות. Then I went to the sea, and thought about the answer I gave yesterday, and when I came back from the sea, it occurred to me to expand on what רב שך answers. For the way I explained it yesterday, seems to me now to be lacking a bit of clarity. For the major question what in רמב’’ם, laws of מעילה, chapter 6 הלכה 10, where if a Jew buys from another Jew with money of הקדש [without משיכה the object], he is not liable for מעילה.] The way to answer this question does not seem to be answerable by the opinion of the בעל המאור (that the sages hold מעות קונות). That just makes the question stronger. At least with the רי''ף, we can say the sages nullified acquisition by money completely until there is משיכה of the object. So, at this point, we have to come to a more complete answer for the רמב’’ם. And that answer has to be based of several גמרות, one about the bathhouse where the גמרא itself makes a distinction between bathhouse keeper that is a Jew or a gentile; and the case in עבודה זרה pg. 63 of the אתנן where again there is this same distinction. Therefore, the רמב’’ם has a perfectly good reason to make this distinction. All that is left is to find a reasonable explanation to justify it. And that is not easy to find. If it is just a matter of being able to renege on the deal, then why when the Jew buys from the gentile he is liable, even though the deal can be broken by either party. It seems to me that the רמב’’ם might be thinking that a decree of the sages cannot apply to gentiles. So, when the Jew buys from the gentile, we go by the law of the תורה that the Jew is liable for מעילה. But when the interaction is between two Jews, the sages nullified acquisition by money completely, and held that only משיכה can cause acquisition.