Bava Kamma 97
וּמִי אָמַר רַב עַבְדָּא כִּמְקַרְקְעֵי דָּמֵי? וְהָאָמַר רַב דָּנִיאֵל בַּר רַב קַטִּינָא אָמַר רַב: הַתּוֹקֵף בְּעַבְדּוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ וְעָשָׂה בּוֹ מְלָאכָה – פָּטוּר. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ עַבְדָּא כִּמְקַרְקְעֵי דָּמֵי, אַמַּאי פָּטוּר? בִּרְשׁוּתָא דְּמָרֵיהּ קָאֵי!
And did Rav actually say that the legal status of a Canaanite slave is like that of real estate? But doesn’t Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina say that Rav says: One who seizes another’s Canaanite slave and performs labor with him is exempt from paying the master for the labor of the slave? And if it enters your mind to say that, in Rav’s opinion, the legal status of a slave is like that of real estate, why is he exempt from paying? A slave, like real estate, is always in the possession of his owner, wherever he might be. Therefore, the one who seized him did not steal the slave, in which case he could simply return him. Rather, he made use of a slave belonging to another and should be liable to pay for the master’s loss of the slave’s labor.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה. כִּי הָא דִּשְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְמָרֵי בַּר מָר, בְּעִי מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַב הוּנָא: הַדָּר בַּחֲצַר חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ, צָרִיךְ לְהַעֲלוֹת לוֹ שָׂכָר אוֹ אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַעֲלוֹת לוֹ שָׂכָר? וּשְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַעֲלוֹת לוֹ שָׂכָר.
The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the one who seized the slave forced him to perform labor when it was not during regular working hours. Consequently, he did not prevent the slave from performing labor for his master. Since the owner did not incur any loss, the one who seized the slave is not obligated to pay for the benefit that he derived from the slave. This is like that message that Rabbi Abba sent to Mari bar Mar: Ask Rav Huna concerning one who resides in another’s courtyard without the owner’s knowledge: Does he need to pay him rent, or does he not need to pay him rent? And they sent to him in response: He does not need to pay him rent, since the owner of the property did not incur any monetary loss.
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם, בֵּין לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בֵּיתָא מְיַתְּבָא יָתֵיב – נִיחָא לֵיהּ, בֵּין לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״וּשְׁאִיָּה יֻכַּת שָׁעַר״ – נִיחָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara rejects this comparison: How can these cases be compared? Granted, there, in the case of a courtyard, whether the reasoning for that halakha is according to the one who says: An inhabited house remains habitable, and it is therefore satisfactory for the owner of the property to have someone residing in his courtyard, or whether the reasoning is according to the one who says that since the verse states: “In the city is left desolation, and the gate is smitten unto ruin” (Isaiah 24:12), which indicates that a desolate house will fall into ruin but an inhabited house will be maintained, either way it is satisfactory for the owner that one stay in his courtyard. Consequently, the one who resides there need not pay rent.
אֶלָּא הָכָא, מִי נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּנִכְחוֹשׁ עַבְדֵּיהּ? אָמְרִי: הָכִי נָמֵי, נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּלָא לִיסְתְּרֵי עַבְדֵּיהּ.
But here, in the case of a slave, is it satisfactory for him that his slave be weakened by performing labor for another? The Sages say: Indeed, it is satisfactory for him that the work habits of his slave not be undone.
(בֵּי) רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא הֲווֹ[ה] תָּקֵיף עַבְדֵי דְּאִינָשֵׁי דְּמַסֵּיק בְּהוּ זוּזֵי, וְעָבֵד בְּהוּ מְלָאכָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה בְּרֵיהּ: מַאי טַעְמָא עָבֵיד מָר הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: עַבְדָּא – נְהוֹם כְּרֵיסֵיהּ לָא שָׁוֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵימָא דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן כְּגוֹן דָּארוּ עַבְדֵּיהּ – דִּמְרַקֵּיד בֵּי כוּבֵּי; כּוּלְּהוּ עַבְדֵי מֶעְבָּד עָבְדִי!
The Gemara records a related incident. Members of the house of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama would, with his approval, seize the slaves of people who owed him money, and they would work them against the will of the owners. Rabba, son of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, said to him: What is the reason that the Master does this, i.e., seizes and uses these slaves? Rav Yosef bar Ḥama said to him: As Rav Naḥman says: A slave is not worth even the bread in his stomach. When the slaves work for me and eat in my home, I am not causing the owners any monetary loss. Rav Yosef bar Ḥama’s son said to him: I will say that Rav Naḥman said this with regard to specific slaves, such as his slave Daru, who only dances among the wine barrels [kuvei] and does not perform any labor. All other slaves perform labor, and their labor is worth more than their board.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא כְּרַב דָּנִיאֵל סְבִירָא לִי – דְּאָמַר רַב דָּנִיאֵל בַּר רַב קַטִּינָא אָמַר רַב: הַתּוֹקֵף בְּעַבְדּוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ וְעָשָׂה בּוֹ מְלָאכָה – פָּטוּר. אַלְמָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ, דְּלָא לִיסְתְּרֵי עַבְדֵּיהּ.
Rav Yosef bar Ḥama said to him: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav Daniel, as Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina says that Rav says: One who seizes another’s slave and performs labor with him is exempt from paying the master for the labor of the slave. Apparently, it is satisfactory for the master that the work habits of his slave not be undone.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא מַסֵּיק בְּהוּ זוּזֵי; מָר, כֵּיוָן דְּמַסֵּיק בְּהוּ זוּזֵי – מִחֲזֵי כְּרִבִּית. דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ: הַדָּר בַּחֲצַר חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ – אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַעֲלוֹת לוֹ שָׂכָר, הִלְוָהוּ וְדָר בַּחֲצַר חֲבֵירוֹ – צָרִיךְ לְהַעֲלוֹת לוֹ שָׂכָר! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲדַרִי בִּי.
Rabba said to him: This statement of Rav Daniel applies when the one who seizes the slave is not owed money by the owner of the slave. But since the Master is owed money by the owner of the slave, this has the appearance of interest, as Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says: Although the Sages said that one who resides in another’s courtyard without his knowledge does not need to pay him rent, if one lent money to another, and then resided in the courtyard of another, i.e., that of his creditor, he needs to pay him rent, to avoid the appearance of interest. Rav Yosef bar Ḥama said to him: I retract my opinion, and will no longer seize the slaves of my debtors.
אִיתְּמַר: הַתּוֹקֵף סְפִינָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ וְעָשָׂה בָּהּ מְלָאכָה, אָמַר רַב: רָצָה – שְׂכָרָהּ נוֹטֵל, רָצָה – פְּחָתָהּ נוֹטֵל. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל אֶלָּא פְּחָתָהּ.
It was stated: In the case of one who seizes another’s ship and performs labor with it, what payment can the ship’s owner claim? Rav says that he may choose: If he wishes, he can take the cost of the ship’s rent, and if he wishes, he can take the amount by which the value of the ship was diminished by being used for this labor, whichever amount is larger. And Shmuel says: He can take only the amount by which the value of the ship was diminished.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא פְּלִיגִי; הָא דַּעֲבִידָא לְאַגְרָא, הָא דְּלָא עֲבִידָא לְאַגְרָא. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא דַּעֲבִידָא לְאַגְרָא; הָא דִּנְחֵית לֵיהּ אַדַּעְתָּא דְּאַגְרָא, וְהָא דִּנְחֵית לֵיהּ אַדַּעְתָּא דְּגַזְלָנוּתָא.
Rav Pappa said: They do not disagree. They were addressing different cases: This, i.e., Rav’s statement, is referring to a ship that is commonly available for rental. That, i.e., Shmuel’s statement, is referring to a ship that is not commonly available for rental. And if you wish, say instead: This and that statement are both referring to a ship that is commonly available for rental. This, Rav’s statement, is referring to a case where the one who seized the ship descended, i.e., took possession, with the intention of renting the ship. He pays for the rental. That, Shmuel’s statement, is referring to a case where the one who seized the ship descended with the intention of robbery, to use it without paying. He is regarded as a robber and pays only the amount by which its value was diminished.
גָּזַל מַטְבֵּעַ וְנִסְדַּק [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: ״נִסְדַּק״ – נִסְדַּק מַמָּשׁ, ״נִפְסַל״ – פְּסָלַתּוּ מַלְכוּת.
§ The mishna teaches: If one robbed another of a coin and it cracked, he pays the value of the coin at the time of the robbery, as he has acquired it due to its change. But if the coin was invalidated, he says: That which is yours is before you. Since this is not a significant change, he has not acquired it. The Sages disagree with regard to the explanation of this halakha. Rav Huna says: When the mishna states that the coin cracked, it means that it actually cracked; when it says that the coin was invalidated, it means that it was invalidated by the government and is therefore unfit for use.
וְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: פְּסָלַתּוּ מַלְכוּת נָמֵי – הַיְינוּ נִסְדַּק. אֶלָּא הֵיכִי דָּמֵי ״נִפְסַל״? שֶׁפְּסָלַתּוּ מְדִינָה זוֹ, וְיוֹצֵא בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת.
And Rav Yehuda says: A coin invalidated by the government is the same as a coin that is cracked, because its complete loss of value is a significant change. But what are the circumstances of the mishna, in which a coin that was invalidated is not considered changed? It is a case where a coin was invalidated by the government in this province, and the residents there can no longer use it, but the coin still circulates and is in use in another province.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב הוּנָא: לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ ״נִפְסַל״ – פְּסָלַתּוּ מַלְכוּת; הֲרֵי פֵּירוֹת וְהִרְקִיבוּ, יַיִן וְהֶחְמִיץ – דְּכִי פְּסָלַתּוּ מַלְכוּת דָּמֵי; וְקָתָנֵי: מְשַׁלֵּם כִּשְׁעַת הַגְּזֵילָה!
The Gemara clarifies Rav Huna’s opinion. Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Huna: According to your opinion, that you said that the term invalidated means that the coin was invalidated by the government, and the mishna rules that in that case the robber can return it as is, there is a difficulty. But what of the cases in the mishna of one who robbed another of produce and it rotted or one who robbed another of wine and it fermented, which are similar to a coin that was invalidated by the government, since none of these items are fit for use, and the mishna teaches that the robber pays according to their value at the time of the robbery because they underwent a change? Why would the halakha be different in the case of a coin that was invalidated by the government?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם נִשְׁתַּנָּה טַעְמוֹ וְרֵיחוֹ, הָכָא לֹא נִשְׁתַּנָּה.
Rav Huna said to him: There, in the cases of produce and wine, its taste and its smell changed. Here, in the case of the coin that was invalidated, the coin itself did not change.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב יְהוּדָה: לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ פְּסָלַתּוּ מַלְכוּת נָמֵי הַיְינוּ ״נִסְדַּק״; הֲרֵי תְּרוּמָה וְנִטְמֵאת, דְּכִי פְּסָלַתּוּ מַלְכוּת דָּמֵי, וְקָתָנֵי: אוֹמֵר לוֹ ״הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ״!
The Gemara clarifies Rav Yehuda’s opinion. Rava said to Rav Yehuda: According to your opinion, that you said that a coin that was invalidated by the government is the same as one that cracked, and the mishna rules that in that case the robber pays according to its value at the time of the robbery, there is a difficulty. But what of the case in the mishna of one who robbed another of teruma and it became impure, which is similar to a coin that was invalidated by the government, and the mishna teaches that the robber says to the robbery victim: That which is yours is before you.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם לָא מִינְּכַר הֶיזֵּיקַהּ, הָכָא מִינְּכַר הֶיזֵּיקַהּ.
Rav Yehuda said to him: There, in the case of teruma, the damage is not evident, since it is impossible to tell the difference between pure and impure items. Here, in the case of the coin, the damage is evident, since one can tell by looking at it that it is the type of coin that was invalidated.
אִיתְּמַר: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ עַל הַמַּטְבֵּעַ, וְנִפְסַל הַמַּטְבֵּעַ, רַב אָמַר:
§ With regard to a coin that was invalidated, it was stated that there was a dispute concerning the question: In the case of one who lends money to another on the condition that he repay the loan using a particular kind of coin, and that coin becomes invalidated, Rav says:
נוֹתֵן לוֹ מַטְבֵּעַ הַיּוֹצֵא בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ, לֵךְ הוֹצִיאוֹ בְּמֵישָׁן. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִילְּתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל – דְּאִית לֵיהּ אוֹרְחָא לְמֵיזַל לְמֵישָׁן, אֲבָל לֵית לֵיהּ אוֹרְחָא – לָא.
The debtor gives him a coin that is in circulation at that time with which he repays the loan. And Shmuel says that the debtor can say to the creditor: I am giving you a coin like the one you gave me, although you cannot utilize it here. Go spend it in Meishan, i.e., a distant place where this coin is still in circulation. Rav Naḥman said: Shmuel’s statement is reasonable when the creditor has a way to go to Meishan, i.e., he intends to travel there, and therefore the debtor can tell him to spend the coin when he arrives at his destination. But if he has no way to go to Meishan, i.e., he does not intend to go there, the debtor may not give him these coins. Rather, he must give him coins that are in circulation in their current location.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: אֵין מְחַלְּלִין עַל הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁאֵינָם יוֹצְאוֹת. כֵּיצַד? הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת כּוֹזְבִיּוֹת יְרוּשַׁלְמִיּוֹת, אוֹ שֶׁל מְלָכִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים – אֵין מְחַלְּלִין. הָא שֶׁל אַחֲרוֹנִים דּוּמְיָא דְרִאשׁוֹנִים – מְחַלְּלִין!
Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman from a baraita (Tosefta, Ma’aser Sheni 1:6): One cannot desacralize second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto coins that are not in circulation. How so? If one had coins of bar Kokheva [Kozeviyyot], coins of Jerusalem, or coins of earlier kings, all of which are no longer in use, one cannot desacralize second–tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto them. Rava infers: But if one had coins of later, i.e., current, kings, that are similar to the coins of the earlier kings in that they have been invalidated in his location, since they are still valid elsewhere, one can desacralize the second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto them. The baraita does not make a distinction as to whether the owner of the produce intends to travel to the location where those coins are in use or not.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּשֶׁאֵין מַלְכִיּוֹת מַקְפִּידוֹת זוֹ עַל זוֹ.
Rav Naḥman said to him: With what are we dealing here in the baraita? We are dealing with a case where the kingdoms are not particular with one another. They allow a coin that has been invalidated in their province to be taken out of their borders and spent in a province where it is valid. Since these coins can be given to those planning to travel to the location where it is valid, it is considered to be a valid coin even in the location of the one desacralizing the second-tithe produce.
אֶלָּא כִּי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל – כְּשֶׁמַּלְכִיּוֹת מַקְפִּידוֹת זוֹ עַל זוֹ. הֵיכִי מָצֵי מַמְטֵי לְהוּ? דְּמַמְטֵי לְה[וּ] עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק; דְּלָא בָּחֲשִׁי, וְאִי מַשְׁכְּחִי קָפְדִי.
The Gemara asks: But, according to this explanation, when Shmuel said that the debtor can repay his debt with invalidated coins only if the creditor intends to travel to a location where they are valid, he is speaking of a case where the kingdoms are particular with each other. If so, how can he bring these coins to Meishan without the authorities confiscating them? The Gemara responds: Shmuel is discussing a case where the creditor can bring them with difficulty, as in a case where the authorities do not search, but if they find any invalid coins they are particular to confiscate them. It is therefore possible to bring these coins into the other kingdom. Nevertheless, since the authorities are particular, one who does not plan to travel there will not be able to exchange these coins with anyone in his location.
תָּא שְׁמַע: אֵין מְחַלְּלִין עַל מָעוֹת שֶׁל כָּאן וְהֵן בְּבָבֶל, וְשֶׁל בָּבֶל וְהֵן כָּאן. שֶׁל בָּבֶל וְהֵן בְּבָבֶל – מְחַלְּלִין. קָתָנֵי מִיהַת: אֵין מְחַלְּלִין עַל מָעוֹת שֶׁל כָּאן וְהֵן בְּבָבֶל – אַף עַל גַּב דְּסוֹפוֹ לְמִיסַּק לְהָתָם!
The Gemara questions Shmuel’s opinion: Come and hear what was taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ma’aser Sheni 1:6): One cannot desacralize second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto money of Eretz Yisrael, i.e., here, when they, the coins and their owner, are in Babylonia. And one cannot do so onto money of Babylonia when they, the coins and their owner, are here in Eretz Yisrael. If one uses money of Babylonia and they are in Babylonia, one can desacralize the second-tithe produce. In any event, the baraita teaches: One cannot desacralize second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto money of Eretz Yisrael, here, when they are in Babylonia. And this is stated even though they will ultimately ascend to there, Eretz Yisrael, as the very purpose of transferring the sanctity to the coins is to spend them in Jerusalem.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּשֶׁמַּלְכִיּוֹת מַקְפִּידוֹת זוֹ עַל זוֹ. אִי הָכִי, שֶׁל בָּבֶל וְהֵן בְּבָבֶל לְמַאי חֲזוּ? חֲזוּ דְּזָבֵין בְּהוּ בְּהֵמָה, וּמַסֵּיק לִירוּשָׁלַיִם.
The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the kingdoms are especially particular with one another, and it is impossible to transport coins from one location to the other. The Gemara asks: If so, if the kingdoms are especially particular with one another, then with regard to the case in the baraita, in which sanctity is transferred onto money of Babylonia and they are in Babylonia, for what are these coins fit? In any case they cannot be brought to Jerusalem. The Gemara responds: They are fit for purchasing an animal with them in Babylonia that will be brought up to Jerusalem.
וְהָתַנְיָא: הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ הַמָּעוֹת יוֹצְאוֹת בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם מִפְּנֵי כָּךְ! אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בִּזְמַן שֶׁיַּד יִשְׂרָאֵל תַּקִּיפָה עַל אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם, כָּאן בִּזְמַן שֶׁיַּד אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם תַּקִּיפָה עַל עַצְמָן.
With regard to the statement of the baraita, that one cannot desacralize second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto Babylonian money when in Eretz Yisrael, the Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The Sages instituted that all money shall circulate in Jerusalem because of this reason, i.e., so that Jews from all locations will be able to use their local currencies? Rabbi Zeira said: This is not difficult. Here, the baraita that states that all money is valid in Jerusalem is referring to a time when the authority of the Jewish people is dominant over the nations of the world and could enforce the rabbinic enactments. There, the baraita that states that sanctity may not be transferred onto Babylonian money when in Eretz Yisrael, is referring to a time when the authority of the nations of the world is dominant over them, i.e., the Jews, at which time foreign currency was not usable in Jerusalem.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ מַטְבֵּעַ שֶׁל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם? דָּוִד וּשְׁלֹמֹה מִצַּד אֶחָד, וִירוּשָׁלַיִם עִיר הַקּוֹדֶשׁ מִצַּד אַחֵר. וְאֵיזֶהוּ מַטְבֵּעַ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ? זָקֵן וּזְקֵינָה מִצַּד אֶחָד, וּבָחוּר וּבְתוּלָה מִצַּד אַחֵר.
Having mentioned the coins of Jerusalem, the Gemara notes: The Sages taught: What is the coin of ancient Jerusalem? The names David and Solomon were inscribed on one side, and Jerusalem the Holy City was on the other side. And what is the coin of Abraham our forefather? An old man and an old woman, representing Abraham and Sarah, were inscribed on one side, and a young man and a young woman, representing Isaac and Rebecca, were on the other side.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב חִסְדָּא: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ עַל הַמַּטְבֵּעַ, וְהוֹסִיפוּ עָלָיו, מַהוּ? אָמַר לוֹ: נוֹתֵן לוֹ מַטְבֵּעַ הַיּוֹצֵא בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וַאֲפִילּוּ כִּי נָפְיָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲפִילּוּ כִּי תְּרִטָיא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין.
§ Rava inquired of Rav Ḥisda: What is the halakha in the case of one who lends money to another on the condition that he repay the loan in coin, i.e., with the specific denomination of a currency, and the government added to the size of the coin, so that a coin of the same denomination now weighs more? Is the debtor obligated to return the newly adjusted coin, or can he repay the debt according to the prior weight of the coin that he borrowed? Rav Ḥisda said to him: He gives him the coin that is in circulation at the time of the payment. Rava said to him: And is this the halakha even if the new coin is as large as a sieve? Rav Ḥisda said to him: Yes. Rava said to him: And is this the halakha even if it is as large as a quarter-kav [tartiya]? Rav Ḥisda said to him: Yes.
וְהָא קָא זָיְילִין פֵּירֵי! אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: חָזֵינַן; אִי מֵחֲמַת טִיבְעָא זִיל – מְנַכֵּינַן לֵיהּ,
Rava challenged: But by increasing the weight of this coin, the produce has decreased in price, and since more produce can be purchased with this coin, giving it to the creditor as repayment is a form of interest. Rav Ashi said: We examine the situation: If the produce decreased in price due to the change in the weight of the coin, the debt is reduced for the debtor and the creditor is repaid with coins that equal the prior value of the loan.
