Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 5, 2016 | 讘壮 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Kamma 97

The mishna distinguishes between noticeable changes and those that aren’t noticeable. 聽The robber acquires only through a noticeable change. 聽There is a debate in the mishna regarding slaves – whether they are treated like land in which the robber does not acquire the slave or is it like movable property and it is acquired by the robber. 聽 Rav paskens like Rabbi Meir that the slaves are like land. 聽This psak is questionedby the gemara from a number of different directions. 聽Can usage of a stolen slave who isn’t working be compared to usage of an uninhabited house – where one who uses another’s house since he isn’t causing a loss for the owner, he does not need to pay? 聽What if one uses another’s boat without permission, what does he need to pay the owner? 聽The mishna distunguishes between coins that are ruined physically and those that are removed from currency. 聽The rabbis debate what exactly is the case of removed from currency – cannot be used in that country but can be used in another or cannot be used anywhere? 聽The gemara gets into a 聽case of one who takes a loan valued at an old currency and when he goes to pay back the loan, the currency is no longer in use. 聽Rav and Shmuel debate the case and Shmuel’s opinion is questioned especially in light of how Rav Nachman understand’s Shmuel’s psak.

Study Guide Bava Kamma 97

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 注讘讚讗 讻诪拽专拽注讬 讚诪讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讚谞讬讗诇 讘专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛转讜拽祝 讘注讘讚讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜注砖讛 讘讜 诪诇讗讻讛 驻讟讜专 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注讘讚讗 讻诪拽专拽注讬 讚诪讬 讗诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 讘专砖讜转讗 讚诪专讬讛 拽讗讬

And did Rav actually say that the legal status of a Canaanite slave is like that of real estate? But doesn鈥檛 Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina say that Rav says: One who seizes another鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 loss of the slave鈥檚 labor.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇诪专讬 讘专 诪专 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讚专 讘讞爪专 讞讘讬专讜 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 讜砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专

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鈥檚 courtyard without the owner鈥檚 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.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 讘讬谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讬转讗 诪讬转讘讗 讬转讬讘 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘讬谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讜砖讗讬讛 讬讻转 砖注专 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛

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: 鈥淚n the city is left desolation, and the gate is smitten unto ruin鈥 (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.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诪讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚谞讻讞讜砖 注讘讚讬讛 讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 诇讬住转专讬 注讘讚讬讛

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.

讘讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讜讜 转拽讬祝 注讘讚讬 讚讗讬谞砖讬 讚诪住讬拽 讘讛讜 讝讜讝讬 讜注讘讚讬 讘讛讜 诪诇讗讻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讬讚 诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注讘讚讗 谞讛讜诐 讻专讬住讬讛 诇讗 砖讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗专讜 注讘讚讬讛 讚诪专拽讬讚 讘讬 讻讜讘讬 讻讜诇讛讜 注讘讚讬 诪注讘讚 注讘讚讬

The Gemara records a related incident. Members of the house of Rav Yosef bar 岣ma 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 岣ma, said to him: What is the reason that the Master does this, i.e., seizes and uses these slaves? Rav Yosef bar 岣ma said to him: As Rav Na岣an 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 岣ma鈥檚 son said to him: I will say that Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讻专讘 讚谞讬讗诇 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讚谞讬讗诇 讘专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛转讜拽祝 讘注讘讚讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜注砖讛 讘讜 诪诇讗讻讛 驻讟讜专 讗诇诪讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 诇讬住转专讬 注讘讚讬讛

Rav Yosef bar 岣ma 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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 诪住讬拽 讘讛讜 讝讜讝讬 诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚诪住讬拽 讘讛讜 讝讜讝讬 诪讞讝讬 讻专讘讬转 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讛讚专 讘讞爪专 讞讘讬专讜 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 讛诇讜讛讜 讜讚专 讘讞爪专 讞讘讬专讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讚专讬 讘讬

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 Na岣an says: Although the Sages said that one who resides in another鈥檚 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 岣ma said to him: I retract my opinion, and will no longer seize the slaves of my debtors.

讗讬转诪专 讛转讜拽祝 住驻讬谞转讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜注砖讛 讘讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讗诪专 专讘 专爪讛 砖讻专讛 谞讜讟诇 专爪讛 驻讞转讛 谞讜讟诇 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 讗诇讗 驻讞转讛

It was stated: In the case of one who seizes another鈥檚 ship and performs labor with it, what payment can the ship鈥檚 owner claim? Rav says that he may choose: If he wishes, he can take the cost of the ship鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讚注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讙专讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讙专讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讚注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讙专讗 讛讗 讚谞讞讬转 诇讬讛 讗讚注转讗 讚讗讙专讗 讜讛讗 讚谞讞讬转 诇讬讛 讗讚注转讗 讚讙讝诇谞讜转讗

Rav Pappa said: They do not disagree. They were addressing different cases: This, i.e., Rav鈥檚 statement, is referring to a ship that is commonly available for rental. That, i.e., Shmuel鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讙讝诇 诪讟讘注 讜谞住讚拽 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞住讚拽 谞住讚拽 诪诪砖 谞驻住诇 驻住诇转讜 诪诇讻讜转

搂 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.

讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 驻住诇转讜 诪诇讻讜转 谞诪讬 讛讬讬谞讜 谞住讚拽 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 谞驻住诇 砖驻住诇转讜 诪讚讬谞讛 讝讜 讜讬讜爪讗讛 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讗讞专转

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 谞驻住诇 驻住诇转讜 诪诇讻讜转 讛专讬 驻讬专讜转 讜讛专拽讬讘讜 讬讬谉 讜讛讞诪讬抓 讚讻讬 驻住诇转讜 诪诇讻讜转 讚诪讬 讜拽转谞讬 诪砖诇诐 讻砖注转 讛讙讝讬诇讛

The Gemara clarifies Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion. Rav 岣sda 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 谞砖转谞讛 讟注诪讜 讜专讬讞讜 讛讻讗 诇讗 谞砖转谞讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 驻住诇转讜 诪诇讻讜转 谞诪讬 讛讬讬谞讜 谞住讚拽 讛专讬 转专讜诪讛 讜谞讟诪讗转 讚讻讬 驻住诇转讜 诪诇讻讜转 讚诪讬 讜拽转谞讬 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱

The Gemara clarifies Rav Yehuda鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 诇讗 诪讬谞讻专 讛讬讝讬拽讛 讛讻讗 诪讬谞讻专 讛讬讝讬拽讛

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.

讗讬转诪专 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 注诇 讛诪讟讘注 讜谞驻住诇讛 讛诪讟讘注 专讘 讗诪专

搂 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:

谞讜转谉 诇讜 诪讟讘注 讛讬讜爪讗 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 诇讱 讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘诪讬砖谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪住转讘专讗 诪讬诇转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讜专讞讗 诇诪讬讝诇 诇诪讬砖谉 讗讘诇 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讜专讞讗 诇讗

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 Na岣an said: Shmuel鈥檚 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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇 讛诪注讜转 砖讗讬谞诐 讬讜爪讗讜转 讻讬爪讚 讛讬讜 诇讜 诪注讜转 讻讜讝讘讬讜转 讬专讜砖诇诪讬讜转 讗讜 砖诇 诪诇讻讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 讛讗 砖诇 讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诪讞诇诇讬谉

Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from a baraita (Tosefta, Ma鈥檃ser 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 secondtithe 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖讗讬谉 诪诇讻讬讜转 诪拽驻讬讚讜转 讝讜 注诇 讝讜

Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻砖诪诇讻讬讜转 诪拽驻讬讚讜转 讝讜 注诇 讝讜 讛讬讻讬 诪爪讬 诪诪讟讬 诇讛讜 讚诪诪讟讬 诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 讚诇讗 讘讞砖讬 讜讗讬 诪砖讻讞讬 拽驻讚讬

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇 诪注讜转 砖诇 讻讗谉 讜讛谉 讘讘讘诇 讜砖诇 讘讘诇 讜讛谉 讻讗谉 砖诇 讘讘诇 讜讛谉 讘讘讘诇 诪讞诇诇讬谉 拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇 诪注讜转 砖诇 讻讗谉 讜讛谉 讘讘讘诇 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚住讜驻讜 诇诪讬住拽 诇讛转诐

The Gemara questions Shmuel鈥檚 opinion: Come and hear what was taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ma鈥檃ser 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.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖诪诇讻讬讜转 诪拽驻讬讚讜转 讝讜 注诇 讝讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 砖诇 讘讘诇 讜讛谉 讘讘讘诇 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讜 讞讝讜 讚讝讘讬谉 讘讛讜 讘讛诪讛 讜诪住讬拽 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐

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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讜 讛诪注讜转 讬讜爪讗讜转 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讻讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讬讚 讬砖专讗诇 转拽讬驻讛 注诇 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 讻讗谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讬讚 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 转拽讬驻讛 注诇 注爪诪谉

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鈥檛 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 诪讟讘注 砖诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讚讜讚 讜砖诇诪讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讜讬专讜砖诇讬诐 注讬专 讛拽讜讚砖 诪爪讚 讗讞专 讜讗讬讝讛讜 诪讟讘注 砖诇 讗讘专讛诐 讗讘讬谞讜 讝拽谉 讜讝拽讬谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讜讘讞讜专 讜讘转讜诇讛 诪爪讚 讗讞专

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.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 注诇 讛诪讟讘注 讜讛讜住讬驻讜 注诇讬讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讜 谞讜转谉 诇讜 诪讟讘注 讛讬讜爪讗 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讬 谞驻讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讬 转专讟讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉

Rava inquired of Rav 岣sda: 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 岣sda 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 岣sda 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 岣sda said to him: Yes.

讜讛讗 拽讗 讝讬讬诇讬谉 驻讬专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 诪讞诪转 讟讬讘注讗 讝讬诇 诪谞讻讬谞谉 诇讬讛

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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Kamma 97

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 97

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 注讘讚讗 讻诪拽专拽注讬 讚诪讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讚谞讬讗诇 讘专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛转讜拽祝 讘注讘讚讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜注砖讛 讘讜 诪诇讗讻讛 驻讟讜专 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注讘讚讗 讻诪拽专拽注讬 讚诪讬 讗诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 讘专砖讜转讗 讚诪专讬讛 拽讗讬

And did Rav actually say that the legal status of a Canaanite slave is like that of real estate? But doesn鈥檛 Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina say that Rav says: One who seizes another鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 loss of the slave鈥檚 labor.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇诪专讬 讘专 诪专 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讚专 讘讞爪专 讞讘讬专讜 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 讜砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专

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鈥檚 courtyard without the owner鈥檚 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.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 讘讬谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讬转讗 诪讬转讘讗 讬转讬讘 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘讬谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讜砖讗讬讛 讬讻转 砖注专 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛

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: 鈥淚n the city is left desolation, and the gate is smitten unto ruin鈥 (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.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诪讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚谞讻讞讜砖 注讘讚讬讛 讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 诇讬住转专讬 注讘讚讬讛

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.

讘讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讜讜 转拽讬祝 注讘讚讬 讚讗讬谞砖讬 讚诪住讬拽 讘讛讜 讝讜讝讬 讜注讘讚讬 讘讛讜 诪诇讗讻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讬讚 诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注讘讚讗 谞讛讜诐 讻专讬住讬讛 诇讗 砖讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗专讜 注讘讚讬讛 讚诪专拽讬讚 讘讬 讻讜讘讬 讻讜诇讛讜 注讘讚讬 诪注讘讚 注讘讚讬

The Gemara records a related incident. Members of the house of Rav Yosef bar 岣ma 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 岣ma, said to him: What is the reason that the Master does this, i.e., seizes and uses these slaves? Rav Yosef bar 岣ma said to him: As Rav Na岣an 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 岣ma鈥檚 son said to him: I will say that Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讻专讘 讚谞讬讗诇 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讚谞讬讗诇 讘专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛转讜拽祝 讘注讘讚讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜注砖讛 讘讜 诪诇讗讻讛 驻讟讜专 讗诇诪讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 诇讬住转专讬 注讘讚讬讛

Rav Yosef bar 岣ma 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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 诪住讬拽 讘讛讜 讝讜讝讬 诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚诪住讬拽 讘讛讜 讝讜讝讬 诪讞讝讬 讻专讘讬转 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讛讚专 讘讞爪专 讞讘讬专讜 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 讛诇讜讛讜 讜讚专 讘讞爪专 讞讘讬专讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讚专讬 讘讬

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 Na岣an says: Although the Sages said that one who resides in another鈥檚 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 岣ma said to him: I retract my opinion, and will no longer seize the slaves of my debtors.

讗讬转诪专 讛转讜拽祝 住驻讬谞转讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜注砖讛 讘讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讗诪专 专讘 专爪讛 砖讻专讛 谞讜讟诇 专爪讛 驻讞转讛 谞讜讟诇 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 讗诇讗 驻讞转讛

It was stated: In the case of one who seizes another鈥檚 ship and performs labor with it, what payment can the ship鈥檚 owner claim? Rav says that he may choose: If he wishes, he can take the cost of the ship鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讚注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讙专讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讙专讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讚注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讙专讗 讛讗 讚谞讞讬转 诇讬讛 讗讚注转讗 讚讗讙专讗 讜讛讗 讚谞讞讬转 诇讬讛 讗讚注转讗 讚讙讝诇谞讜转讗

Rav Pappa said: They do not disagree. They were addressing different cases: This, i.e., Rav鈥檚 statement, is referring to a ship that is commonly available for rental. That, i.e., Shmuel鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讙讝诇 诪讟讘注 讜谞住讚拽 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞住讚拽 谞住讚拽 诪诪砖 谞驻住诇 驻住诇转讜 诪诇讻讜转

搂 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.

讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 驻住诇转讜 诪诇讻讜转 谞诪讬 讛讬讬谞讜 谞住讚拽 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 谞驻住诇 砖驻住诇转讜 诪讚讬谞讛 讝讜 讜讬讜爪讗讛 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讗讞专转

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 谞驻住诇 驻住诇转讜 诪诇讻讜转 讛专讬 驻讬专讜转 讜讛专拽讬讘讜 讬讬谉 讜讛讞诪讬抓 讚讻讬 驻住诇转讜 诪诇讻讜转 讚诪讬 讜拽转谞讬 诪砖诇诐 讻砖注转 讛讙讝讬诇讛

The Gemara clarifies Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion. Rav 岣sda 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 谞砖转谞讛 讟注诪讜 讜专讬讞讜 讛讻讗 诇讗 谞砖转谞讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 驻住诇转讜 诪诇讻讜转 谞诪讬 讛讬讬谞讜 谞住讚拽 讛专讬 转专讜诪讛 讜谞讟诪讗转 讚讻讬 驻住诇转讜 诪诇讻讜转 讚诪讬 讜拽转谞讬 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱

The Gemara clarifies Rav Yehuda鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 诇讗 诪讬谞讻专 讛讬讝讬拽讛 讛讻讗 诪讬谞讻专 讛讬讝讬拽讛

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.

讗讬转诪专 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 注诇 讛诪讟讘注 讜谞驻住诇讛 讛诪讟讘注 专讘 讗诪专

搂 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:

谞讜转谉 诇讜 诪讟讘注 讛讬讜爪讗 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 诇讱 讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘诪讬砖谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪住转讘专讗 诪讬诇转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讜专讞讗 诇诪讬讝诇 诇诪讬砖谉 讗讘诇 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讜专讞讗 诇讗

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 Na岣an said: Shmuel鈥檚 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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇 讛诪注讜转 砖讗讬谞诐 讬讜爪讗讜转 讻讬爪讚 讛讬讜 诇讜 诪注讜转 讻讜讝讘讬讜转 讬专讜砖诇诪讬讜转 讗讜 砖诇 诪诇讻讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 讛讗 砖诇 讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诪讞诇诇讬谉

Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from a baraita (Tosefta, Ma鈥檃ser 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 secondtithe 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖讗讬谉 诪诇讻讬讜转 诪拽驻讬讚讜转 讝讜 注诇 讝讜

Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻砖诪诇讻讬讜转 诪拽驻讬讚讜转 讝讜 注诇 讝讜 讛讬讻讬 诪爪讬 诪诪讟讬 诇讛讜 讚诪诪讟讬 诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 讚诇讗 讘讞砖讬 讜讗讬 诪砖讻讞讬 拽驻讚讬

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇 诪注讜转 砖诇 讻讗谉 讜讛谉 讘讘讘诇 讜砖诇 讘讘诇 讜讛谉 讻讗谉 砖诇 讘讘诇 讜讛谉 讘讘讘诇 诪讞诇诇讬谉 拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇 诪注讜转 砖诇 讻讗谉 讜讛谉 讘讘讘诇 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚住讜驻讜 诇诪讬住拽 诇讛转诐

The Gemara questions Shmuel鈥檚 opinion: Come and hear what was taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ma鈥檃ser 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.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖诪诇讻讬讜转 诪拽驻讬讚讜转 讝讜 注诇 讝讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 砖诇 讘讘诇 讜讛谉 讘讘讘诇 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讜 讞讝讜 讚讝讘讬谉 讘讛讜 讘讛诪讛 讜诪住讬拽 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐

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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讜 讛诪注讜转 讬讜爪讗讜转 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讻讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讬讚 讬砖专讗诇 转拽讬驻讛 注诇 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 讻讗谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讬讚 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 转拽讬驻讛 注诇 注爪诪谉

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鈥檛 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 诪讟讘注 砖诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讚讜讚 讜砖诇诪讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讜讬专讜砖诇讬诐 注讬专 讛拽讜讚砖 诪爪讚 讗讞专 讜讗讬讝讛讜 诪讟讘注 砖诇 讗讘专讛诐 讗讘讬谞讜 讝拽谉 讜讝拽讬谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讜讘讞讜专 讜讘转讜诇讛 诪爪讚 讗讞专

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.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 注诇 讛诪讟讘注 讜讛讜住讬驻讜 注诇讬讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讜 谞讜转谉 诇讜 诪讟讘注 讛讬讜爪讗 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讬 谞驻讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讬 转专讟讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉

Rava inquired of Rav 岣sda: 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 岣sda 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 岣sda 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 岣sda said to him: Yes.

讜讛讗 拽讗 讝讬讬诇讬谉 驻讬专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 诪讞诪转 讟讬讘注讗 讝讬诇 诪谞讻讬谞谉 诇讬讛

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.

Scroll To Top