Bava Metzia 44
גמ׳ מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עַל כׇּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע״, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁחַיָּיב עַל הַמַּחְשָׁבָה כְּמַעֲשֶׂה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁלַח בּוֹ יָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִם לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ בִּמְלֶאכֶת רֵעֵהוּ״. אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְבֵית הִלֵּל: וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״עַל כׇּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע״! אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״אִם לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ בִּמְלֶאכֶת רֵעֵהוּ״!
GEMARA: From where are these matters derived, that one is liable to pay for intent to misappropriate a deposit? It is as the Sages taught: It is written with regard to misappropriation: “For every matter of [devar] trespass” (Exodus 22:8). Beit Shammai say: The term devar, literally, word, teaches that one is liable to pay for a thought of misappropriation just as he is for an action. One pays for a matter of trespass even if there is no actual trespass. And Beit Hillel say: He is liable to pay only if he actually misappropriates the deposit, as it is stated: “Whether he has misappropriated his neighbor’s goods” (Exodus 22:7). Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: But isn’t it already stated: “For every matter of trespass”? Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: But isn’t it already stated: “Whether he has misappropriated his neighbor’s goods”?
אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַל כׇּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע״? שֶׁיָּכוֹל אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הוּא, אָמַר לְעַבְדּוֹ וְלִשְׁלוּחוֹ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַל כׇּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע״.
If so, what is the meaning when the verse states “for every matter of trespass”? One might have thought: I have derived only that one is liable to pay if he misappropriated the deposit himself, but if he said to his slave or to his agent to misappropriate the deposit in his possession, from where is it derived that he is liable to pay due to their actions? The verse states: “For every matter of trespass,” from which it is derived that one’s speech renders him liable to pay for any misappropriation.
הִטָּה אֶת הֶחָבִית כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַבָּה: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא נִשְׁבְּרָה, אֲבָל הֶחְמִיצָה – מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת כּוּלָּהּ. מַאי טַעְמָא? גִּירֵי דִידֵיהּ הוּא דְּאַהֲנוֹ לַהּ.
§ The mishna teaches: If he tilted the deposited barrel, he is liable to pay only for the wine that he took. Rabba says: The Sages taught this halakha only if the barrel broke. But if the wine in the barrel fermented and spoiled, he pays for the entire barrel. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this ruling? He is liable because it was his arrows, i.e., his actions, that were effective in spoiling the wine. Although he took only a quarter-log, the wine fermented and turned rancid as a result of his opening the cask.
הִגְבִּיהָהּ וְנָטַל הֵימֶנָּה כּוּ׳. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא נָטַל נָטַל מַמָּשׁ, אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגְבִּיהָהּ לִיטּוֹל, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָטַל.
§ The mishna teaches: If one lifted the barrel and took from it a quarter-log of wine, he pays the value of the entire barrel. Shmuel says: When the tanna said: And took from it, it is not that he actually took the wine from the barrel. Rather, once he lifted it in order to take wine from it, although he did not yet take wine from it, if it breaks, he is liable to pay.
לֵימָא קָא סָבַר שְׁמוּאֵל שְׁלִיחוּת יָד אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה חֶסְרוֹן? אָמְרִי: לָא, שָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּנִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּתִיהְוֵי הָא חָבִית כּוּלַּהּ בָּסִיס לְהָא רְבִיעִית.
The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Shmuel holds that misappropriation does not require loss? The Sages say: No, do not draw that conclusion. It is different here, since it is preferable for the bailee that all the wine in this barrel will serve as a base for that quarter–log. Although his intent was to take a small amount of wine, since that small amount is better preserved within the full barrel of wine, it is as though he took the entire barrel.
בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: הִגְבִּיהַּ אַרְנָקִי לִיטּוֹל הֵימֶנָּה דִּינָר, מַהוּ? חַמְרָא הוּא דְּלָא מִינְּטַר אֶלָּא אַגַּב חַמְרָא, אֲבָל זוּזָא מִינְּטַר? אוֹ דִּלְמָא שָׁאנֵי נְטִירוּתָא דְּאַרְנָקִי מִנְּטִירוּתָא דְּדִינָר? תֵּיקוּ.
Rav Ashi raises a dilemma based on that explanation: If one lifts a purse in order to take from it a single dinar, what is the halakha? Is it only with regard to wine, which is preserved only by means of the wine in the barrel, that if one intends to take a quarter-log, it is as though he intended to take all of the wine in the barrel, but with regard to a dinar, which is preserved even alone, intent to take one dinar does not indicate intent to take all of the coins in the purse? Or, perhaps safeguarding a purse is different from safeguarding a dinar. A single coin is easily lost, whereas a purse is not, as it is more easily safeguarded. Therefore, when the bailee intends to take one dinar, he intends to take all of the coins in the purse. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַמַּפְקִיד
מַתְנִי׳ הַזָּהָב קוֹנֶה אֶת הַכֶּסֶף, וְהַכֶּסֶף אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה אֶת הַזָּהָב.
MISHNA: There is a halakhic principle that when one purchases an item, the payment of the money does not effect the transaction. The transaction is effected only by means of the buyer’s physically taking the item into his possession, e.g., by pulling the item. Payment of money by the buyer creates only a moral obligation for the seller to sell him the item. When two types of currency are exchanged for each other, one of the types will have the status of the money being paid, and the other will have the status of the item being purchased. Handing over the former will not effect the transaction, while handing over the latter will. The mishna teaches: When one purchases gold coins, paying with silver coins, the gold coins assume the status of the purchased item and the silver coins assume the status of money. Therefore, when one party takes possession of the gold coins, the other party acquires the silver coins. But when one party takes possession of the silver coins, the other party does not acquire the gold coins.
הַנְּחֹשֶׁת קוֹנָה אֶת הַכֶּסֶף, וְהַכֶּסֶף אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה אֶת הַנְּחשֶׁת. מָעוֹת הָרָעוֹת קוֹנוֹת אֶת הַיָּפוֹת, וְהַיָּפוֹת אֵינָן קוֹנוֹת אֶת הָרָעוֹת.
In an exchange of silver coins for copper coins, when one party takes possession of the copper coins, the other party acquires the silver coins. But when one party takes possession of the silver coins, the other party does not acquire the copper coins. In an exchange of flawed coins for unflawed coins, when one party takes possession of the flawed coins, the other party acquires the unflawed coins. But when one party takes possession of the unflawed coins, the other party does not acquire the flawed coins.
אֲסִימוֹן קוֹנֶה אֶת הַמַּטְבֵּעַ, וְהַמַּטְבֵּעַ אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה אֶת אֲסִימוֹן. מִטַּלְטְלִין קוֹנִין אֶת הַמַּטְבֵּעַ, מַטְבֵּעַ אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה אֶת הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין.
In an exchange of an unminted coin for a minted coin, when one party takes possession of an unminted coin [asimon], the other party acquires a minted coin. But when one party takes possession of a minted coin, the other party does not acquire an unminted coin. In an exchange of a coin for movable property, when one party takes possession of the movable property the other party acquires the coin. But when one party takes possession of the coin, the other party does not acquire the movable property.
זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִים קוֹנִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. כֵּיצַד? מָשַׁךְ הֵימֶנּוּ פֵּירוֹת וְלֹא נָתַן לוֹ מָעוֹת – אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזוֹר בּוֹ. נָתַן לוֹ מָעוֹת וְלֹא מָשַׁךְ הֵימֶנּוּ פֵּירוֹת – יָכוֹל לַחְזוֹר בּוֹ.
This is the principle: With regard to those who exchange all forms of movable property, each acquires the property of the other, i.e., the moment that one of the parties to the exchange takes possession of the item that he is acquiring, e.g., by means of pulling, the other party acquires the item from the first party. How so? If the buyer pulled produce from the seller, but the buyer did not yet give the seller their value in money, he cannot renege on the transaction, but if the buyer gave the seller money but did not yet pull produce from him, he can renege on the transaction, as the transaction is not yet complete.
אֲבָל אָמְרוּ: מִי שֶׁפָּרַע מֵאַנְשֵׁי דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל וּמִדּוֹר הַפְּלַגָּה – הוּא עָתִיד לְהִפָּרַע מִמִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד בְּדִבּוּרוֹ.
But with regard to the latter case, the Sages said: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the generation of the dispersion, i.e., that of the Tower of Babel, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement. Just as the people of those generations were not punished by an earthly court but were subjected to divine punishment, so too, although no earthly court can compel the person who reneged to complete the transaction, punishment will be exacted at the hand of Heaven for any damage that he caused.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁהַכֶּסֶף בְּיָדוֹ – יָדוֹ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה.
Rabbi Shimon says: Anyone who has the money in his possession has the advantage. The Sages said it is only with regard to the seller that payment of money does not effect a transaction, so that if the buyer paid for the item and did not yet take possession of the purchase item, the seller can renege on the sale and return the money. By contrast, once the buyer paid for the item he cannot renege on his decision and demand return of his money, even if he did not yet take possession of the purchase item.
גְּמָ׳ מַתְנֵי לֵיהּ רַבִּי לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרֵיהּ: הַזָּהָב קוֹנֶה אֶת הַכֶּסֶף. אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, שָׁנִיתָ לָנוּ בְּיַלְדוּתֶיךָ: הַכֶּסֶף קוֹנֶה אֶת הַזָּהָב, וְתַחֲזוֹר וְתִשְׁנֶה לָנוּ בְּזִקְנוּתֶיךָ: הַזָּהָב קוֹנֶה אֶת הַכֶּסֶף!
GEMARA: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would teach Rabbi Shimon, his son: When one party takes possession of the gold coins, the other party acquires the silver coins, consistent with the mishna. Rabbi Shimon said to him: My teacher, you taught us in your youth, in the first version of the mishna: When one party takes possession of the silver coins, the other party acquires the gold coins, and do you then teach us in your old age: When one party takes possession of the gold coins, the other party acquires the silver coins?
בְּיַלְדוּתֵיהּ מַאי סְבַר, וּבְזִקְנוּתֵיהּ מַאי סָבַר? בְּיַלְדוּתֵיהּ סְבַר: דַּהֲבָא דַּחֲשִׁיב הָוֵי טִבְעָא, כַּסְפָּא דְּלָא חֲשִׁיב – הָוֵי פֵּירָא, וְקָנֵי לֵיהּ פֵּירָא לְטִבְעָא. בְּזִקְנוּתֵיהּ סְבַר: כַּסְפָּא
The Gemara asks: In his youth, what did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi hold, and in his maturity, what did he hold? What is the basis for his original opinion, and what led him to change his mind? The Gemara explains: In his youth he held: Gold coins, which are more valuable, are currency; silver coins, which are relatively not valuable, are a commodity, i.e., the purchase item. The principle is: When one party takes possession of a commodity the other party acquires the currency. In his old age, he held: Silver coins,
דְּחָרִיף – הָוֵי טִבְעָא. דַּהֲבָא דְּלָא חָרִיף – הָוֵי פֵּירָא, וְקָנֵי לֵיהּ פֵּירָא לְטִבְעָא.
which circulate, in the sense that they are universally accepted by merchants, in contrast to gold coins, which merchants are less willing to accept as payment for inexpensive items, are currency; gold coins, which do not circulate, are a commodity. And the principle is: When one party takes possession of the commodity, the other party acquires the currency.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כְּיַלְדוּתֵיהּ מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִדְּקָתָנֵי: ״הַנְּחֹשֶׁת קוֹנָה אֶת הַכֶּסֶף״.
Rav Ashi said: It is reasonable to teach the halakha in accordance with that which he taught in his youth. This is from the fact that the tanna teaches later in the mishna: When one party takes possession of the copper coins, the other party acquires the silver coins.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא כַּסְפָּא לְגַבֵּי דַּהֲבָא פֵּירָא הָוֵי, הַיְינוּ דְּקָא תָנֵי: ״הַנְּחֹשֶׁת קוֹנָה אֶת הַכֶּסֶף״, דְּאַף עַל פִּי דִּלְגַבֵּי דַּהֲבָא פֵּירָא הָוֵיא, לְגַבֵּי נְחֹשֶׁת טִבְעָא הָוֵי. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ כַּסְפָּא לְגַבֵּי דַּהֲבָא טִבְעָא הָוֵי, הַשְׁתָּא לְגַבֵּי דַּהֲבָא דַּחֲשִׁיב מִינֵּיהּ, אָמְרַתְּ טִבְעָא הָוֵי, לְגַבֵּי נְחֹשֶׁת, דְּאִיהוּ חֲשִׁיב וְאִיהוּ חָרִיף – מִבַּעְיָא?
Rav Ashi explains: Granted, if you say that the silver coins relative to the gold coins are a commodity, that is the reason that the tanna teaches: When one party takes possession of the copper coins, the other party acquires the silver coins, as, even though relative to the gold coins, the silver coins are a commodity, the tanna teaches that relative to copper coins, they are currency. But if you say that the silver coins relative to the gold coins are currency the subsequent ruling is self-evident, as now, relative to the gold coins, which are more valuable than the silver coins, you say that silver coins are currency, then relative to copper coins, as the silver coins are more valuable than the copper coins and they also circulate more easily, is it necessary for the mishna to state that the silver coins are currency and the copper coins are a commodity?
אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי פְּרִיטֵי, בְּאַתְרָא דְּסָגַיִי – אִינְהוּ חֲרִיפִי טְפֵי מִכַּסְפָּא, אֵימָא טִבְעָא הָוֵי! קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא דּוּכְתָּא דְּלָא סָגֵי בֵּיהּ – פֵּירָא הָוֵי.
The Gemara rejects this proof. Even if you teach the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in his old age, it was necessary for the tanna to teach the halakha of silver and copper coins as well. This is because it might enter your mind to say that in a place where these copper perutot circulate, they circulate more easily than silver coins. Therefore, say that they are the currency and the silver coins are the commodity. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that since silver coins are universally accepted as currency and there is a place where copper coins do not circulate, the copper coins are a commodity.
וְאַף רַבִּי חִיָּיא סְבַר דַּהֲבָא טִבְעָא הָוֵי. דְּרַב אוֹזֵיף דִּינָרֵי מִבְּרַתֵּיה דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא, לְסוֹף אִיַּיקּוּר דִּינָרֵי. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל שַׁלֵּים לַהּ טָבִין וּתְקִילִין. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא דַּהֲבָא טִבְעָא הָוֵי – שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ פֵּירָא הָוֵי, הָוֵה לֵיהּ סְאָה בִּסְאָה, וְאָסוּר!
§ The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Ḥiyya, as well, holds that gold coins are currency relative to silver. This is seen from the incident where Rav borrowed gold dinars from the daughter of Rabbi Ḥiyya. Ultimately, the gold dinars appreciated in value. Rav came before Rabbi Ḥiyya to ask his opinion. Rav was concerned that by returning more valuable dinars than he borrowed, this would violate the prohibition against paying interest. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rav: Go and pay her unflawed and weighed dinars. Return the number of dinars that you borrowed, as their monetary value is irrelevant. The Gemara asks: Granted, if you say that the gold coins are currency, this works out well, as he borrowed and repaid the same coins. But if you say that the gold coins are a commodity, this is parallel to the case of one who borrows a se’a of produce and repays a se’a of produce, which is prohibited, as the price of the produce may increase in the interim (see 75a).
רַב דִּינָרֵי הֲווֹ לֵיהּ, וְכֵיוָן דַּהֲווֹ לֵיהּ דִּינָרֵי – נַעֲשָׂה כְּאוֹמֵר לָהּ: הַלְוֵינִי עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא בְּנִי אוֹ עַד שֶׁאֶמְצָא מַפְתֵּחַ.
The Gemara rejects this proof. The dinars that Rav received from the daughter of Rabbi Ḥiyya did not constitute a standard loan, as Rav had dinars elsewhere, but he needed money immediately. And since he had dinars, it is tantamount to saying to her: Lend me money until my son comes or until I find the key. As the mishna on 75a teaches, when the borrower possesses the same item he is borrowing, and merely does not have momentary access to it, this type of borrowing and repayment is permitted.
אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר דַּהֲבָא טִבְעָא הָוֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: פְּרוּטָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ – אֶחָד מִשְּׁמוֹנָה בָּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְקִדּוּשֵׁי אִשָּׁה. אִיסָּר – אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה בְּדִינָר שֶׁל כֶּסֶף. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר.
Rava said: This following tanna also holds that the gold coins are currency, as it is taught in a baraita: The peruta of which the Sages spoke in all places in the mishna is one-eighth of an Italian issar. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference that emerges from this calculation? Ostensibly, a peruta is a peruta. The Gemara explains: Its consequences are for the betrothal of a woman with money, which can be effected only with money or an item worth at least one peruta. This peruta is assessed by means of the Italian issar. The baraita continues: An issar is one twenty-fourth of a silver dinar. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference that emerges from this calculation? The Gemara answers: Its consequences are for buying and selling, to establish its value for use in commercial transactions.
דִּינָר שֶׁל כֶּסֶף – אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה בְּדִינָר שֶׁל זָהָב. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן.
The baraita continues: A silver dinar is one twenty-fifth of a gold dinar. What is the practical difference that emerges from this calculation? The Gemara explains: Its consequences are with regard to redemption of the firstborn son. The father of a firstborn gives the priest five sela, which are worth twenty silver dinars. Were he to give the priest a gold dinar he would receive five silver dinars change.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא טִבְעָא הָוֵי, מְשַׁעֵר תַּנָּא בְּמִידֵּי דְּקִיץ! אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ פֵּירָא הָוֵי, מְשַׁעֵר תַּנָּא בְּמִידֵּי דְּאוֹקֵיר וְזִיל? זִימְנִין דְּמַהְדַּר לֵיהּ כָּהֲנָא וְזִימְנִין דְּמוֹסֵיף לֵיהּ אִיהוּ לְכָהֲנָא. אֶלָּא, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: טִבְעָא הָוֵי. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara asks: Granted, if you say that the gold coins are currency, the tanna calculates the value of the coins based on an item whose value is fixed. The value of the gold coin is the currency with fixed value, relative to which the silver dinar is a commodity, whose value fluctuates. But if you say that gold is a commodity, would the tanna calculate the value of a silver coin based on an item that appreciates and depreciates? If the value of gold fluctuates, sometimes the priest returns more than five silver dinars to the father who redeemed his son with a gold dinar, and sometimes the father must add to the gold dinar and give this additional sum along with the gold dinar to the priest to complete the sum of five sela. Rather, learn from it that the tanna holds that the gold coins are currency. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is so.
תְּנַן הָתָם, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם סְלָעִין דִּינְרֵי זָהָב, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ חַד אָמַר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּסְלָעִים עַל דִּינָרִין, דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: כַּסְפָּא טִבְעָא, וְדַהֲבָא פֵּירָא, וְטִבְעָא אַפֵּירָא לָא מְחַלְּלִינַן. וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: כַּסְפָּא פֵּירָא, וְדַהֲבָא טִבְעָא, וּפֵירָא אַטִּבְעָא מְחַלְּלִינַן. אֲבָל פֵּירוֹת עַל דִּינָרִין – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מְחַלְּלִינַן.
§ We learned in a mishna there (Ma’aser Sheni 2:7): Beit Shammai say: A person may not transfer silver sela coins of tithe money or other consecrated coins into gold dinars through redemption, and Beit Hillel permit doing so. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish disagreed. One said: The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is with regard to exchanging silver sela coins for gold dinars, as Beit Shammai hold that the silver coins are currency and the gold coins are a commodity, and we do not desacralize currency with a commodity. And Beit Hillel hold that the silver coins are a commodity and the gold coins are currency, and we desacralize a commodity with currency. But everyone agrees that we desacralize produce with gold dinars.
מַאי טַעְמָא – מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַכֶּסֶף לְבֵית הִלֵּל. כֶּסֶף לְבֵית הִלֵּל, אַף עַל גַּב דְּכַסְפָּא לְגַבֵּי דַּהֲבָא פֵּירָא הָוֵי, לְגַבֵּי פֵּירָא טִבְעָא הָוֵי. זָהָב נָמֵי לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּדַהֲבָא לְגַבֵּי כַּסְפָּא פֵּירָא הָוֵי, לְגַבֵּי פֵּירָא טִבְעָא הָוֵי. וְחַד אָמַר: אַף בְּפֵירוֹת עַל דִּינָרִין מַחְלוֹקֶת.
What is the reason for the difference between sela coins and produce? The reason is just as it is with regard to silver coins according to Beit Hillel. With regard to silver coins according to Beit Hillel, although silver coins relative to gold coins are a commodity, relative to produce they are currency. So too is the status of gold coins according to Beit Shammai: Although gold coins are a commodity relative to silver coins, relative to produce they are currency. Therefore, one may desacralize produce with gold dinars. And one said: Even with regard to the exchange of produce for dinars there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אַף בְּפֵירוֹת עַל דִּינָרִין מַחְלוֹקֶת, אַדְּמִיפַּלְגִי בְּסִלְעִין עַל דִּינָרִין – לִפְלוּג בְּפֵירוֹת עַל דִּינָרִין! אִי אִיפְּלוּג בְּפֵירוֹת עַל דִּינָרִין, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּפֵירוֹת עַל דִּינָרִין, אֲבָל בְּסִלְעִין עַל דִּינָרִין – מוֹדוּ לָהֶן בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי דְּדַהֲבָא לְגַבֵּי כַּסְפָּא פֵּירָא הָוֵי וְלָא מְחַלְּלִינַן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says: There is a dispute even with regard to the exchange of produce for dinars, then rather than disagreeing with regard to the exchange of sela coins for dinars let them disagree with regard to the fundamental case of desacralizing, the exchange of produce for dinars. The Gemara answers: Had they disagreed with regard to the exchange of produce for dinars, I would say: This matter applies only with regard to the exchange of produce for dinars. But with regard to the exchange of sela coins for dinars, Beit Hillel concede to Beit Shammai that gold coins relative to silver coins are a commodity, and we do not desacralize currency with a commodity. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that they disagree in that case as well.
תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הוּא דְּאָמַר אֵין מְחַלְּלִין, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן:
The Gemara suggests: Conclude that in this dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish it is Rabbi Yoḥanan who said: One does not desacralize produce with gold dinars, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said:
