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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 9, 2016 | 讞壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Metzia 44

Various issues relating to shlichut yad are raised in the last mishna of the perek. When making a purchase or barter with items that can be used as currency, which item is considered the currency and which the commodity? 聽When changing gold with silver, there are 2 versions that Rebbi said – one when he was younger and one later in life. 聽The gemara attempts to prove his earlier opinion.
Study Guide Bava Metzia 44


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讙诪壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注诇 讻诇 讚讘专 驻砖注 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪诇诪讚 砖讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛诪讞砖讘讛 讻诪注砖讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬砖诇讞 讘讜 讬讚 砖谞讗诪专 讗诐 诇讗 砖诇讞 讬讚讜 讘诪诇讗讻转 专注讛讜 讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 注诇 讻诇 讚讘专 驻砖注 讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讗诐 诇讗 砖诇讞 讬讚讜 讘诪诇讗讻转 专注讛讜

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: 鈥淔or every matter of [devar] trespass鈥 (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: 鈥淲hether he has misappropriated his neighbor鈥檚 goods鈥 (Exodus 22:7). Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: But isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淔or every matter of trespass鈥? Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: But isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淲hether he has misappropriated his neighbor鈥檚 goods鈥?

讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇 讻诇 讚讘专 驻砖注 砖讬讻讜诇 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇注讘讚讜 讜诇砖诇讜讞讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇 讻诇 讚讘专 驻砖注

If so, what is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渇or every matter of trespass鈥? 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: 鈥淔or every matter of trespass,鈥 from which it is derived that one鈥檚 speech renders him liable to pay for any misappropriation.

讛讟讛 讗转 讛讞讘讬转 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 谞砖讘专讛 讗讘诇 讛讞诪讬爪讛 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讻讜诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讬专讬 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讛谞讜 诇讛

搂 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.

讛讙讘讬讛讛 讜谞讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 讻讜壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 谞讟诇 谞讟诇 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讘讬讛讛 诇讬讟讜诇 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讟诇

搂 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.

诇讬诪讗 拽讗 住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇讬讞讜转 讬讚 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讞住专讜谉 讗诪专讬 诇讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚转讬讛讜讬 讛讗 讞讘讬转 讻讜诇讛 讘住讬住 诇讛讗 专讘讬注讬转

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 quarterlog. 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.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讙讘讬讛 讗专谞拽讬 诇讬讟讜诇 讛讬诪谞讛 讚讬谞专 诪讛讜 讞诪专讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讬谞讟专 讗诇讗 讗讙讘 讞诪专讗 讗讘诇 讝讜讝讗 诪讬谞讟专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讚讗专谞拽讬 诪谞讟讬专讜转讗 讚讚讬谞专 转讬拽讜

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.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛诪驻拽讬讚

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讝讛讘 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讻住祝 讜讛讻住祝 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讝讛讘

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鈥檚 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.

讛谞讞砖转 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讻住祝 讜讛讻住祝 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛谞讞砖转 诪注讜转 讛专注讜转 拽讜谞讜转 讗转 讛讬驻讜转 讜讛讬驻讜转 讗讬谞谉 拽讜谞讜转 讗转 讛专注讜转

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.

讗住讬诪讜谉 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛诪讟讘注 讜讛诪讟讘注 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讗住讬诪讜谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 拽讜谞讬谉 讗转 讛诪讟讘注 诪讟讘注 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛诪讟诇讟诇讬谉

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.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛诪讟诇讟诇讬诐 拽讜谞讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讻讬爪讚 诪砖讱 讛讬诪谞讜 驻讬专讜转 讜诇讗 谞转谉 诇讜 诪注讜转 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 谞转谉 诇讜 诪注讜转 讜诇讗 诪砖讱 讛讬诪谞讜 驻讬专讜转 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜

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.

讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 诪讬 砖驻专注 诪讗谞砖讬 讚讜专 讛诪讘讜诇 讜诪讚讜专 讛驻诇讙讛 讛讜讗 注转讬讚 诇讛驻专注 诪诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜诪讚 讘讚讘讜专讜

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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讻住祝 讘讬讚讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛

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.

讙诪壮 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讬讛 讛讝讛讘 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讻住祝 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 砖谞讬转 诇谞讜 讘讬诇讚讜转讬讱 讛讻住祝 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讝讛讘 讜转讞讝讜专 讜转砖谞讛 诇谞讜 讘讝拽谞讜转讬讱 讛讝讛讘 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讻住祝

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?

讘讬诇讚讜转讬讛 诪讗讬 住讘专 讜讘讝拽谞讜转讬讛 诪讗讬 住讘专 讘讬诇讚讜转讬讛 住讘专 讚讛讘讗 讚讞砖讬讘 讛讜讬 讟讘注讗 讻住驻讗 讚诇讗 讞砖讬讘 讛讜讬 驻讬专讗 讜拽谞讬 诇讬讛 驻讬专讗 诇讟讘注讗 讘讝拽谞讜转讬讛 住讘专 讻住驻讗

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,

讚讞专讬祝 讛讜讬 讟讘注讗 讚讛讘讗 讚诇讗 讞专讬祝 讛讜讬 驻讬专讗 讜拽谞讬 诇讬讛 驻讬专讗 诇讟讘注讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬诇讚讜转讬讛 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 讛谞讞砖转 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讻住祝

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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讻住驻讗 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讘讗 驻讬专讗 讛讜讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗 转谞讬 讛谞讞砖转 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讻住祝 讚讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讚诇讙讘讬 讚讛讘讗 驻讬专讗 讛讜讬讗 诇讙讘讬 谞讞砖转 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讻住驻讗 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讘讗 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 讛砖转讗 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讘讗 讚讞砖讬讘 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专转 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 诇讙讘讬 谞讞砖转 讚讗讬讛讜 讞砖讬讘 讜讗讬讛讜 讞专讬祝 诪讘注讬讗

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?

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 驻专讬讟讬 讘讗转专讗 讚住讙讬讬 讗讬谞讛讜 讞专讬驻讬 讟驻讬 诪讻住驻讗 讗讬诪讗 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讜讻转讗 讚诇讗 住讙讬 讘讬讛 驻讬专讗 讛讜讬

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.

讜讗祝 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 住讘专 讚讛讘讗 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 讚专讘 讗讜讝讬祝 讚讬谞专讬 诪讘专转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇住讜祝 讗讬讬拽讜专 讚讬谞专讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 诇讛 讟讘讬谉 讜转拽讬诇讬谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚讛讘讗 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 驻讬专讗 讛讜讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 住讗讛 讘住讗讛 讜讗住讜专

搂 The Gemara comments: And Rabbi 岣yya, 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 岣yya. Ultimately, the gold dinars appreciated in value. Rav came before Rabbi 岣yya 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 岣yya 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鈥檃 of produce and repays a se鈥檃 of produce, which is prohibited, as the price of the produce may increase in the interim (see 75a).

专讘 讚讬谞专讬 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讛讜讜 诇讬讛 讚讬谞专讬 谞注砖讛 讻讗讜诪专 诇讛 讛诇讜讬谞讬 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讘谞讬 讗讜 注讚 砖讗诪爪讗 诪驻转讞

The Gemara rejects this proof. The dinars that Rav received from the daughter of Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 讚讛讘讗 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 讚转谞讬讗 驻专讜讟讛 砖讗诪专讜 讗讞讚 诪砖诪讜谞讛 讘讗讬住专 讛讗讬讟诇拽讬 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇拽讚讜砖讬 讗砖讛 讗讬住专 讗讞讚 诪注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讘讚讬谞专 砖诇 讻住祝 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专

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.

讚讬谞专 砖诇 讻住祝 讗讞讚 诪注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讘讚讬谞专 砖诇 讝讛讘 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇驻讚讬讜谉 讛讘谉

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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 诪砖注专 转谞讗 讘诪讬讚讬 讚拽讬抓 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 驻讬专讗 讛讜讬 诪砖注专 转谞讗 讘诪讬讚讬 讚讗讜拽讬专 讜讝讬诇 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 讻讛谞讗 讜讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪讜住讬祝 诇讬讛 讗讬讛讜 诇讻讛谞讗 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬注砖讛 讗讚诐 住诇注讬谉 讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讞讚 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘住诇注讬诐 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讻住驻讗 讟讘注讗 讜讚讛讘讗 驻讬专讗 讜讟讘注讗 讗驻讬专讗 诇讗 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讻住驻讗 驻讬专讗 讜讚讛讘讗 讟讘注讗 讜驻讬专讗 讗讟讘注讗 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉 讗讘诇 驻讬专讜转 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉

We learned in a mishna there (Ma鈥檃ser 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 Yo岣nan 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讻住祝 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻住祝 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻住驻讗 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讘讗 驻讬专讗 讛讜讬 诇讙讘讬 驻讬专讗 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 讝讛讘 谞诪讬 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讚讛讘讗 诇讙讘讬 讻住驻讗 驻讬专讗 讛讜讬 诇讙讘讬 驻讬专讗 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗祝 讘驻讬专讜转 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 诪讞诇讜拽转

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.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗祝 讘驻讬专讜转 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讚诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘住诇注讬谉 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 诇驻诇讜讙 讘驻讬专讜转 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 讗讬 讗讬驻诇讜讙 讘驻讬专讜转 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘驻讬专讜转 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 讗讘诇 讘住诇注讬谉 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 诪讜讚讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讚讛讘讗 诇讙讘讬 讻住驻讗 驻讬专讗 讛讜讬 讜诇讗 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara suggests: Conclude that in this dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish it is Rabbi Yo岣nan who said: One does not desacralize produce with gold dinars, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 Metzia 44

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 44

讙诪壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注诇 讻诇 讚讘专 驻砖注 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪诇诪讚 砖讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛诪讞砖讘讛 讻诪注砖讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬砖诇讞 讘讜 讬讚 砖谞讗诪专 讗诐 诇讗 砖诇讞 讬讚讜 讘诪诇讗讻转 专注讛讜 讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 注诇 讻诇 讚讘专 驻砖注 讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讗诐 诇讗 砖诇讞 讬讚讜 讘诪诇讗讻转 专注讛讜

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: 鈥淔or every matter of [devar] trespass鈥 (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: 鈥淲hether he has misappropriated his neighbor鈥檚 goods鈥 (Exodus 22:7). Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: But isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淔or every matter of trespass鈥? Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: But isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淲hether he has misappropriated his neighbor鈥檚 goods鈥?

讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇 讻诇 讚讘专 驻砖注 砖讬讻讜诇 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇注讘讚讜 讜诇砖诇讜讞讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇 讻诇 讚讘专 驻砖注

If so, what is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渇or every matter of trespass鈥? 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: 鈥淔or every matter of trespass,鈥 from which it is derived that one鈥檚 speech renders him liable to pay for any misappropriation.

讛讟讛 讗转 讛讞讘讬转 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 谞砖讘专讛 讗讘诇 讛讞诪讬爪讛 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讻讜诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讬专讬 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讛谞讜 诇讛

搂 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.

讛讙讘讬讛讛 讜谞讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 讻讜壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 谞讟诇 谞讟诇 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讘讬讛讛 诇讬讟讜诇 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讟诇

搂 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.

诇讬诪讗 拽讗 住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇讬讞讜转 讬讚 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讞住专讜谉 讗诪专讬 诇讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚转讬讛讜讬 讛讗 讞讘讬转 讻讜诇讛 讘住讬住 诇讛讗 专讘讬注讬转

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 quarterlog. 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.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讙讘讬讛 讗专谞拽讬 诇讬讟讜诇 讛讬诪谞讛 讚讬谞专 诪讛讜 讞诪专讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讬谞讟专 讗诇讗 讗讙讘 讞诪专讗 讗讘诇 讝讜讝讗 诪讬谞讟专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讚讗专谞拽讬 诪谞讟讬专讜转讗 讚讚讬谞专 转讬拽讜

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.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛诪驻拽讬讚

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讝讛讘 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讻住祝 讜讛讻住祝 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讝讛讘

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鈥檚 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.

讛谞讞砖转 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讻住祝 讜讛讻住祝 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛谞讞砖转 诪注讜转 讛专注讜转 拽讜谞讜转 讗转 讛讬驻讜转 讜讛讬驻讜转 讗讬谞谉 拽讜谞讜转 讗转 讛专注讜转

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.

讗住讬诪讜谉 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛诪讟讘注 讜讛诪讟讘注 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讗住讬诪讜谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 拽讜谞讬谉 讗转 讛诪讟讘注 诪讟讘注 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛诪讟诇讟诇讬谉

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.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛诪讟诇讟诇讬诐 拽讜谞讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讻讬爪讚 诪砖讱 讛讬诪谞讜 驻讬专讜转 讜诇讗 谞转谉 诇讜 诪注讜转 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 谞转谉 诇讜 诪注讜转 讜诇讗 诪砖讱 讛讬诪谞讜 驻讬专讜转 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜

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.

讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 诪讬 砖驻专注 诪讗谞砖讬 讚讜专 讛诪讘讜诇 讜诪讚讜专 讛驻诇讙讛 讛讜讗 注转讬讚 诇讛驻专注 诪诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜诪讚 讘讚讘讜专讜

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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讻住祝 讘讬讚讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛

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.

讙诪壮 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讬讛 讛讝讛讘 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讻住祝 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 砖谞讬转 诇谞讜 讘讬诇讚讜转讬讱 讛讻住祝 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讝讛讘 讜转讞讝讜专 讜转砖谞讛 诇谞讜 讘讝拽谞讜转讬讱 讛讝讛讘 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讻住祝

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?

讘讬诇讚讜转讬讛 诪讗讬 住讘专 讜讘讝拽谞讜转讬讛 诪讗讬 住讘专 讘讬诇讚讜转讬讛 住讘专 讚讛讘讗 讚讞砖讬讘 讛讜讬 讟讘注讗 讻住驻讗 讚诇讗 讞砖讬讘 讛讜讬 驻讬专讗 讜拽谞讬 诇讬讛 驻讬专讗 诇讟讘注讗 讘讝拽谞讜转讬讛 住讘专 讻住驻讗

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,

讚讞专讬祝 讛讜讬 讟讘注讗 讚讛讘讗 讚诇讗 讞专讬祝 讛讜讬 驻讬专讗 讜拽谞讬 诇讬讛 驻讬专讗 诇讟讘注讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬诇讚讜转讬讛 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 讛谞讞砖转 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讻住祝

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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讻住驻讗 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讘讗 驻讬专讗 讛讜讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗 转谞讬 讛谞讞砖转 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讻住祝 讚讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讚诇讙讘讬 讚讛讘讗 驻讬专讗 讛讜讬讗 诇讙讘讬 谞讞砖转 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讻住驻讗 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讘讗 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 讛砖转讗 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讘讗 讚讞砖讬讘 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专转 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 诇讙讘讬 谞讞砖转 讚讗讬讛讜 讞砖讬讘 讜讗讬讛讜 讞专讬祝 诪讘注讬讗

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?

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 驻专讬讟讬 讘讗转专讗 讚住讙讬讬 讗讬谞讛讜 讞专讬驻讬 讟驻讬 诪讻住驻讗 讗讬诪讗 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讜讻转讗 讚诇讗 住讙讬 讘讬讛 驻讬专讗 讛讜讬

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.

讜讗祝 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 住讘专 讚讛讘讗 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 讚专讘 讗讜讝讬祝 讚讬谞专讬 诪讘专转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇住讜祝 讗讬讬拽讜专 讚讬谞专讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 诇讛 讟讘讬谉 讜转拽讬诇讬谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚讛讘讗 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 驻讬专讗 讛讜讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 住讗讛 讘住讗讛 讜讗住讜专

搂 The Gemara comments: And Rabbi 岣yya, 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 岣yya. Ultimately, the gold dinars appreciated in value. Rav came before Rabbi 岣yya 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 岣yya 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鈥檃 of produce and repays a se鈥檃 of produce, which is prohibited, as the price of the produce may increase in the interim (see 75a).

专讘 讚讬谞专讬 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讛讜讜 诇讬讛 讚讬谞专讬 谞注砖讛 讻讗讜诪专 诇讛 讛诇讜讬谞讬 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讘谞讬 讗讜 注讚 砖讗诪爪讗 诪驻转讞

The Gemara rejects this proof. The dinars that Rav received from the daughter of Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 讚讛讘讗 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 讚转谞讬讗 驻专讜讟讛 砖讗诪专讜 讗讞讚 诪砖诪讜谞讛 讘讗讬住专 讛讗讬讟诇拽讬 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇拽讚讜砖讬 讗砖讛 讗讬住专 讗讞讚 诪注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讘讚讬谞专 砖诇 讻住祝 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专

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.

讚讬谞专 砖诇 讻住祝 讗讞讚 诪注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讘讚讬谞专 砖诇 讝讛讘 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇驻讚讬讜谉 讛讘谉

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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 诪砖注专 转谞讗 讘诪讬讚讬 讚拽讬抓 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 驻讬专讗 讛讜讬 诪砖注专 转谞讗 讘诪讬讚讬 讚讗讜拽讬专 讜讝讬诇 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 讻讛谞讗 讜讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪讜住讬祝 诇讬讛 讗讬讛讜 诇讻讛谞讗 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬注砖讛 讗讚诐 住诇注讬谉 讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讞讚 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘住诇注讬诐 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讻住驻讗 讟讘注讗 讜讚讛讘讗 驻讬专讗 讜讟讘注讗 讗驻讬专讗 诇讗 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讻住驻讗 驻讬专讗 讜讚讛讘讗 讟讘注讗 讜驻讬专讗 讗讟讘注讗 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉 讗讘诇 驻讬专讜转 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉

We learned in a mishna there (Ma鈥檃ser 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 Yo岣nan 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讻住祝 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻住祝 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻住驻讗 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讘讗 驻讬专讗 讛讜讬 诇讙讘讬 驻讬专讗 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 讝讛讘 谞诪讬 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讚讛讘讗 诇讙讘讬 讻住驻讗 驻讬专讗 讛讜讬 诇讙讘讬 驻讬专讗 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗祝 讘驻讬专讜转 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 诪讞诇讜拽转

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.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗祝 讘驻讬专讜转 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讚诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘住诇注讬谉 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 诇驻诇讜讙 讘驻讬专讜转 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 讗讬 讗讬驻诇讜讙 讘驻讬专讜转 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘驻讬专讜转 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 讗讘诇 讘住诇注讬谉 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 诪讜讚讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讚讛讘讗 诇讙讘讬 讻住驻讗 驻讬专讗 讛讜讬 讜诇讗 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara suggests: Conclude that in this dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish it is Rabbi Yo岣nan who said: One does not desacralize produce with gold dinars, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said:

Scroll To Top