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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 10, 2016 | 讟壮 讘诪专讞砖讜谉 转砖注状讝

  • 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 Metzia 45

A debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel regarding trading maaser sheni coins from silver to gold is brought up in connection with our mishna. 聽Amoraim聽debate both聽whether or not the debate applies to using gold coins in general to redeem maaser sheni fruits or only to changing silver coins (that were already used for redeeming the fruits) to gold coins. 聽The gemara brings 3 explanations for the debate – the first one being connected to the same issue as our mishna; the others think the issue is a maaser sheni issue exclusively and has nothing to do with the currency vs. commodity debate. 聽Two amoraim debate whether money can be used for a kinyan chalipin, a symbolic kinyan. 聽Chalipin must be done with something that has inherent value. 聽Does money have inherent value because it is made form a metal or is it viewed only in terms of the image on the coin which will eventually wear away.

讗住讜专 诇诇讜讜转 讚讬谞专 讘讚讬谞专

It is prohibited for one to borrow a dinar and repay the loan with a dinar, because if the value of the dinar changes in the interim, both the borrower and the lender will have violated the prohibition against interest.

讚讬谞专 讚诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讬谞专 砖诇 讻住祝 讘讚讬谞专 砖诇 讻住祝 诇讙讘讬 谞驻砖讬讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗讜 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讬谞专 砖诇 讝讛讘 讘讚讬谞专 砖诇 讝讛讘 讜诇诪讗谉 讗讬 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讗 讗诪专讬 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉

The Gemara elaborates: The reference is to a dinar of what type of metal? If we say the reference is to one who borrowed a silver dinar and repaid the loan with a silver dinar, is there anyone who says that silver relative to itself is not currency? Rather, it is obvious that the reference is to one who borrowed a gold dinar and repaid the loan with a gold dinar. The Gemara continues its analysis: And in accordance with whose opinion does Rabbi Yo岣nan state this halakha? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, don鈥檛 they say that a gold dinar is currency? Rather, isn鈥檛 it in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? And learn from it that it is Rabbi Yo岣nan who said that according to Beit Shammai we do not desacralize produce with gold dinars, as he holds that they are not considered currency.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉 讜砖讗谞讬 讛诇讜讗讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诇注谞讬谉 诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专 砖讜讬讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 驻讬专讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬讛讜 谞讬讛讜 讚讗讜拽讬专 讜讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讛诇讜讗讛 谞诪讬 驻讬专讗 讛讜讬

The Gemara rejects this proof: No, actually I will say to you that it is Rabbi Yo岣nan who said that even according to Beit Shammai we desacralize produce with gold dinars. And the halakha of a loan is different from the halakha of desacralizing second tithe, as with regard to buying and selling, the Sages deemed the legal status of a gold dinar like that of a commodity. As we say: It is the gold that appreciates and depreciates in value, in accordance with the halakha in the mishna: When one party takes possession of the gold coins, the other party acquires the silver coins. With regard to a loan as well, the legal status of a gold dinar is like that of a commodity, and therefore there is concern that they may violate the prohibition against interest.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讗住讜专 诇诇讜讜转 讚讬谞专 讘讚讬谞专 讗讘诇 诪讞诇诇讬谉 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 注诇讬讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to say that this is Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion, as when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even though they said that it is prohibited to borrow a gold dinar and repay the loan with a gold dinar, yet, one may desacralize second tithe with a gold dinar. Conclude from it that it is Rabbi Yo岣nan who said that one desacralizes second-tithe produce with a gold dinar.

转讗 砖诪注 讛驻讜专讟 住诇注 诪诪注讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讻诇 讛住诇注 诪注讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘砖拽诇 讻住祝 讘砖拽诇 诪注讜转 讛砖转讗 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讙讘讬 驻专讬讟讬 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讘讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 砖讗谞讬 驻专讬讟讬 讘讗转专讗 讚住讙讬讬谉 讞专讬驻讬

Apropos redemption of second-tithe produce with gold, the Gemara cites proof from a mishna (Ma鈥檃ser Sheni 2:8). Come and hear: With regard to one who exchanges copper coins of second-tithe money for a silver sela coin to ease its transport to Jerusalem, Beit Shammai say: He may exchange the copper coins for the entire silver sela. And Beit Hillel say: He may exchange the copper coins for a silver shekel, which is equivalent to half a sela, and with regard to the other shekel, he must retain the copper coins. Now, if according to Beit Shammai we desacralize second-tithe produce with copper perutot, is it necessary to mention the fact that it may be desacralized with gold coins? The Gemara rejects that proof: Perutot are different, as in a place where they are in circulation, they circulate more easily than silver coins.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 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 讘住诇注讬谉 注诇 讚讬谞专讬诐 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讛讻住祝 讻住祝 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 讻住祝 砖谞讬

搂 There is another version of this discussion, and some say that this is the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish. 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 when the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall bestow the money and you shall bind the money in your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:25), the term 鈥渢he money鈥 is referring to the first money, i.e., the very money with which the second-tithe produce was desacralized, and it is not referring to the second money, e.g., gold coins that became second-tithe money by virtue of their being exchanged with second-tithe silver sela coins. Evidently, the money with which the second-tithe produce was desacralized must be taken to Jerusalem and it may not be exchanged for other coins.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讛讻住祝 讻住祝 专讬讘讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻住祝 砖谞讬 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 讚讗讻转讬 讻住祝 专讗砖讜谉 讛讜讗

And Beit Hillel hold that since it is written: 鈥淭he money,鈥 and this second mention of money in that verse is superfluous, the term 鈥渢he money鈥 serves to include even second money. Accordingly, the verse teaches that money with which the produce was desacralized may be exchanged for other money that will be brought to Jerusalem. The Gemara continues its citation of this first explanation of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel: But with regard to desacralizing produce with dinars, everyone agrees that we desacralize produce in that manner, as the gold dinars are still the first money used for desacralizing, as any type of money can be used for desacralizing second-tithe produce.

讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗祝 讘驻讬专讜转 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 谞诪讬 诪讞诇讜拽转

And one said: There is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel even with regard to the desacralizing of produce with dinars, as to whether desacralizing must be accomplished with silver or if it can be accomplished even with gold.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 住诇注讬谉 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 诇驻诇讙讬 讘住诇注讬谉 注诇 住诇注讬谉

The Gemara challenges: But according to the one who says: The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is with regard to exchanging silver sela coins for gold dinars, rather than disagreeing with regard to exchanging of silver sela coins for gold dinars, let Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to the more straightforward case of exchanging sela coins for sela coins, as according to those who forbid exchanging a sela for dinars, exchanging a sela for a sela is also forbidden, as one may not convert the second-tithe sanctity to second money.

讗讬 讗驻诇讙讬 讘住诇注讬谉 注诇 住诇注讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘住诇注讬谉 注诇 住诇注讬谉 讗讘诇 讘住诇注讬谉 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 诪讜讚讜 诇讛讜 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 explains: Had they disagreed with regard to the exchange of sela coins for sela coins, I would say: This matter applies only with regard to exchanging sela coins for sela coins, but with regard to exchanging 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 the case of exchanging silver sela coins for gold dinars as well.

转讗 砖诪注 讛驻讜专讟 住诇注 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讻诇 讛住诇注 诪注讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘砖拽诇 讻住祝 讘砖拽诇 诪注讜转 讛砖转讗 讻住驻讗 诇讙讘讬 驻专讬讟讬 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻住祝 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 讻住祝 砖谞讬 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讘讗 讚讞砖讬讘 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻住祝 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 讻住祝 砖谞讬

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof to the correct ruling in this dispute from a mishna (Ma鈥檃ser Sheni 2:9): With regard to one who exchanges a silver sela of second-tithe money for copper coins in Jerusalem, Beit Shammai say: With the entire sela he executes the exchange for copper coins; and Beit Hillel say: He may exchange half the sela for a silver shekel, and half the sela for copper coins having the value of a shekel. The Gemara analyzes the mishna: Now if we allow him to desacralize silver coins for perutot, and we do not say that there is a Torah decree of first money and not second money, then with regard to gold, which is more valuable than silver, do we say that there is a Torah decree of first money and not second money?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 拽诪讜转讘转 砖讗谞讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讜谞转转讛 讛讻住祝 讘讻诇 讗砖专 转讗讜讛 谞驻砖讱 讘讘拽专 讜讘爪讗谉

Rava said in response: Are you raising an objection from the halakha of exchanging coins within Jerusalem in order to apply it to the halakha of exchanging coins outside of Jerusalem? The legal status of Jerusalem is different with regard to exchanging second-tithe coins, as it is written with regard to Jerusalem: 鈥淎nd you shall bestow the money for whatever your soul desires, for cattle or for sheep鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:26). One may utilize the money in Jerusalem in any manner he chooses.

转讗 砖诪注 讛驻讜专讟 住诇注 诪诪注讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讻诇 讛住诇注 诪注讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘砖拽诇 讻住祝 讘砖拽诇 诪注讜转

Come and hear proof from the mishna (Ma鈥檃ser Sheni 2:8): With regard to one who exchanges copper coins of second-tithe money for a silver sela coin to ease its transport to Jerusalem, Beit Shammai say: He may exchange the copper coins for the entire silver sela. And Beit Hillel say: He may exchange the copper coins for a silver shekel, which is equivalent to half a sela, and with regard to the other shekel, he must retain the copper coins. This constitutes proof that everyone agrees one may exchange second-tithe coins for other coins.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讻住祝 讻住祝 专讬讘讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻住祝 砖谞讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讞讚 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘住诇注讬谉 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讙讝专讬谞谉

Rather, the Gemara abandons its previous explanation of the dispute and states that everyone agrees that since it is written: 鈥淭he money,鈥 and this second mention of money in that verse is superfluous, the term 鈥渢he money鈥 serves to include even second money. Rather, if the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish was stated, it was stated like this: One said: The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is with regard to the exchange of silver sela coins for gold dinars. As Beit Shammai hold: We issue a decree rendering it prohibited to do so,

砖诪讗 讬砖讛讛 注诇讬讜转讬讜 讚讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诇讗 诪诇讜 讝讜讝讬 讘讚讬谞专讗 讜诇讗 诪住讬拽 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讬砖讛讛 注诇讬讜转讬讜 讚讻讬 诇讗 诪诇讜 谞诪讬 讘讚讬谞专讗 讗住讜拽讬 诪住讬拽 诇讛讜 讗讘诇 讘驻讬专讜转 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诪专拽讘讬 诇讗 诪砖讛讬 诇讛讜

lest one delay his ascension to Jerusalem due to this exchange, as sometimes the silver coins do not amount to the entire gold dinar, and he will not ascend to Jerusalem until he has collected enough silver dinars to exchange for a gold dinar. And Beit Hillel hold: We do not issue a decree lest he delay his ascension, as even if the silver coins do not amount to the entire gold dinar he will ascend with the silver coins. But with regard to desacralizing produce with dinars, everyone agrees that we desacralize produce in this manner, due to the fact that since the produce rots, he certainly does not delay taking the produce to Jerusalem until they equal an entire gold dinar.

讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘驻讬专讜转 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 谞诪讬 诪讞诇讜拽转

And one said: Even with regard to the exchange of produce for dinars there is a dispute, due to the concern that one will delay bringing his produce to Jerusalem until the value of his second-tithe produce is equal to a gold coin.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专转 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪砖专讗 砖专讬 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讬注砖讛 讜诇讗 讬注砖讛 讗诇讗 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专转 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to that version of the dispute in which you said that everyone agrees the exchange of silver sela coins for gold dinars is permitted by Torah law and it is the Sages who issued a decree forbidding it, this is the reason that the dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai is taught in terms of the formulation: One may do, and: One may not do, as this is the language of a prohibition ab initio. But according to that version of the dispute in which you said that it is with regard to the halakha by Torah law that they disagree, it should have been phrased in terms of the formulation: We desacralize, and: We do not desacralize, since if the practice is forbidden by Torah law, the exchange of silver sela coins for gold dinars is ineffective even after the fact. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, according to the latter version, it is difficult.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讜诇讜讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诪讟讘注 谞注砖讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟讘注 谞注砖讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟讘注 谞注砖讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讚注转讬讛 讗爪讜专转讗 讜爪讜专转讗 注讘讬讚讗 讚讘讟诇讗

It was stated that there is a dispute between Rav and Levi. One said: Money can be an item used to effect exchange. And one said: Money cannot be the item used to effect a transaction by means of exchange, as that form of transaction is effective only with regard to items such as produce and vessels. Rav Pappa said: What is the reason for the opinion of the one who says that money cannot be the item used to effect a transaction by means of exchange? It is because the mind of the one acquiring the coin is on the form minted on the coin, not the value of the metal, and the value due to the form is apt to be canceled by the authorities. Therefore, in the eyes of the party acquiring it, the coin itself has no real value and therefore cannot be an item used to effect exchange.

转谞谉 讛讝讛讘 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讻住祝 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讟讘注 谞注砖讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉 诇讗 讘讚诪讬诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讝讛讘 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讻住祝 诪讞讬讬讘 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 转谞讬 讛讝讛讘 诪讞讬讬讘

We learned in the mishna: When one party takes possession of the gold coins the other party acquires the silver coins. What, is the reference not to a case where the gold coins were given in order to acquire the silver coins by means of exchange, and therefore one can learn from it that a coin can be an item used to effect exchange? The Gemara rejects this proof: No, it is referring to a standard purchase effected by means of giving money. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, the language of the mishna is imprecise, as what is the meaning of: When one party takes possession of the gold coins, the other party acquires the silver coins? It should have stated: When one party takes possession of the gold coins, it obligates him to give the silver coins. The Gemara answers: Emend the text and teach: When one party takes possession of the gold coins, it obligates him to give the silver coins.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛讻住祝 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讝讛讘 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘讚诪讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讛讘讗 驻讬专讗 讜讻住驻讗 讟讘注讗 讜讟讘注讗 驻讬专讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇拽谞讜 讗讛讚讚讬

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to interpret the mishna in that manner, from the fact that it teaches in the latter clause of the mishna: When one party takes possession of the silver coins, the other party does not acquire the gold coins. Granted, if you say that this is a purchase effected by means of giving money, this is the meaning of that which we said: Gold is a commodity, and silver is currency, and currency does not effect acquisition of a commodity. But if you say that the mishna is referring to an acquisition effected by means of exchange, let both acquire the coins simultaneously from each other.

讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 讛讻住祝 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讝讛讘 讻讬爪讚 诪讻专 诇讜 注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讚讬谞专 砖诇 讻住祝 讘讚讬谞专 砖诇 讝讛讘 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪砖讱 讗转 讛讻住祝 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬诪砖讜讱 讗转 讛讝讛讘 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘讚诪讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 谞拽谞讬

And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita: When one party takes possession of the silver coins, the other party does not acquire the gold coins. How so? If one sold twenty-five silver dinars to another for a gold dinar, even though he pulled the silver into his possession, he does not acquire it until the other person pulls the gold into his possession. Granted, if you say that this is a purchase effected by means of giving money, it is due to that reason that he does not acquire the gold coins; the transaction is effected only by taking possession of the purchase item. But if you say that this is an acquisition effected by means of exchange, let him acquire the gold by pulling the silver; in a transaction of exchange the two parties acquire the two items simultaneously.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘讚诪讬诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 专讬砖讗 讛讝讛讘 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讻住祝 讻讬爪讚 诪讻专 诇讜 讚讬谞专 砖诇 讝讛讘 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讚讬谞专 砖诇 讻住祝 讻讬讜谉 砖诪砖讱 讗转 讛讝讛讘 谞拽谞讛 讻住祝 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗

The Gemara continues: Rather, what then is the nature of the transaction? Is it a purchase effected by means of giving money? If so, then say the first clause of the baraita: When one party takes possession of the gold coins the other party acquires the silver coins. How so? If one sold a gold dinar to another for twenty-five silver dinars, once he pulled the gold coin into his possession the silver coins are acquired wherever they are.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 谞拽谞讛 讻住祝 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讚诪讬诐 讛讗讬 谞拽谞讛 讻住祝 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗 谞转讞讬讬讘 讙讘专讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges: Granted, if you say that this is an acquisition effected by means of exchange, this is the meaning of that which is taught: The silver coins are acquired wherever they are, as that is the nature of the transaction of exchange. But if you say that this is a purchase effected by means of giving money, this phrase: The silver coins are acquired wherever they are, is incorrect, as the tanna should have stated: Once he pulled the gold coin into his possession the man is obligated to pay for his acquisition, as he is not required to pay with those particular silver coins.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇注讜诇诐 讘讚诪讬诐 讜诪讗讬 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗 讻诪讜转 砖讛讜讗 讻讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗专谞拽讬 讞讚砖讛 讬讛讘讬谞讗 诇讱 诇讗 诪爪讬 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诪讗专谞拽讬 讬砖谞讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚注讚讬驻讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬砖谞谉 拽讗 讘注讬谞讗 诇讛讜

Rav Ashi said: Actually, the reference is to a purchase effected by means of giving money. And what is the meaning of: Wherever they are? It means, as they are, i.e., exactly as the owner of the silver said to him, and he cannot replace them with a different classification of coins. How so? If the owner of the silver coins said to the owner of the gold coin: I will give you payment from a purse in which there are new coins, he cannot give him payment from a purse in which there are old coins, even though old coins are preferable relative to new coins because people trust that used coins are authentic. What is the reason that the owner of the gold would prefer new silver coins? It is that he says to the owner of the silver: I need them in order to age them; i.e., these coins will remain in my possession for a long time, and old coins will blacken in these circumstances.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟讘注 谞注砖讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉 诪讬注讘讚 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讗拽谞讜讬讬 诪讬拽谞讜 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗驻讬专讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 驻讬专讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬谞讛讜 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讗拽谞讜讬讬 诪拽谞讜 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 讟讘注讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

Rav Pappa says: Even according to the one who says: Money cannot be the item used to effect a transaction by means of exchange, this means only that money does not effect a transaction of exchange; but he concedes that money is acquired by means of a transaction of exchange. If one party pulls a vessel into his possession, the other party acquires silver coins in exchange, just as it is with regard to produce, according to the opinion of Rav Na岣an. Is it not the case that even though according to the opinion of Rav Na岣an produce itself does not effect a transaction of exchange, nevertheless produce is acquired by means of a transaction of exchange? Currency, too, is no different.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘讙讜专谉 讜讗讬谉 讘讬讚讜 诪注讜转 讗诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 驻讬专讜转 讛诇诇讜 谞转讜谞讬诐 诇讱 讘诪转谞讛

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Pappa from a baraita: One was standing on the threshing floor and had no money in his hand, and wanted to desacralize his second-tithe produce without paying an additional one-fifth. The halakha is that one who desacralizes his own produce must add one-fifth to its value. This man wants to engage in artifice as if he sold the produce to another, thereby enabling him to desacralize it without adding one-fifth. To that end, he says to another: This produce is hereby given to you as a gift,

  • 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 Metzia 45

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 45

讗住讜专 诇诇讜讜转 讚讬谞专 讘讚讬谞专

It is prohibited for one to borrow a dinar and repay the loan with a dinar, because if the value of the dinar changes in the interim, both the borrower and the lender will have violated the prohibition against interest.

讚讬谞专 讚诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讬谞专 砖诇 讻住祝 讘讚讬谞专 砖诇 讻住祝 诇讙讘讬 谞驻砖讬讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗讜 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讬谞专 砖诇 讝讛讘 讘讚讬谞专 砖诇 讝讛讘 讜诇诪讗谉 讗讬 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讗 讗诪专讬 讟讘注讗 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉

The Gemara elaborates: The reference is to a dinar of what type of metal? If we say the reference is to one who borrowed a silver dinar and repaid the loan with a silver dinar, is there anyone who says that silver relative to itself is not currency? Rather, it is obvious that the reference is to one who borrowed a gold dinar and repaid the loan with a gold dinar. The Gemara continues its analysis: And in accordance with whose opinion does Rabbi Yo岣nan state this halakha? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, don鈥檛 they say that a gold dinar is currency? Rather, isn鈥檛 it in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? And learn from it that it is Rabbi Yo岣nan who said that according to Beit Shammai we do not desacralize produce with gold dinars, as he holds that they are not considered currency.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉 讜砖讗谞讬 讛诇讜讗讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诇注谞讬谉 诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专 砖讜讬讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 驻讬专讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬讛讜 谞讬讛讜 讚讗讜拽讬专 讜讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讛诇讜讗讛 谞诪讬 驻讬专讗 讛讜讬

The Gemara rejects this proof: No, actually I will say to you that it is Rabbi Yo岣nan who said that even according to Beit Shammai we desacralize produce with gold dinars. And the halakha of a loan is different from the halakha of desacralizing second tithe, as with regard to buying and selling, the Sages deemed the legal status of a gold dinar like that of a commodity. As we say: It is the gold that appreciates and depreciates in value, in accordance with the halakha in the mishna: When one party takes possession of the gold coins, the other party acquires the silver coins. With regard to a loan as well, the legal status of a gold dinar is like that of a commodity, and therefore there is concern that they may violate the prohibition against interest.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讗住讜专 诇诇讜讜转 讚讬谞专 讘讚讬谞专 讗讘诇 诪讞诇诇讬谉 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 注诇讬讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to say that this is Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion, as when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even though they said that it is prohibited to borrow a gold dinar and repay the loan with a gold dinar, yet, one may desacralize second tithe with a gold dinar. Conclude from it that it is Rabbi Yo岣nan who said that one desacralizes second-tithe produce with a gold dinar.

转讗 砖诪注 讛驻讜专讟 住诇注 诪诪注讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讻诇 讛住诇注 诪注讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘砖拽诇 讻住祝 讘砖拽诇 诪注讜转 讛砖转讗 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讙讘讬 驻专讬讟讬 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讘讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 砖讗谞讬 驻专讬讟讬 讘讗转专讗 讚住讙讬讬谉 讞专讬驻讬

Apropos redemption of second-tithe produce with gold, the Gemara cites proof from a mishna (Ma鈥檃ser Sheni 2:8). Come and hear: With regard to one who exchanges copper coins of second-tithe money for a silver sela coin to ease its transport to Jerusalem, Beit Shammai say: He may exchange the copper coins for the entire silver sela. And Beit Hillel say: He may exchange the copper coins for a silver shekel, which is equivalent to half a sela, and with regard to the other shekel, he must retain the copper coins. Now, if according to Beit Shammai we desacralize second-tithe produce with copper perutot, is it necessary to mention the fact that it may be desacralized with gold coins? The Gemara rejects that proof: Perutot are different, as in a place where they are in circulation, they circulate more easily than silver coins.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 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 讘住诇注讬谉 注诇 讚讬谞专讬诐 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讛讻住祝 讻住祝 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 讻住祝 砖谞讬

搂 There is another version of this discussion, and some say that this is the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish. 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 when the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall bestow the money and you shall bind the money in your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:25), the term 鈥渢he money鈥 is referring to the first money, i.e., the very money with which the second-tithe produce was desacralized, and it is not referring to the second money, e.g., gold coins that became second-tithe money by virtue of their being exchanged with second-tithe silver sela coins. Evidently, the money with which the second-tithe produce was desacralized must be taken to Jerusalem and it may not be exchanged for other coins.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讛讻住祝 讻住祝 专讬讘讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻住祝 砖谞讬 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 讚讗讻转讬 讻住祝 专讗砖讜谉 讛讜讗

And Beit Hillel hold that since it is written: 鈥淭he money,鈥 and this second mention of money in that verse is superfluous, the term 鈥渢he money鈥 serves to include even second money. Accordingly, the verse teaches that money with which the produce was desacralized may be exchanged for other money that will be brought to Jerusalem. The Gemara continues its citation of this first explanation of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel: But with regard to desacralizing produce with dinars, everyone agrees that we desacralize produce in that manner, as the gold dinars are still the first money used for desacralizing, as any type of money can be used for desacralizing second-tithe produce.

讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗祝 讘驻讬专讜转 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 谞诪讬 诪讞诇讜拽转

And one said: There is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel even with regard to the desacralizing of produce with dinars, as to whether desacralizing must be accomplished with silver or if it can be accomplished even with gold.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 住诇注讬谉 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 诇驻诇讙讬 讘住诇注讬谉 注诇 住诇注讬谉

The Gemara challenges: But according to the one who says: The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is with regard to exchanging silver sela coins for gold dinars, rather than disagreeing with regard to exchanging of silver sela coins for gold dinars, let Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to the more straightforward case of exchanging sela coins for sela coins, as according to those who forbid exchanging a sela for dinars, exchanging a sela for a sela is also forbidden, as one may not convert the second-tithe sanctity to second money.

讗讬 讗驻诇讙讬 讘住诇注讬谉 注诇 住诇注讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘住诇注讬谉 注诇 住诇注讬谉 讗讘诇 讘住诇注讬谉 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 诪讜讚讜 诇讛讜 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 explains: Had they disagreed with regard to the exchange of sela coins for sela coins, I would say: This matter applies only with regard to exchanging sela coins for sela coins, but with regard to exchanging 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 the case of exchanging silver sela coins for gold dinars as well.

转讗 砖诪注 讛驻讜专讟 住诇注 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讻诇 讛住诇注 诪注讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘砖拽诇 讻住祝 讘砖拽诇 诪注讜转 讛砖转讗 讻住驻讗 诇讙讘讬 驻专讬讟讬 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻住祝 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 讻住祝 砖谞讬 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讘讗 讚讞砖讬讘 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻住祝 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 讻住祝 砖谞讬

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof to the correct ruling in this dispute from a mishna (Ma鈥檃ser Sheni 2:9): With regard to one who exchanges a silver sela of second-tithe money for copper coins in Jerusalem, Beit Shammai say: With the entire sela he executes the exchange for copper coins; and Beit Hillel say: He may exchange half the sela for a silver shekel, and half the sela for copper coins having the value of a shekel. The Gemara analyzes the mishna: Now if we allow him to desacralize silver coins for perutot, and we do not say that there is a Torah decree of first money and not second money, then with regard to gold, which is more valuable than silver, do we say that there is a Torah decree of first money and not second money?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 拽诪讜转讘转 砖讗谞讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讜谞转转讛 讛讻住祝 讘讻诇 讗砖专 转讗讜讛 谞驻砖讱 讘讘拽专 讜讘爪讗谉

Rava said in response: Are you raising an objection from the halakha of exchanging coins within Jerusalem in order to apply it to the halakha of exchanging coins outside of Jerusalem? The legal status of Jerusalem is different with regard to exchanging second-tithe coins, as it is written with regard to Jerusalem: 鈥淎nd you shall bestow the money for whatever your soul desires, for cattle or for sheep鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:26). One may utilize the money in Jerusalem in any manner he chooses.

转讗 砖诪注 讛驻讜专讟 住诇注 诪诪注讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讻诇 讛住诇注 诪注讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘砖拽诇 讻住祝 讘砖拽诇 诪注讜转

Come and hear proof from the mishna (Ma鈥檃ser Sheni 2:8): With regard to one who exchanges copper coins of second-tithe money for a silver sela coin to ease its transport to Jerusalem, Beit Shammai say: He may exchange the copper coins for the entire silver sela. And Beit Hillel say: He may exchange the copper coins for a silver shekel, which is equivalent to half a sela, and with regard to the other shekel, he must retain the copper coins. This constitutes proof that everyone agrees one may exchange second-tithe coins for other coins.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讻住祝 讻住祝 专讬讘讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻住祝 砖谞讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讞讚 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘住诇注讬谉 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讙讝专讬谞谉

Rather, the Gemara abandons its previous explanation of the dispute and states that everyone agrees that since it is written: 鈥淭he money,鈥 and this second mention of money in that verse is superfluous, the term 鈥渢he money鈥 serves to include even second money. Rather, if the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish was stated, it was stated like this: One said: The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is with regard to the exchange of silver sela coins for gold dinars. As Beit Shammai hold: We issue a decree rendering it prohibited to do so,

砖诪讗 讬砖讛讛 注诇讬讜转讬讜 讚讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诇讗 诪诇讜 讝讜讝讬 讘讚讬谞专讗 讜诇讗 诪住讬拽 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讬砖讛讛 注诇讬讜转讬讜 讚讻讬 诇讗 诪诇讜 谞诪讬 讘讚讬谞专讗 讗住讜拽讬 诪住讬拽 诇讛讜 讗讘诇 讘驻讬专讜转 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诪专拽讘讬 诇讗 诪砖讛讬 诇讛讜

lest one delay his ascension to Jerusalem due to this exchange, as sometimes the silver coins do not amount to the entire gold dinar, and he will not ascend to Jerusalem until he has collected enough silver dinars to exchange for a gold dinar. And Beit Hillel hold: We do not issue a decree lest he delay his ascension, as even if the silver coins do not amount to the entire gold dinar he will ascend with the silver coins. But with regard to desacralizing produce with dinars, everyone agrees that we desacralize produce in this manner, due to the fact that since the produce rots, he certainly does not delay taking the produce to Jerusalem until they equal an entire gold dinar.

讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘驻讬专讜转 注诇 讚讬谞专讬谉 谞诪讬 诪讞诇讜拽转

And one said: Even with regard to the exchange of produce for dinars there is a dispute, due to the concern that one will delay bringing his produce to Jerusalem until the value of his second-tithe produce is equal to a gold coin.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专转 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪砖专讗 砖专讬 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讬注砖讛 讜诇讗 讬注砖讛 讗诇讗 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专转 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to that version of the dispute in which you said that everyone agrees the exchange of silver sela coins for gold dinars is permitted by Torah law and it is the Sages who issued a decree forbidding it, this is the reason that the dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai is taught in terms of the formulation: One may do, and: One may not do, as this is the language of a prohibition ab initio. But according to that version of the dispute in which you said that it is with regard to the halakha by Torah law that they disagree, it should have been phrased in terms of the formulation: We desacralize, and: We do not desacralize, since if the practice is forbidden by Torah law, the exchange of silver sela coins for gold dinars is ineffective even after the fact. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, according to the latter version, it is difficult.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讜诇讜讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诪讟讘注 谞注砖讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟讘注 谞注砖讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟讘注 谞注砖讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讚注转讬讛 讗爪讜专转讗 讜爪讜专转讗 注讘讬讚讗 讚讘讟诇讗

It was stated that there is a dispute between Rav and Levi. One said: Money can be an item used to effect exchange. And one said: Money cannot be the item used to effect a transaction by means of exchange, as that form of transaction is effective only with regard to items such as produce and vessels. Rav Pappa said: What is the reason for the opinion of the one who says that money cannot be the item used to effect a transaction by means of exchange? It is because the mind of the one acquiring the coin is on the form minted on the coin, not the value of the metal, and the value due to the form is apt to be canceled by the authorities. Therefore, in the eyes of the party acquiring it, the coin itself has no real value and therefore cannot be an item used to effect exchange.

转谞谉 讛讝讛讘 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讻住祝 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讟讘注 谞注砖讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉 诇讗 讘讚诪讬诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讝讛讘 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讻住祝 诪讞讬讬讘 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 转谞讬 讛讝讛讘 诪讞讬讬讘

We learned in the mishna: When one party takes possession of the gold coins the other party acquires the silver coins. What, is the reference not to a case where the gold coins were given in order to acquire the silver coins by means of exchange, and therefore one can learn from it that a coin can be an item used to effect exchange? The Gemara rejects this proof: No, it is referring to a standard purchase effected by means of giving money. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, the language of the mishna is imprecise, as what is the meaning of: When one party takes possession of the gold coins, the other party acquires the silver coins? It should have stated: When one party takes possession of the gold coins, it obligates him to give the silver coins. The Gemara answers: Emend the text and teach: When one party takes possession of the gold coins, it obligates him to give the silver coins.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛讻住祝 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讝讛讘 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘讚诪讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讛讘讗 驻讬专讗 讜讻住驻讗 讟讘注讗 讜讟讘注讗 驻讬专讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇拽谞讜 讗讛讚讚讬

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to interpret the mishna in that manner, from the fact that it teaches in the latter clause of the mishna: When one party takes possession of the silver coins, the other party does not acquire the gold coins. Granted, if you say that this is a purchase effected by means of giving money, this is the meaning of that which we said: Gold is a commodity, and silver is currency, and currency does not effect acquisition of a commodity. But if you say that the mishna is referring to an acquisition effected by means of exchange, let both acquire the coins simultaneously from each other.

讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 讛讻住祝 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讝讛讘 讻讬爪讚 诪讻专 诇讜 注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讚讬谞专 砖诇 讻住祝 讘讚讬谞专 砖诇 讝讛讘 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪砖讱 讗转 讛讻住祝 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬诪砖讜讱 讗转 讛讝讛讘 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘讚诪讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 谞拽谞讬

And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita: When one party takes possession of the silver coins, the other party does not acquire the gold coins. How so? If one sold twenty-five silver dinars to another for a gold dinar, even though he pulled the silver into his possession, he does not acquire it until the other person pulls the gold into his possession. Granted, if you say that this is a purchase effected by means of giving money, it is due to that reason that he does not acquire the gold coins; the transaction is effected only by taking possession of the purchase item. But if you say that this is an acquisition effected by means of exchange, let him acquire the gold by pulling the silver; in a transaction of exchange the two parties acquire the two items simultaneously.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘讚诪讬诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 专讬砖讗 讛讝讛讘 拽讜谞讛 讗转 讛讻住祝 讻讬爪讚 诪讻专 诇讜 讚讬谞专 砖诇 讝讛讘 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讚讬谞专 砖诇 讻住祝 讻讬讜谉 砖诪砖讱 讗转 讛讝讛讘 谞拽谞讛 讻住祝 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗

The Gemara continues: Rather, what then is the nature of the transaction? Is it a purchase effected by means of giving money? If so, then say the first clause of the baraita: When one party takes possession of the gold coins the other party acquires the silver coins. How so? If one sold a gold dinar to another for twenty-five silver dinars, once he pulled the gold coin into his possession the silver coins are acquired wherever they are.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 谞拽谞讛 讻住祝 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讚诪讬诐 讛讗讬 谞拽谞讛 讻住祝 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗 谞转讞讬讬讘 讙讘专讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges: Granted, if you say that this is an acquisition effected by means of exchange, this is the meaning of that which is taught: The silver coins are acquired wherever they are, as that is the nature of the transaction of exchange. But if you say that this is a purchase effected by means of giving money, this phrase: The silver coins are acquired wherever they are, is incorrect, as the tanna should have stated: Once he pulled the gold coin into his possession the man is obligated to pay for his acquisition, as he is not required to pay with those particular silver coins.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇注讜诇诐 讘讚诪讬诐 讜诪讗讬 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗 讻诪讜转 砖讛讜讗 讻讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗专谞拽讬 讞讚砖讛 讬讛讘讬谞讗 诇讱 诇讗 诪爪讬 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诪讗专谞拽讬 讬砖谞讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚注讚讬驻讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬砖谞谉 拽讗 讘注讬谞讗 诇讛讜

Rav Ashi said: Actually, the reference is to a purchase effected by means of giving money. And what is the meaning of: Wherever they are? It means, as they are, i.e., exactly as the owner of the silver said to him, and he cannot replace them with a different classification of coins. How so? If the owner of the silver coins said to the owner of the gold coin: I will give you payment from a purse in which there are new coins, he cannot give him payment from a purse in which there are old coins, even though old coins are preferable relative to new coins because people trust that used coins are authentic. What is the reason that the owner of the gold would prefer new silver coins? It is that he says to the owner of the silver: I need them in order to age them; i.e., these coins will remain in my possession for a long time, and old coins will blacken in these circumstances.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟讘注 谞注砖讛 讞诇讬驻讬谉 诪讬注讘讚 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讗拽谞讜讬讬 诪讬拽谞讜 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗驻讬专讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 驻讬专讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬谞讛讜 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讗拽谞讜讬讬 诪拽谞讜 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 讟讘注讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

Rav Pappa says: Even according to the one who says: Money cannot be the item used to effect a transaction by means of exchange, this means only that money does not effect a transaction of exchange; but he concedes that money is acquired by means of a transaction of exchange. If one party pulls a vessel into his possession, the other party acquires silver coins in exchange, just as it is with regard to produce, according to the opinion of Rav Na岣an. Is it not the case that even though according to the opinion of Rav Na岣an produce itself does not effect a transaction of exchange, nevertheless produce is acquired by means of a transaction of exchange? Currency, too, is no different.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘讙讜专谉 讜讗讬谉 讘讬讚讜 诪注讜转 讗诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 驻讬专讜转 讛诇诇讜 谞转讜谞讬诐 诇讱 讘诪转谞讛

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Pappa from a baraita: One was standing on the threshing floor and had no money in his hand, and wanted to desacralize his second-tithe produce without paying an additional one-fifth. The halakha is that one who desacralizes his own produce must add one-fifth to its value. This man wants to engage in artifice as if he sold the produce to another, thereby enabling him to desacralize it without adding one-fifth. To that end, he says to another: This produce is hereby given to you as a gift,

Scroll To Top