Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel have a debate regarding trading maaser sheni coins from silver to gold coins. There are three versions of the debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish about what the basis of the debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish is. The first version links their debate to the issue of whether silver or gold is considered a currency or commodity compared to the other. However, the other two versions explain that the issue is exclusively a maaser sheni issue and does not relate to the currency/commodity debate. Rav and Levi debate whether money can be used for a kinyan chalipin, a symbolic act of acquiring. Chalipin must be performed with an item that has inherent value. Does money have inherent value because it is made from metal or is it viewed only in terms of the image on the coin which will eventually wear away?
Bava Metzia 45
Share this shiur:
Bava Metzia
Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v’Yehuda Tzvi.
רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על־כלנה
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Bava Metzia
Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v’Yehuda Tzvi.
רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על־כלנה
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Bava Metzia 45
אָסוּר לִלְווֹת דִּינָר בְּדִינָר.
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.
דִּינָר דְּמַאי? אִילֵּימָא דִּינָר שֶׁל כֶּסֶף בְּדִינָר שֶׁל כֶּסֶף, לְגַבֵּי נַפְשֵׁיהּ מִי אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לָאו טִבְעָא הָוֵי? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא דִּינָר שֶׁל זָהָב בְּדִינָר שֶׁל זָהָב, וּלְמַאן? אִי לְבֵית הִלֵּל – הָא אָמְרִי טִבְעָא הָוֵי. אֶלָּא לָאו לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הוּא דְּאָמַר: אֵין מְחַלְּלִין!
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 Yoḥanan state this halakha? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, don’t they say that a gold dinar is currency? Rather, isn’t it in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? And learn from it that it is Rabbi Yoḥanan who said that according to Beit Shammai we do not desacralize produce with gold dinars, as he holds that they are not considered currency.
לָא, לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הוּא דְּאָמַר מְחַלְּלִין, וְשָׁאנֵי הַלְוָאָה כֵּיוָן דִּלְעִנְיַן מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר שַׁוְּיוּהּו רַבָּנַן כִּי פֵירָא, דְּאָמְרִינַן: אִיהוּ נִיהוּ דְּאוֹקֵיר וְזִיל – לְגַבֵּי הַלְוָאָה נָמֵי פֵּירָא הָוֵי.
The Gemara rejects this proof: No, actually I will say to you that it is Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּכִי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ אָסוּר לִלְווֹת דִּינָר בְּדִינָר, אֲבָל מְחַלְּלִין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי עָלָיו. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to say that this is Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion, as when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan who said that one desacralizes second-tithe produce with a gold dinar.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַפּוֹרֵט סֶלַע מִמְּעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: בְּכׇל הַסֶּלַע מָעוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: בְּשֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף, בְּשֶׁקֶל מָעוֹת. הַשְׁתָּא לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי לְגַבֵּי פְּרִיטֵי מְחַלְּלִינַן, לְגַבֵּי דַּהֲבָא מִיבַּעְיָא? שָׁאנֵי פְּרִיטֵי בְּאַתְרָא דְּסָגַיִין חֲרִיפֵי.
Apropos redemption of second-tithe produce with gold, the Gemara cites proof from a mishna (Ma’aser 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.
לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. חַד אָמַר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּסְלָעִין עַל דִּינָרִים, דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: ״הַכֶּסֶף״ – כֶּסֶף רִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא כֶּסֶף שֵׁנִי.
§ There is another version of this discussion, and some say that this is the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan 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: “And you shall bestow the money and you shall bind the money in your hand” (Deuteronomy 14:25), the term “the money” 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.
וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: ״הַכֶּסֶף״, ״כֶּסֶף״, רִיבָּה – וַאֲפִילּוּ כֶּסֶף שֵׁנִי. אֲבָל פֵּירוֹת עַל דִּינָרִין – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מְחַלְּלִינַן, דְּאַכַּתִּי כֶּסֶף רִאשׁוֹן הוּא.
And Beit Hillel hold that since it is written: “The money,” and this second mention of money in that verse is superfluous, the term “the money” 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.
וְחַד אָמַר: אַף בְּפֵירוֹת עַל דִּינָרִין נָמֵי מַחְלוֹקֶת.
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.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר סְלָעִין עַל דִּינָרִין מַחְלוֹקֶת, אַדְּמִיפַּלְגִי בִּסְלָעִין עַל דִּינָרִין, לִיפְלוֹג בִּסְלָעִין עַל סְלָעִין!
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.
אִי אִפְּלוּג בִּסְלָעִין עַל סְלָעִין, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּסְלָעִין עַל סְלָעִין, אֲבָל בִּסְלָעִין עַל דִּינָרִין – מוֹדוּ לְהוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי דְּדַהֲבָא לְגַבֵּי כַּסְפָּא פֵּירָא הָוֵי וְלָא מְחַלְּלִינַן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַפּוֹרֵט סֶלַע שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: בְּכׇל הַסֶּלַע מָעוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: בְּשֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף, בְּשֶׁקֶל מָעוֹת. הַשְׁתָּא כַּסְפָּא לְגַבֵּי פְּרִיטֵי מְחַלְּלִינַן, וְלָא אָמְרִינַן ״כֶּסֶף רִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא כֶּסֶף שֵׁנִי״, לְגַבֵּי דַּהֲבָא דַּחֲשִׁיב מִינֵּיהּ, מִי אָמְרִינַן ״כֶּסֶף רִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא כֶּסֶף שֵׁנִי״?
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof to the correct ruling in this dispute from a mishna (Ma’aser 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?
אָמַר רָבָא: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם קָמוֹתְבַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ ״וְנָתַתָּה הַכֶּסֶף בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר תְּאַוֶּה נַפְשְׁךָ בַּבָּקָר וּבַצֹּאן״.
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: “And you shall bestow the money for whatever your soul desires, for cattle or for sheep” (Deuteronomy 14:26). One may utilize the money in Jerusalem in any manner he chooses.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַפּוֹרֵט סֶלַע מִמְּעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי – בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: בְּכׇל הַסֶּלַע מָעוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: בְּשֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף, בְּשֶׁקֶל מָעוֹת!
Come and hear proof from the mishna (Ma’aser 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.
אֶלָּא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא ״הַכֶּסֶף״ ״כֶּסֶף״ רִיבָּה, וַאֲפִילּוּ כֶּסֶף שֵׁנִי. אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, הָכִי אִיתְּמַר: חַד אָמַר מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּסְלָעִין עַל דִּינָרִין, דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: גָּזְרִינַן
Rather, the Gemara abandons its previous explanation of the dispute and states that everyone agrees that since it is written: “The money,” and this second mention of money in that verse is superfluous, the term “the money” serves to include even second money. Rather, if the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan 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,
שֶׁמָּא יְשַׁהֶה עֲלִיּוֹתָיו, דְּזִימְנִין דְּלָא מָלוּ זוּזֵי בְּדִינָרָא וְלָא מַסֵּיק. וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: לָא גָּזְרִינַן שֶׁמָּא יְשַׁהֶה עֲלִיּוֹתָיו, דְּכִי לָא מָלוּ נָמֵי בְּדִינָרָא אַסּוֹקֵי מַסֵּיק לְהוּ. אֲבָל בְּפֵירוֹת עַל דִּינָרִין – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מְחַלְּלִינַן, דְּכֵיוָן דְּמַרְקְבִי לָא מְשַׁהֵי לְהוּ.
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.
וְחַד אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּפֵירוֹת עַל דִּינָרִין נָמֵי מַחְלוֹקֶת.
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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא מִשְׁרָא שְׁרֵי וְרַבָּנַן הוּא דִּגְזַרוּ בֵּיהּ – הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״יַעֲשֶׂה״ וְ״לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה״, אֶלָּא לְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא פְּלִיגִי: מְחַלְּלִינַן וְלָא מְחַלְּלִינַן מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ? קַשְׁיָא.
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.
אִיתְּמַר: רַב וְלֵוִי, חַד אָמַר: מַטְבֵּעַ נַעֲשֶׂה חֲלִיפִין, וְחַד אָמַר: אֵין מַטְבֵּעַ נַעֲשֶׂה חֲלִיפִין. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מַטְבֵּעַ נַעֲשֶׂה חֲלִיפִין – מִשּׁוּם דְּדַעְתֵּיהּ אַצּוּרְתָּא, וְצוּרְתָּא עֲבִידָא דְּבָטְלָא.
§ 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.
תְּנַן: הַזָּהָב קוֹנֶה אֶת הַכֶּסֶף, מַאי לָאו בַּחֲלִיפִין, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מַטְבֵּעַ נַעֲשֶׂה חֲלִיפִין? לֹא, בְּדָמִים. אִי הָכִי הַזָּהָב קוֹנֶה אֶת הַכֶּסֶף, מְחַיֵּיב מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! תְּנִי: הַזָּהָב מְחַיֵּיב.
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.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: הַכֶּסֶף אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה אֶת הַזָּהָב. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּדָמִים – הַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִינַן דַּהֲבָא פֵּירָא, וְכַסְפָּא טִבְעָא, וְטִבְעָא פֵּירָא לָא קָנֵי. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בַּחֲלִיפִין, תַּרְוַיְיהוּ לִקְנוֹ אַהֲדָדֵי.
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.
וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא: הַכֶּסֶף אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה אֶת הַזָּהָב, כֵּיצַד? מָכַר לוֹ עֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה דִּינָר שֶׁל כֶּסֶף בְּדִינָר שֶׁל זָהָב, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמָּשַׁךְ אֶת הַכֶּסֶף – לֹא קָנָה עַד שֶׁיִּמְשׁוֹךְ אֶת הַזָּהָב. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּדָמִים – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי לָא קָנֵי. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בַּחֲלִיפִין – נִקְנֵי.
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.
אֶלָּא מַאי, בְּדָמִים? אִי הָכִי אֵימָא רֵישָׁא: הַזָּהָב קוֹנֶה אֶת הַכֶּסֶף, כֵּיצַד? מָכַר לוֹ דִּינָר שֶׁל זָהָב בְּעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה דִּינָר שֶׁל כֶּסֶף, כֵּיוָן שֶׁמָּשַׁךְ אֶת הַזָּהָב נִקְנָה כֶּסֶף בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא.
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.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בַּחֲלִיפִין, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״נִקְנֶה כֶּסֶף בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא״. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּדָמִים, הַאי ״נִקְנֶה כֶּסֶף בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא״, נִתְחַיֵּיב גַּבְרָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ.
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.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לְעוֹלָם בְּדָמִים. וּמַאי ״בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא״? כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא, כְּדַאֲמַר לֵיהּ. אִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מֵאַרְנָקִי חֲדָשָׁה יָהֲבִינָא לָךְ, לָא מָצֵי יָהֵיב לֵיהּ מֵאַרְנָקִי יְשָׁנָה, אַף עַל גַּב דַּעֲדִיפִי מִינַּיְיהוּ. מַאי טַעְמָא, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: לְיַשְּׁנָן קָא בָעֵינָא לְהוּ.
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.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מַטְבֵּעַ נַעֲשֶׂה חֲלִיפִין – מֶיעְבָּד הוּא דְּלָא עָבֵיד חֲלִיפִין, אַקְנוֹיֵי מִיקְּנוּ בַּחֲלִיפִין, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַפֵּירֵא לְרַב נַחְמָן. פֵּירֵא לְרַב נַחְמָן, לָאו אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִינְהוּ לָא עָבְדִי חֲלִיפִין – אַקְנוֹיֵי מִקְּנוּ בַּחֲלִיפִין, טִבְעָא נָמֵי לָא שְׁנָא.
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 Naḥman. Is it not the case that even though according to the opinion of Rav Naḥman 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.
מֵיתִיבִי: הָיָה עוֹמֵד בַּגּוֹרֶן וְאֵין בְּיָדוֹ מָעוֹת, אוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ: הֲרֵי פֵּירוֹת הַלָּלוּ נְתוּנִים לְךָ בְּמַתָּנָה,
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,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
New York, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
Berlin, Germany
Bronx, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
Philadelphia, United States
Minnesota, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
Bava Metzia 45
ΧΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ¨.
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.
ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ Φ·Χ€Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ? ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ? ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ. ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ!
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 YoαΈ₯anan state this halakha? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, donβt they say that a gold dinar is currency? Rather, isnβt it in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? And learn from it that it is Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan who said that according to Beit Shammai we do not desacralize produce with gold dinars, as he holds that they are not considered currency.
ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ° Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ€Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ: ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌ Χ Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ§Φ΅ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ.
The Gemara rejects this proof: No, actually I will say to you that it is Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan 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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Φ΄Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ. Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ.
The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to say that this is Rabbi YoαΈ₯ananβs opinion, as when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan 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 YoαΈ₯anan who said that one desacralizes second-tithe produce with a gold dinar.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’: ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΅Χ Χ‘ΦΆΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Φ΄Χ, ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦΆΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧ§ΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧ§ΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧͺ. ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ? Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧ Φ΅Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ€Φ΅Χ.
Apropos redemption of second-tithe produce with gold, the Gemara cites proof from a mishna (Maβaser 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.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ. ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ§ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ: Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£Χ΄ β ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£ Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£ Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Φ΄Χ.
Β§ There is another version of this discussion, and some say that this is the dispute between Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan 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: βAnd you shall bestow the money and you shall bind the money in your handβ (Deuteronomy 14:25), the term βthe moneyβ 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.
ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ: Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£Χ΄, Χ΄ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£Χ΄, Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£ Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Φ΄Χ. ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£ Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ.
And Beit Hillel hold that since it is written: βThe money,β and this second mention of money in that verse is superfluous, the term βthe moneyβ 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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ€Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ§ΦΆΧͺ.
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.
ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ§ΦΆΧͺ, ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ!
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.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΧΦΉΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ‘Φ°Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ, Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ.
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.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’: ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΅Χ Χ‘ΦΆΧΦ·Χ’ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Φ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦΆΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧ§ΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧ§ΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧͺ. ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ‘Φ°Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ Χ΄ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£ Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£ Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Φ΄ΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ Χ΄ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£ Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£ Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Φ΄ΧΧ΄?
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof to the correct ruling in this dispute from a mishna (Maβaser 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?
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ°? Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧͺΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ²Χ©ΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ Χ Φ·Χ€Φ°Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ¦ΦΌΦΉΧΧΧ΄.
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: βAnd you shall bestow the money for whatever your soul desires, for cattle or for sheepβ (Deuteronomy 14:26). One may utilize the money in Jerusalem in any manner he chooses.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’: ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΅Χ Χ‘ΦΆΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Φ΄Χ β ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦΆΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧ§ΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧ§ΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧͺ!
Come and hear proof from the mishna (Maβaser 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.
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£Χ΄ Χ΄ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£Χ΄ Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£ Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Φ΄Χ. ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ, ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ§ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ: ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ
Rather, the Gemara abandons its previous explanation of the dispute and states that everyone agrees that since it is written: βThe money,β and this second mention of money in that verse is superfluous, the term βthe moneyβ serves to include even second money. Rather, if the dispute between Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan 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,
Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ§. ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΧΦΉΧ§Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ§ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ€Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ.
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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ€Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ§ΦΆΧͺ.
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.
ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ β ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ Χ΄ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧ΄ ΧΦ°Χ΄ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧ΄, ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ? Χ§Φ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ.
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.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ’Φ· Χ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ’Φ· Χ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ’Φ· Χ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ¦ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ¦ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ.
Β§ 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.
ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΧΦΉΧ ΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ’Φ· Χ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ? ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΧΦΉΧ ΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ! ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ: ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ.
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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ Χ‘Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ Χ§ΧΦΉΧ ΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ‘Φ°Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ. ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ.
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.
ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ, ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ Χ§ΧΦΉΧ ΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ¦Φ·Χ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ Χ’ΦΆΧ©ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦ·ΧΦ° ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£ β ΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ° ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ. ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ β Χ Φ΄Χ§Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ.
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.
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ? ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΧΦΉΧ ΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£, ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ¦Φ·Χ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΦΆΧ©ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£, ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦ·ΧΦ° ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ Φ΄Χ§Φ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ.
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.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ Χ΄Χ Φ΄Χ§Φ°Χ ΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧΧ΄. ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ΄Χ Φ΄Χ§Φ°Χ ΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧΧ΄, Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ.
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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧΧ΄? ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ΅ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ ΦΈΧ§Φ΄Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ ΦΈΧ§Φ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ.
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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ’Φ· Χ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦΆΧΧ’Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦ°Χ ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ. Χ€ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦ°Χ ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ.
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 NaαΈ₯man. Is it not the case that even though according to the opinion of Rav NaαΈ₯man 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.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ: ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌ Χ Φ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ,
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,
