Bava Metzia 52

שמונה פונדיונות שני פונדיונות לדינר

The accepted depreciation is eight pundeyon, which is a rate of two pundeyon per dinar, or one-sixth of a dinar.

עד מתי מותר להחזיר בכרכים עד כדי שיראה לשולחני בכפרים עד ערבי שבתות אם היה מכירה אפילו לאחר שנים עשר חדש מקבלה הימנו ואין לו עליו אלא תרעומת

The mishna continues: Until when is it permitted for one to return a worn coin once he realizes that it is defective? In the cities [bakerakim], one may return it only until a period of time has passed that would allow him to show it to a money changer, who is an expert in matters of coins. In the villages, where there is no money changer, one may return it only until Shabbat eves, when people purchase their Shabbat needs. Although these are the limits of how much a coin must be eroded in order for there to be exploitation, if the one who gave the coin to the aggrieved party recognized it, he must accept it back from him even after twelve months have passed no matter how little the erosion affected its value. And he has only a grievance against him, as the Gemara will explain.

ונותנה למעשר שני ואינו חושש שאינו אלא נפש רעה

And one may give the slightly eroded coin for use in the desacralizing of second-tithe produce and he need not be concerned, as one who would refuse to accept a slightly eroded coin is merely a miserly soul, while the coin is in fact valid for any use.

גמ׳ ורמינהי עד כמה תהא הסלע חסירה ויהיה בה אונאה

GEMARA: And the Gemara raises a contradiction to the mishna from a baraita in which the same measures of depreciation are enumerated, as in that baraita those measures are introduced with the question: How much must the sela coin be eroded so that its use in a transaction at its original value will constitute exploitation? That is diametrically opposed to the mishna.

אמר רב פפא לא קשיא תנא דידן קא חשיב ממטה למעלה תנא ברא קא חשיב מלמעלה למטה

Rav Pappa says: This is not difficult. The tanna of our mishna calculates the measures from low to high. The tanna says that it does not constitute exploitation up to, but not including, the levels of depreciation enumerated in the mishna. Beginning with those levels of depreciation, it is exploitation. And the external tanna, i.e., the tanna of the baraita, calculates from high to low. That tanna says that it is exploitation down to and including the levels of depreciation enumerated in the baraita. It is only beneath those levels that it is not considered exploitation. There is no halakhic dispute between the two tanna’im.

מאי שנא בסלע דפליגי ומאי שנא בטלית דלא פליגי

The Gemara returns to discuss the mishna and asks: What is different with regard to a sela, that the tanna’im disagree about the level of depreciation that constitutes exploitation, and what is different with regard to a garment, that the tanna’im do not disagree concerning whether the disparity between value and price that constitutes exploitation is one-sixth or less than one-sixth?

אמר רבא מאן תנא טלית רבי שמעון היא אביי אמר טלית עד שתות מחיל איניש דאמרי אינשי עשיק לגביך ושוי לכרסיך סלע כיון דלא סגי ליה לא מחיל

Rava said: Who is the tanna that taught the halakhot of exploitation with regard to a garment in the mishnayot cited earlier in this chapter? It is Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that even in the case of a sela, the measure of exploitation is one-sixth. Abaye said that the two cases are different: With regard to a garment, a person is likely to waive the disparity up to one-sixth, as people say: Overpay and acquire an item for your back, i.e., a garment, and acquire at cost items for your stomach, i.e., food. Since it is worth purchasing fine garments, the disparity is not significant. By contrast, with regard to the sela in question, since it does not circulate, he does not waive even the sum of a smaller disparity.

גופא עד כמה תהא הסלע חסירה ויהא בה אונאה רבי מאיר אומר ארבעה איסרות איסר לדינר רבי יהודה אומר ארבעה פונדיונות פונדיון לדינר רבי שמעון אומר שמונה פונדיונות שני פונדיון לדינר יתר על כן מוכרה בשויה

§ With regard to the matter of exploitation and coins itself, the Gemara elaborates: How much will the sela coin be eroded and its use in a transaction will constitute exploitation? Rabbi Meir says: Four issar, which is a rate of an issar per dinar. Rabbi Yehuda says: Four pundeyon, a pundeyon per dinar. Rabbi Shimon says: Eight pundeyon, two pundeyon per dinar. If the depreciation is greater than that, he may sell the coin at its value as metal, not for its original value.

עד כמה תיפחת ויהא רשאי לקיימה בסלע עד שקל בדינר עד רובע פחות מכן איסר אסור להוציאה הרי זה לא ימכרנה לא לתגר ולא לחרם ולא להרג מפני שמרמין בה את אחרים אלא יקבנה ויתלנה בצואר בנו או בצואר בתו

To what extent can the coin erode and it will still be permitted for one to maintain it as a coin? With regard to a sela, it can be used as a sela until it erodes so that its value reaches one shekel, i.e., half a sela. With regard to a dinar, it can be used as a dinar until it erodes so that its value reaches one-quarter. Once it erodes to the point where its value reaches an issar less than that, it is prohibited to spend it. He may not sell the invalidated coin to a merchant, nor to a violent man, nor to a murderer, because they deceive others with it or force them to take it. Rather, he should perforate it and suspend it as an ornament on the neck of his son or the neck of his daughter.

אמר מר בסלע עד שקל בדינר עד רובע מאי שנא בסלע עד שקל ומאי שנא בדינר עד רובע

The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita. The Master said: With regard to a sela, it can be used as a sela until it erodes so that its value reaches one shekel, i.e., half a sela. With regard to a dinar, it can be used as a dinar until it erodes so that its value reaches one-quarter. The Gemara asks: What is different whereby with regard to a sela, it can be used as a sela until it erodes so that its value reaches one shekel, which is half a sela, and what is different whereby with regard to a dinar, it can be used as a dinar until it erodes so that its value reaches one-quarter [rova]?

אמר אביי מאי רובע דקתני נמי רובע שקל אמר רבא דיקא נמי דקא תני רובע ולא קתני רביע שמע מינה

Abaye says: What is the meaning of rova that the baraita teaches? It too is referring to a coin called rova, which is worth one-quarter of a shekel, which is half a dinar. Rava said: The language of the baraita is also precise in this regard, as the tanna teaches rova and does not teach one-quarter [revia]. The Gemara concludes: Learn from that inference that the reference of the tanna of the baraita is to the coin called rova, which is half a dinar.

למה ליה למתלייה לדינר בשקל מלתא אגב אורחיה קא משמע לן דאיכא דינר דאתי משקל

The Gemara asks: Why does the tanna state his ruling so that the amount of erosion that disqualifies a dinar is dependent on a shekel? Why does the tanna state the measure as one-quarter of a shekel, rather than stating it as one-half of a dinar? The Gemara explains: By doing so, the tanna teaches us a matter in passing, that there are cases where a dinar originates from a shekel, e.g., a shekel that eroded and is now worth one-half its original value, i.e., one dinar.

מסייע ליה לרבי אמי דאמר רבי אמי דינר הבא משקל מותר לקיימו דינר הבא מסלע אסור לקיימו

This supports the opinion of Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami says: With regard to a dinar that originated from a shekel, it is permitted to maintain it and use it as a dinar. Based on its size and shape, there is no concern that people will confuse it with a shekel. With regard to a dinar that originated from a sela, it is prohibited to maintain it and use it as a dinar. Due to the fact that even after erosion the coin remains the size of a sela, which is clearly larger than a dinar, the concern is that people will mistakenly consider it more valuable than a dinar.

פחות מכן איסר אסור להוציאה מאי קאמר אמר אביי הכי קאמר פחתה סלע יותר מכדי אונאה איסר אסור אמר ליה רבא אי הכי אפילו משהו נמי אלא אמר רבא פחתה סלע איסר לדינר אסור וסתמא כרבי מאיר

§ The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita, which teaches: Once it erodes to the point where its value reaches an issar less than that, it is prohibited to spend it. The Gemara asks: What is the tanna saying in that statement? Abaye said that this is what the tanna is saying: If a sela eroded by the amount of an issar greater than the measure of exploitation, it is prohibited to spend it at its original value. Rava said to Abaye: If so, then even any amount greater than the measure of exploitation should be forbidden as well. Rather, Rava said that this is what the tanna is saying: If a sela eroded by the amount of an issar per dinar, it is prohibited to spend it, and this unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says in the mishna that the measure of exploitation is one issar per dinar.

תנן התם סלע שנפסלה והתקינה שיהא שוקל בה משקלות טמאה עד כמה תיפחת ויהא רשאי לקיימה לסלע שני דינרים פחות מכן יקוץ

We learned in a mishna there (Kelim 12:7): A sela that was invalidated for use as a coin, and an individual designated it so that he would weigh with it items that require weighing, is susceptible to becoming ritually impure. His designation rendered it a vessel like any other weight. To what extent can the coin erode and it will still be permitted to maintain it? For a sela, it is an erosion of two dinars, half its value. If it eroded to an extent that it was worth less than that, he must cut it into pieces to prevent its being confused with a proper coin.

יתר על כן מאי אמר רב הונא פחות מכן יקוץ יתר על כן יקוץ רבי אמי אמר פחות מכן יקוץ יתר על כן יקיים

The Gemara asks: If it eroded but its current value is greater than one shekel, what is the halakha? Rav Huna says: If it eroded and depreciated less than one shekel he must cut it into pieces, and if it eroded and depreciated more than that he must also cut it into pieces. Rabbi Ami says: If it eroded and depreciated less than one shekel he must cut it into pieces, and if it eroded and depreciated more than that he may maintain it, because there is no concern that one will confuse a coin that eroded to that extent with a sela.

מיתיבי

The Gemara raises an objection from the baraita:

יתר על כן מוכרה בשויה מאי לאו שפחתה יותר מכדי אונאתה לא יתירה דאכתי לא פחתה בכדי אונאתה מוכרה בשויה

If the erosion was greater than that, he may sell the coin at its value as metal, not for its original value. What, is it not that it eroded more than its measure of exploitation? The Gemara rejects this claim: No, the term greater means that if it did not yet erode to its measure of exploitation, he may sell it at its value.

מתיבי עד כמה תיפחת ויהא רשאי לקיימה בסלע עד שקל מאי לאו דפחית פורתא פורתא לא דנפיל לנורא ואפחות בחדא זימנא

Another objection was raised: To what extent can the coin erode and one would still be permitted to maintain it? For a sela that deteriorated, it is permitted to maintain it up to a shekel, which is half its value. Does this not mean that the sela depreciated little by little, which indicates that even though it lost half its value, which is far greater than the measure of exploitation, it is still permitted for one to maintain it, and there is no concern about deceit? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to a coin that fell into the fire and eroded all at once, and therefore no deceit is possible.

אמר מר יקבנה ויתלנה בצואר בנו או בצואר בתו ורמינהו לא יעשנה משקל בין משקלותיו ולא יזרקנה בין גרוטותיו ולא יקבנה ויתלנה בצואר בנו ובצואר בתו אלא או ישחוק או יתוך או יקוץ או יוליך לים המלח

The Master said in the baraita: If a coin greatly depreciated he should perforate it, and suspend it as an ornament on the neck of his son or the neck of his daughter. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: With regard to an eroded coin, one should not make it a weight among his weights, nor cast it among his metal scraps [gerutotav], nor perforate it and suspend it on the neck of his son or the neck of his daughter, lest he come to use it by mistake. Rather, he should either grind it or melt it, or cut it into pieces, or take it and cast it into the Dead Sea.

אמר רבי אלעזר ואמרי לה רב הונא אמר רבי אלעזר לא קשיא כאן באמצע כאן מן הצד

Rabbi Elazar said, and some say Rav Huna said that Rabbi Elazar said: This is not difficult. Here, where it is permitted to fashion the coin into an ornament, it is in a case where he perforated the coin in the middle, and therefore it can no longer be mistaken for a valid coin; there, where it is prohibited to fashion the coin into an ornament, it is in a case where he perforated the coin from the side. In that case the concern is that he might cut the edge of the coin and use the unperforated remainder to deceive others.

עד מתי מותר להחזיר בכרכים עד שיראה לשולחני בכפרים עד ערבי שבתות מאי שנא בסלע דמפליג ומאי שנא בטלית דלא מפליג

§ The mishna teaches: Until when is it permitted for one to return a depreciated coin? In the cities, one may return it only until a period of time has passed that would allow him to show it to a money changer, who is an expert in matters of coins. In the villages, where there is no money changer, one may return it only until Shabbat eves, when people purchase their Shabbat needs. The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to a sela whereby the tanna distinguishes between cities and villages, and what is different with regard to a garment whereby he does not distinguish between cities and villages?

אמר אביי כי תנן נמי מתניתין בטלית בכרכין תנן רבא אמר טלית כל איניש קים ליה בגוה סלע כיון דלאו כל איניש קים ליה בגוה אלא שולחני הלכך בכרכים דאיכא שולחני עד שיראה לשולחני בכפרים דליכא שולחני עד ערבי שבתות דסלקין לשוקא

Abaye said: When we learned the halakha in the mishna with regard to a garment as well, it is with regard to its sale in the cities that we learned it. Concerning the sale of a garment in a village, he can return it even at a later stage. Rava said: There is a difference between a garment and a coin. In the case of a garment, every person is certain with regard to its value, and presumably the buyer will be informed of his mistake immediately. In the case of a sela, since not every person is certain with regard to its value, and rather it is only a money changer who is certain, therefore, in the cities, where there is a money changer available, the buyer can return the coin until a period of time has passed that would allow him to show it to a money changer. In the villages, where there is no money changer available, he has until Shabbat eves, when people go to the market, at which point he will discover the actual value of the sela.

ואם היה מכירה אפילו לאחר שנים עשר חדש כו׳ היכא אי בכרכין הא אמרת עד שיראה לשולחני אי בכפרים הא אמרת עד ערבי שבתות

The mishna teaches: And although these are the limits of how much a coin must be eroded in order for there to be exploitation, if the one who gave the coin to the aggrieved party recognized it, he must accept it back from him even after twelve months have passed, no matter how little the erosion affected its value; and he has only a grievance against him. The Gemara asks: Where did this occur? If it was in the cities, didn’t you say that he has only until a period of time has passed that would allow him to show it to a money changer? If it was in the villages, didn’t you say that he has until Shabbat eves?

אמר רב חסדא מידת חסידות שנו כאן אי הכי אימא סיפא אין לו עליו אלא תרעומת למאן אי לחסיד לא קבולי ליקבלה מיניה ולא תרעומת תיהוי ליה ואלא להאיך דקבלה מיניה ולבתר דמקבלה מיניה תרעומת תיהוי ליה

Rav Ḥisda said: The Sages taught an attribute of piety here, according to which he must accept it even after considerable time has passed. The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: And he has only a grievance against him. For whom is there a grievance? If it is for the pious person who accepted the return of the flawed coin although he was not required to accept it, and is teaching that he may have a grievance against the one who requested of him to accept the coin, let him not accept the coin from him and let him not have a grievance. Rather, perhaps it is referring to that person from whom he accepted the coin. But after the person piously accepts return of the coin from him, is it reasonable that the one who returned the coin will have a grievance?

הכי קאמר הא אחר אף על פי שאין מקבלה הימנו אין לו עליו אלא תרעומת

The Gemara answers that this is what the tanna is saying: But with regard to another person who is not pious and does not accept the coin, although he does not accept return of the coin from him after the time has passed, the one who requested that he accept it has only a grievance against him. One cannot compel the person from whom he received the coin to accept it in return, as although the coin maintains its value, not everyone is willing to conduct business with a coin whose value is questionable.

ונותנה למעשר שני ואינו חושש שאינו אלא נפש רעה אמר רב פפא שמע מינה האי מאן דמוקים אזוזי מיקרי נפש רעה והני מילי הוא דסגי להו

§ The mishna teaches: And one may give the slightly eroded coin for use in the desacralizing of second-tithe produce and he need not be concerned, as one who would refuse to accept a slightly eroded coin is merely a miserly soul, while the coin is in fact valid for any use. Rav Pappa said: Conclude from this formulation of the mishna that this one who insists upon the integrity of his coins and accepts only unflawed coins is characterized as a miserly soul. The Gemara adds: And this matter applies only if the flawed coins that he rejected still circulate.

מסייע ליה לחזקיה דאמר חזקיה בא לפורטה פורטה בשויה בא לחללה מחללה ביפה

The Gemara comments: This supports the opinion of Ḥizkiyya, as Ḥizkiyya says: If one comes to change this flawed silver coin for copper coins, he changes it for its value, deducting several perutot due to erosion. If he comes to desacralize second tithe with it, he desacralizes the produce with it as though its value were that of an unflawed [beyafa] coin.

מאי קאמר הכי קאמר אף על פי כשבא לפורטה פורטה בשויה כשהוא מחללה מחללה ביפה

The Gemara asks: What is Ḥizkiyya saying? Is he merely repeating the halakha cited in the mishna? The Gemara explains that this is what he is saying: Although when he comes to change into perutot this flawed silver coin upon which he redeemed his second-tithe produce he changes it for its actual, not its original, value, when he desacralizes second tithe with it, he desacralizes the produce with it as though it were an unflawed coin.

למימרא דסבר חזקיה דמזלזלינן במעשר שני והאמר חזקיה מעשר שני שאין בו שוה פרוטה אומר הוא וחומשו מחולל על מעות הראשונות לפי שאי אפשר לו לאדם לצמצם מעותיו

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Ḥizkiyya holds that we treat second tithe with contempt, i.e., we redeem it for less than its actual value? But doesn’t Ḥizkiyya say: In the case of second-tithe produce that does not have the value of even one peruta and therefore cannot be redeemed, one says: The second-tithe produce and its one-fifth that is added when one redeems his own second-tithe produce are desacralized upon the first coins upon which I already redeemed second-tithe produce worth at least one peruta, because it is impossible for a person to be precise with his coins? Presumably, the value of the coins with which he redeemed the produce somewhat exceeded the value of the produce. Therefore, he can desacralize additional produce worth less than one peruta with those coins. Apparently, Ḥizkiyya holds that one may not display contempt for second-tithe produce by redeeming it on coins worth less than its value.

מאי ביפה בתורת יפה דתרי זילי לא מזלזלינן ביה

The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of beyafa? It means that although the coin has eroded, it is accorded unflawed status, and one may desacralize second-tithe produce with it. Nevertheless, it is assessed according to its actual, not its original, value, as we do not treat second tithe with two forms of contempt. One may use an eroded coin, but only according to its actual value.

גופא אמר חזקיה מעשר שני שאין בו שוה פרוטה אומר הוא וחומשו מחולל על מעות הראשונות לפי שאי אפשר לו לאדם לצמצם מעותיו

§ Apropos the statement of Ḥizkiyya, the Gemara analyzes the matter itself. Ḥizkiyya said: In the case of second-tithe produce that does not have the value of one peruta and therefore cannot be redeemed, one says: The second-tithe produce and its one-fifth that is added when one redeems his own second-tithe produce are desacralized upon the first coins upon which I already redeemed second-tithe produce worth at least one peruta, because it is impossible for a person to be precise with his coins.

מיתיבי התרומה והביכורים חייבין עליהן מיתה וחומש

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Ḥalla 1:9): With regard to teruma and first fruits, a non-priest is liable to receive the penalty of death at the hand of Heaven for partaking of them intentionally, and the Torah imposes the payment of a penalty of one-fifth of the value of the produce for partaking of them unwittingly.