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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 17, 2016 | 讟状讝 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讝

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

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

Bava Metzia 52

Can one use money that is devalued? 聽At what percentage would it be fraud that one can claim back the amount he was defrauded by the devaluation of the coin? 聽If a coin deteriorates more than that amount, can it still be used as聽per its new value? 聽There is a debate about whether this would work from the percentage of fraud until half of its value or just at half its value. 聽In a case where it can work, the coin must be destroyed so as not to allow room for people to trick others. 聽 What is the time frame allotted for getting back the defrauded money? 聽Is it the same as for items or different?


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

砖诪讜谞讛 驻讜谞讚讬讜谞讜转 砖谞讬 驻讜谞讚讬讜谞讜转 诇讚讬谞专

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

注讚 诪转讬 诪讜转专 诇讛讞讝讬专 讘讻专讻讬诐 注讚 讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 诇砖讜诇讞谞讬 讘讻驻专讬诐 注讚 注专讘讬 砖讘转讜转 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讻讬专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 诪拽讘诇讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 转专注讜诪转

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.

讜谞讜转谞讛 诇诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖 砖讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 谞驻砖 专注讛

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.

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 注讚 讻诪讛 转讛讗 讛住诇注 讞住讬专讛 讜讬讛讬讛 讘讛 讗讜谞讗讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 诪诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 转谞讗 讘专讗 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛

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鈥檌m.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘住诇注 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讟诇讬转 讚诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

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

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讟诇讬转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讟诇讬转 注讚 砖转讜转 诪讞讬诇 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 注砖讬拽 诇讙讘讬讱 讜砖讜讬 诇讻专住讬讱 住诇注 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 住讙讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讞讬诇

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.

讙讜驻讗 注讚 讻诪讛 转讛讗 讛住诇注 讞住讬专讛 讜讬讛讗 讘讛 讗讜谞讗讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗专讘注讛 讗讬住专讜转 讗讬住专 诇讚讬谞专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗专讘注讛 驻讜谞讚讬讜谞讜转 驻讜谞讚讬讜谉 诇讚讬谞专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖诪讜谞讛 驻讜谞讚讬讜谞讜转 砖谞讬 驻讜谞讚讬讜谉 诇讚讬谞专 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 诪讜讻专讛 讘砖讜讬讛

搂 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.

注讚 讻诪讛 转讬驻讞转 讜讬讛讗 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讛 讘住诇注 注讚 砖拽诇 讘讚讬谞专 注讚 专讜讘注 驻讞讜转 诪讻谉 讗讬住专 讗住讜专 诇讛讜爪讬讗讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬诪讻专谞讛 诇讗 诇转讙专 讜诇讗 诇讞专诐 讜诇讗 诇讛专讙 诪驻谞讬 砖诪专诪讬谉 讘讛 讗转 讗讞专讬诐 讗诇讗 讬拽讘谞讛 讜讬转诇谞讛 讘爪讜讗专 讘谞讜 讗讜 讘爪讜讗专 讘转讜

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.

讗诪专 诪专 讘住诇注 注讚 砖拽诇 讘讚讬谞专 注讚 专讜讘注 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘住诇注 注讚 砖拽诇 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讚讬谞专 注讚 专讜讘注

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]?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 专讜讘注 讚拽转谞讬 谞诪讬 专讜讘注 砖拽诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽讗 转谞讬 专讜讘注 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 专讘讬注 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪转诇讬讬讛 诇讚讬谞专 讘砖拽诇 诪诇转讗 讗讙讘 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讬谞专 讚讗转讬 诪砖拽诇

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.

诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讚讬谞专 讛讘讗 诪砖拽诇 诪讜转专 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讚讬谞专 讛讘讗 诪住诇注 讗住讜专 诇拽讬讬诪讜

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.

驻讞讜转 诪讻谉 讗讬住专 讗住讜专 诇讛讜爪讬讗讛 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 驻讞转讛 住诇注 讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讬住专 讗住讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪砖讛讜 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 驻讞转讛 住诇注 讗讬住专 诇讚讬谞专 讗住讜专 讜住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

搂 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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 住诇注 砖谞驻住诇讛 讜讛转拽讬谞讛 砖讬讛讗 砖讜拽诇 讘讛 诪砖拽诇讜转 讟诪讗讛 注讚 讻诪讛 转讬驻讞转 讜讬讛讗 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讛 诇住诇注 砖谞讬 讚讬谞专讬诐 驻讞讜转 诪讻谉 讬拽讜抓

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.

讬转专 注诇 讻谉 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 驻讞讜转 诪讻谉 讬拽讜抓 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讬拽讜抓 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 驻讞讜转 诪讻谉 讬拽讜抓 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讬拽讬讬诐

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬

The Gemara raises an objection from the baraita:

讬转专 注诇 讻谉 诪讜讻专讛 讘砖讜讬讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖驻讞转讛 讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 讗讜谞讗转讛 诇讗 讬转讬专讛 讚讗讻转讬 诇讗 驻讞转讛 讘讻讚讬 讗讜谞讗转讛 诪讜讻专讛 讘砖讜讬讛

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.

诪转讬讘讬 注讚 讻诪讛 转讬驻讞转 讜讬讛讗 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讛 讘住诇注 注讚 砖拽诇 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚驻讞讬转 驻讜专转讗 驻讜专转讗 诇讗 讚谞驻讬诇 诇谞讜专讗 讜讗驻讞讜转 讘讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗

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.

讗诪专 诪专 讬拽讘谞讛 讜讬转诇谞讛 讘爪讜讗专 讘谞讜 讗讜 讘爪讜讗专 讘转讜 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诇讗 讬注砖谞讛 诪砖拽诇 讘讬谉 诪砖拽诇讜转讬讜 讜诇讗 讬讝专拽谞讛 讘讬谉 讙专讜讟讜转讬讜 讜诇讗 讬拽讘谞讛 讜讬转诇谞讛 讘爪讜讗专 讘谞讜 讜讘爪讜讗专 讘转讜 讗诇讗 讗讜 讬砖讞讜拽 讗讜 讬转讜讱 讗讜 讬拽讜抓 讗讜 讬讜诇讬讱 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讗诪爪注 讻讗谉 诪谉 讛爪讚

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.

注讚 诪转讬 诪讜转专 诇讛讞讝讬专 讘讻专讻讬诐 注讚 砖讬专讗讛 诇砖讜诇讞谞讬 讘讻驻专讬诐 注讚 注专讘讬 砖讘转讜转 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘住诇注 讚诪驻诇讬讙 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讟诇讬转 讚诇讗 诪驻诇讬讙

搂 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?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 转谞谉 谞诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讟诇讬转 讘讻专讻讬谉 转谞谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 讟诇讬转 讻诇 讗讬谞讬砖 拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讘讙讜讛 住诇注 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 讻诇 讗讬谞讬砖 拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讘讙讜讛 讗诇讗 砖讜诇讞谞讬 讛诇讻讱 讘讻专讻讬诐 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讜诇讞谞讬 注讚 砖讬专讗讛 诇砖讜诇讞谞讬 讘讻驻专讬诐 讚诇讬讻讗 砖讜诇讞谞讬 注讚 注专讘讬 砖讘转讜转 讚住诇拽讬谉 诇砖讜拽讗

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.

讜讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讻讬专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讻讜壮 讛讬讻讗 讗讬 讘讻专讻讬谉 讛讗 讗诪专转 注讚 砖讬专讗讛 诇砖讜诇讞谞讬 讗讬 讘讻驻专讬诐 讛讗 讗诪专转 注讚 注专讘讬 砖讘转讜转

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 you say that he has until Shabbat eves?

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讬讚转 讞住讬讚讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 转专注讜诪转 诇诪讗谉 讗讬 诇讞住讬讚 诇讗 拽讘讜诇讬 诇讬拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讜诇讗 转专注讜诪转 转讬讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讜讗诇讗 诇讛讗讬讱 讚拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讜诇讘转专 讚诪拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 转专注讜诪转 转讬讛讜讬 诇讬讛

Rav 岣sda 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?

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讗 讗讞专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 转专注讜诪转

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.

讜谞讜转谞讛 诇诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖 砖讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 谞驻砖 专注讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚诪讜拽讬诐 讗讝讜讝讬 诪讬拽专讬 谞驻砖 专注讛 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讜讗 讚住讙讬 诇讛讜

搂 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.

诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇讞讝拽讬讛 讚讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讘讗 诇驻讜专讟讛 驻讜专讟讛 讘砖讜讬讛 讘讗 诇讞诇诇讛 诪讞诇诇讛 讘讬驻讛

The Gemara comments: This supports the opinion of 岣zkiyya, as 岣zkiyya 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.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻砖讘讗 诇驻讜专讟讛 驻讜专讟讛 讘砖讜讬讛 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讞诇诇讛 诪讞诇诇讛 讘讬驻讛

The Gemara asks: What is 岣zkiyya 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.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚住讘专 讞讝拽讬讛 讚诪讝诇讝诇讬谞谉 讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜讞讜诪砖讜 诪讞讜诇诇 注诇 诪注讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讜转 诇驻讬 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 诇爪诪爪诐 诪注讜转讬讜

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that 岣zkiyya holds that we treat second tithe with contempt, i.e., we redeem it for less than its actual value? But doesn鈥檛 岣zkiyya 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, 岣zkiyya holds that one may not display contempt for second-tithe produce by redeeming it on coins worth less than its value.

诪讗讬 讘讬驻讛 讘转讜专转 讬驻讛 讚转专讬 讝讬诇讬 诇讗 诪讝诇讝诇讬谞谉 讘讬讛

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.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜讞讜诪砖讜 诪讞讜诇诇 注诇 诪注讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讜转 诇驻讬 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 诇爪诪爪诐 诪注讜转讬讜

搂 Apropos the statement of 岣zkiyya, the Gemara analyzes the matter itself. 岣zkiyya 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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛转专讜诪讛 讜讛讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪讬转讛 讜讞讜诪砖

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (岣lla 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.

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 52

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 52

砖诪讜谞讛 驻讜谞讚讬讜谞讜转 砖谞讬 驻讜谞讚讬讜谞讜转 诇讚讬谞专

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

注讚 诪转讬 诪讜转专 诇讛讞讝讬专 讘讻专讻讬诐 注讚 讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 诇砖讜诇讞谞讬 讘讻驻专讬诐 注讚 注专讘讬 砖讘转讜转 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讻讬专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 诪拽讘诇讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 转专注讜诪转

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.

讜谞讜转谞讛 诇诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖 砖讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 谞驻砖 专注讛

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.

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 注讚 讻诪讛 转讛讗 讛住诇注 讞住讬专讛 讜讬讛讬讛 讘讛 讗讜谞讗讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 诪诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 转谞讗 讘专讗 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛

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鈥檌m.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘住诇注 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讟诇讬转 讚诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

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

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讟诇讬转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讟诇讬转 注讚 砖转讜转 诪讞讬诇 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 注砖讬拽 诇讙讘讬讱 讜砖讜讬 诇讻专住讬讱 住诇注 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 住讙讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讞讬诇

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.

讙讜驻讗 注讚 讻诪讛 转讛讗 讛住诇注 讞住讬专讛 讜讬讛讗 讘讛 讗讜谞讗讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗专讘注讛 讗讬住专讜转 讗讬住专 诇讚讬谞专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗专讘注讛 驻讜谞讚讬讜谞讜转 驻讜谞讚讬讜谉 诇讚讬谞专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖诪讜谞讛 驻讜谞讚讬讜谞讜转 砖谞讬 驻讜谞讚讬讜谉 诇讚讬谞专 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 诪讜讻专讛 讘砖讜讬讛

搂 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.

注讚 讻诪讛 转讬驻讞转 讜讬讛讗 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讛 讘住诇注 注讚 砖拽诇 讘讚讬谞专 注讚 专讜讘注 驻讞讜转 诪讻谉 讗讬住专 讗住讜专 诇讛讜爪讬讗讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬诪讻专谞讛 诇讗 诇转讙专 讜诇讗 诇讞专诐 讜诇讗 诇讛专讙 诪驻谞讬 砖诪专诪讬谉 讘讛 讗转 讗讞专讬诐 讗诇讗 讬拽讘谞讛 讜讬转诇谞讛 讘爪讜讗专 讘谞讜 讗讜 讘爪讜讗专 讘转讜

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.

讗诪专 诪专 讘住诇注 注讚 砖拽诇 讘讚讬谞专 注讚 专讜讘注 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘住诇注 注讚 砖拽诇 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讚讬谞专 注讚 专讜讘注

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]?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 专讜讘注 讚拽转谞讬 谞诪讬 专讜讘注 砖拽诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽讗 转谞讬 专讜讘注 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 专讘讬注 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪转诇讬讬讛 诇讚讬谞专 讘砖拽诇 诪诇转讗 讗讙讘 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讬谞专 讚讗转讬 诪砖拽诇

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.

诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讚讬谞专 讛讘讗 诪砖拽诇 诪讜转专 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讚讬谞专 讛讘讗 诪住诇注 讗住讜专 诇拽讬讬诪讜

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.

驻讞讜转 诪讻谉 讗讬住专 讗住讜专 诇讛讜爪讬讗讛 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 驻讞转讛 住诇注 讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讬住专 讗住讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪砖讛讜 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 驻讞转讛 住诇注 讗讬住专 诇讚讬谞专 讗住讜专 讜住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

搂 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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 住诇注 砖谞驻住诇讛 讜讛转拽讬谞讛 砖讬讛讗 砖讜拽诇 讘讛 诪砖拽诇讜转 讟诪讗讛 注讚 讻诪讛 转讬驻讞转 讜讬讛讗 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讛 诇住诇注 砖谞讬 讚讬谞专讬诐 驻讞讜转 诪讻谉 讬拽讜抓

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.

讬转专 注诇 讻谉 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 驻讞讜转 诪讻谉 讬拽讜抓 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讬拽讜抓 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 驻讞讜转 诪讻谉 讬拽讜抓 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讬拽讬讬诐

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬

The Gemara raises an objection from the baraita:

讬转专 注诇 讻谉 诪讜讻专讛 讘砖讜讬讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖驻讞转讛 讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 讗讜谞讗转讛 诇讗 讬转讬专讛 讚讗讻转讬 诇讗 驻讞转讛 讘讻讚讬 讗讜谞讗转讛 诪讜讻专讛 讘砖讜讬讛

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.

诪转讬讘讬 注讚 讻诪讛 转讬驻讞转 讜讬讛讗 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讛 讘住诇注 注讚 砖拽诇 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚驻讞讬转 驻讜专转讗 驻讜专转讗 诇讗 讚谞驻讬诇 诇谞讜专讗 讜讗驻讞讜转 讘讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗

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.

讗诪专 诪专 讬拽讘谞讛 讜讬转诇谞讛 讘爪讜讗专 讘谞讜 讗讜 讘爪讜讗专 讘转讜 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诇讗 讬注砖谞讛 诪砖拽诇 讘讬谉 诪砖拽诇讜转讬讜 讜诇讗 讬讝专拽谞讛 讘讬谉 讙专讜讟讜转讬讜 讜诇讗 讬拽讘谞讛 讜讬转诇谞讛 讘爪讜讗专 讘谞讜 讜讘爪讜讗专 讘转讜 讗诇讗 讗讜 讬砖讞讜拽 讗讜 讬转讜讱 讗讜 讬拽讜抓 讗讜 讬讜诇讬讱 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讗诪爪注 讻讗谉 诪谉 讛爪讚

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.

注讚 诪转讬 诪讜转专 诇讛讞讝讬专 讘讻专讻讬诐 注讚 砖讬专讗讛 诇砖讜诇讞谞讬 讘讻驻专讬诐 注讚 注专讘讬 砖讘转讜转 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘住诇注 讚诪驻诇讬讙 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讟诇讬转 讚诇讗 诪驻诇讬讙

搂 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?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 转谞谉 谞诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讟诇讬转 讘讻专讻讬谉 转谞谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 讟诇讬转 讻诇 讗讬谞讬砖 拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讘讙讜讛 住诇注 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 讻诇 讗讬谞讬砖 拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讘讙讜讛 讗诇讗 砖讜诇讞谞讬 讛诇讻讱 讘讻专讻讬诐 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讜诇讞谞讬 注讚 砖讬专讗讛 诇砖讜诇讞谞讬 讘讻驻专讬诐 讚诇讬讻讗 砖讜诇讞谞讬 注讚 注专讘讬 砖讘转讜转 讚住诇拽讬谉 诇砖讜拽讗

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.

讜讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讻讬专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讻讜壮 讛讬讻讗 讗讬 讘讻专讻讬谉 讛讗 讗诪专转 注讚 砖讬专讗讛 诇砖讜诇讞谞讬 讗讬 讘讻驻专讬诐 讛讗 讗诪专转 注讚 注专讘讬 砖讘转讜转

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 you say that he has until Shabbat eves?

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讬讚转 讞住讬讚讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 转专注讜诪转 诇诪讗谉 讗讬 诇讞住讬讚 诇讗 拽讘讜诇讬 诇讬拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讜诇讗 转专注讜诪转 转讬讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讜讗诇讗 诇讛讗讬讱 讚拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讜诇讘转专 讚诪拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 转专注讜诪转 转讬讛讜讬 诇讬讛

Rav 岣sda 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?

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讗 讗讞专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 转专注讜诪转

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.

讜谞讜转谞讛 诇诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖 砖讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 谞驻砖 专注讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚诪讜拽讬诐 讗讝讜讝讬 诪讬拽专讬 谞驻砖 专注讛 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讜讗 讚住讙讬 诇讛讜

搂 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.

诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇讞讝拽讬讛 讚讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讘讗 诇驻讜专讟讛 驻讜专讟讛 讘砖讜讬讛 讘讗 诇讞诇诇讛 诪讞诇诇讛 讘讬驻讛

The Gemara comments: This supports the opinion of 岣zkiyya, as 岣zkiyya 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.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻砖讘讗 诇驻讜专讟讛 驻讜专讟讛 讘砖讜讬讛 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讞诇诇讛 诪讞诇诇讛 讘讬驻讛

The Gemara asks: What is 岣zkiyya 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.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚住讘专 讞讝拽讬讛 讚诪讝诇讝诇讬谞谉 讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜讞讜诪砖讜 诪讞讜诇诇 注诇 诪注讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讜转 诇驻讬 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 诇爪诪爪诐 诪注讜转讬讜

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that 岣zkiyya holds that we treat second tithe with contempt, i.e., we redeem it for less than its actual value? But doesn鈥檛 岣zkiyya 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, 岣zkiyya holds that one may not display contempt for second-tithe produce by redeeming it on coins worth less than its value.

诪讗讬 讘讬驻讛 讘转讜专转 讬驻讛 讚转专讬 讝讬诇讬 诇讗 诪讝诇讝诇讬谞谉 讘讬讛

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.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜讞讜诪砖讜 诪讞讜诇诇 注诇 诪注讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讜转 诇驻讬 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 诇爪诪爪诐 诪注讜转讬讜

搂 Apropos the statement of 岣zkiyya, the Gemara analyzes the matter itself. 岣zkiyya 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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛转专讜诪讛 讜讛讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪讬转讛 讜讞讜诪砖

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (岣lla 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.

Scroll To Top