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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 6, 2019 | 讙壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讟

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

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

Bekhorot 50

What is the exact value of the “shekel” or “kesef” mentioned in the Torah, in the Prophets and in the Writings? What about in the time of the Mishna? The rabbis try to establish the exact value of the Torah obligations in their own currencies.


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

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讚讬谞专讗 讛讚专讬讬谞讗 讟专讬讬谞讗 砖讬讬驻讗 讚诪讝讘谞讗 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讝讜讝讬 讚诇 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 砖转讜转讗 讜讛谞讱 诇驻讚讬讜谉 讛讘谉 讛谞讬 注砖专讬谉 讜讞讚 谞讻讬 讚谞拽讗 讛讜讬

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one wishes to know how much to give for the redemption of the firstborn son, take the worn-out gold dinars of Hadrian and Trajan, which are sold at twenty-five dinars, and deduct from them one-sixth. And these that remain are the five sela that one must give for the redemption of the firstborn son, i.e., twenty dinars, as there are four dinars in a sela. The Gemara challenges: After deducting one- sixth from twenty-five, one is not left with twenty dinars, but twenty-one dinars less one-sixth [danka] of a dinar.

讗诇讗 讚诇 砖转讜转讗 讜讝讜讝讗 讜讛谞讱 诇驻讚讬讜谉 讛讘谉 讗讻转讬 注砖专讬谉 谞讻讬 讚谞拽讗 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 讚诇 讝讜讝讗 讜砖转讜转讗 讜讛谞讱 诇驻讚讬讜谉 讛讘谉 讚讛讜讬 诇讛讜 注砖专讬谉 诪转拽诇讬 讘诪转拽诇讬 讚讬谞专讗 讚讗讬谞讜谉 注砖专讬谉 讜转诪谞讬讗 讝讜讝讬 讜驻诇讙讬 讜驻诇讙讗 讚谞拽讗

Rather, deduct one-sixth and another dinar, and these that are left are for the redemption of the firstborn son. The Gemara challenges: But the calculation is still inexact, as this sum is twenty dinars less one-sixth of a dinar. Rather, first deduct one dinar, and from the remainder, i.e., twenty-four dinars, deduct one-sixth, and these that are left are the five sela coins that one must give for the redemption of the son. The Gemara notes that these are a weight of twenty matkalei of the small golden dinars known as matkalei, which are worth twenty-eight and a half dinars, and half of a sixth of a dinar, in Arabian silver dinars.

讗诪专 专讘讗 住讬诇注讬诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转诇转讗 讜转讬诇转讗 讛讜讬 讚讻转讬讘 注砖专讬诐 讙专讛 讛砖拽诇 讜诪转专讙诪讬谞谉 注砖专讬谉 诪注讬谉 讜转谞讬讗 砖砖 诪注讛 讻住祝 讚讬谞专

Rava says: The biblical sela coins, i.e., the shekels that must be given for the redemption of the firstborn son, are each three and one-third dinars in weight, not four dinars. As it is written: 鈥淭he shekel is twenty gera (Exodus 30:13), and we translate 鈥渢wenty gera鈥 as twenty ma鈥檃. And it is taught in a baraita: Six silver ma鈥檃 equal a dinar. If so, twenty ma鈥檃, which is equal to the sela of the Torah, is worth three and one-third dinars.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜讛诇讗 住诇注 砖诇 拽讚砖 讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖诪谞讛 驻讜谞讚讬讜谞讬谉

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita, which discusses the halakha of one who redeems an ancestral field from the Temple treasury. The Torah states that one who consecrates his field in the Jubilee year gives as its redemption, for each of the upcoming forty-nine years, fifty sela for each area fit for the sowing of a kor of barley seed. In this regard, the Sages have said that one gives a sela and a pundeyon, which is half a ma鈥檃, per year. The baraita notes a discrepancy here: But in the sela coins of the Sanctuary there are forty-eight pundeyon, which means that according to the statement of the Sages, the redemption for forty-nine years amounts to forty-nine sela and forty-nine pundeyon, i.e., fifty sela and a pundeyon, one pundeyon more than the sum required by the Torah.

驻讜谞讚讬讜谉 讝讛 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 拽讬诇讘讜谉 诇驻专讜讟专讜讟

The baraita explains: This pundeyon, what is its function? It is a premium [kilbon] for exchanging the sela into pundeyon. In any case, this baraita teaches that there are forty-eight pundeyon in the sela of the Torah, which is twenty-four ma鈥檃. This contradicts the statement of Rava, who said that the sela of the Torah is worth only twenty ma鈥檃.

讘转专 讚讗讜住讬驻讜 注讬诇讜讬讬讛讜 讚转谞讬讗 注砖专讬诐 讙专讛 讛砖拽诇 诇诪讚谞讜 诇砖拽诇 砖讛讜讗 注砖专讬诐 讙专讛 讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 专爪讛 诇讛讜住讬祝 讬讜住讬祝 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讛讬讛 讬讻讜诇 讬驻讞讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers that the baraita is referring to the period after the Sages added one-sixth to the coins, i.e., four ma鈥檃 to each sela. As it is taught in a baraita, with regard to the verse: 鈥淭wenty gera shall be the shekel鈥 (Leviticus 27:25): We learn from here with regard to the shekel mentioned in the Torah that it is twenty gera. And from where is it derived that if one wants to add to the number of ma鈥檃 in the shekel he may add? The verse states: 鈥淭wenty gera shall be the shekel,鈥 whereby the term 鈥渟hall be鈥 denotes an increase. One might have thought that one may reduce the number of ma鈥檃 in the shekel to fewer than twenty. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭he same is twenty gera鈥 (Numbers 18:16), i.e., it may not be fewer than that.

专讘 讗砖讬 砖讚专 诇讬讛 砖讘住专 讝讜讝讬 诇专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讘驻讚讬讜谉 讛讘谉 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 诇讬砖讚专 诇讬 诪专 转诇转讗 讬转讬专转讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注诇讜讬讬讛讜 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 诇砖讚专 诇讬 诪专 转诇转讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讚讗讜住讬驻讜 注讬诇讜讬讬讛讜

The Gemara relates that Rav Ashi sent seventeen dinars to Rav A岣, son of Ravina, a priest, for the redemption of the firstborn son. Along with the money, Rav Ashi sent him the following message: Let the Master send me back the extra one-third of a dinar that is included in the sum. Since according to Rava the sela of the Torah is worth three and one-third dinars, five sela amount to sixteen dinars and two-thirds, which is one-third less than the seventeen dinars he sent. Rav A岣 sent him in response: Let the Master send me the other three dinars that the Sages added to them, since after the Sages added to the sela of the Torah, five sela are equal to twenty dinars, three more than the seventeen Rav Ashi sent.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻诇 讻住祝 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 住转诐 住诇注 讚谞讘讬讗讬诐 诇讬讟专讬谉 讚讻转讜讘讬谉 拽讬谞讟专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讻住驻讜 砖诇 注驻专讜谉 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讻转讜讘 讘转讜专讛 住转诐 拽讬谞讟专讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 砖拽诇 讻住祝 注讜讘专 诇住讞专 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讜讻转讗 讚拽讗 拽专讜 诇拽讬谞讟专讗 转讬拽诇讗

搂 The Gemara continues to discuss the value of coins. Rabbi 岣nina says: Any silver shekel that is stated in the Torah but which is unspecified is referring to one sela. Additionally, any unspecified silver shekel mentioned in the Prophets is a silver litra, weighing twenty-five sela, and any unspecified silver shekel mentioned in the Writings is in centenaria [kintarin], silver weighing one hundred sela. This is the case throughout the Bible except for the silver of Ephron, where even though it is written in the Torah: 鈥淪hekels of silver,鈥 without specification, it is in centenaria, as it is written: 鈥淔our hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant鈥 (Genesis 23:16). This means that the silver was acceptable as shekels everywhere, and there is a place where they call a centenarius a shekel.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讘讬拽砖讜 诇讙谞讜讝 讻诇 讻住祝 讜讝讛讘 砖讘注讜诇诐 诪驻谞讬 讻住驻讛 讜讝讛讘讛 砖诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 注讚 砖诪爪讗讜 诇讜 诪拽专讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖讛讜讗 诪讜转专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讘讗讜 讘讛 驻专讬爪讬诐 讜讞诇诇讜讛

With regard to the worn-out dinars of Hadrian and Trajan mentioned earlier, Rabbi Oshaya says: The Sages wished to sequester all the silver and gold in the world because of the silver and gold of Jerusalem, i.e., that which was kept in the Temple treasury and was appropriated by gentiles and mixed with other silver and gold. They did not permit its use until they found a verse in the Torah indicating that it is permitted, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd robbers shall enter into it, and profane it鈥 (Ezekiel 7:22). This verse teaches that once robbers plundered the silver and gold it is profaned and does not retain its sanctity.

讜讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讛讜讬讗 专讜讘讗 讚注诇诪讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘拽砖讜 诇讙谞讜讝 讚讬谞专讗 讛讚专讬讬谞讗 讟讬专讬讬讗谞讗 砖讬讬讗驻讗 诪驻谞讬 讟讘注讛 砖诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 注讚 砖诪爪讗讜 诇讛 诪拽专讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖讛讜讗 诪讜转专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讘讗讜 讘讛 驻专讬爪讬诐 讜讞诇诇讜讛

The Gemara asks: And is Jerusalem the majority of the world such that that all of the silver and gold of the world should be prohibited due to a concern that it comes from Jerusalem? Rather, Abaye said: The Sages wished to sequester all the worn-out dinars of Hadrian and Trajan because of the coins of Jerusalem, as these coins contained a large quantity of the Temple treasury鈥檚 gold and silver, until they found a verse in the Torah indicating that it is permitted, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd robbers shall enter into it, and profane it.鈥

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讻诇 讻住祝 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 住转诐 讻住祝 爪讜专讬 讜砖诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 讻住祝 诪讚讬谞讛

Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: Every sum of money stated in the Torah without specifying that it is in shekels is referring to silver dinars of Tyrian coinage, which have a high value. And every mention of coins in statements of the Sages is referring to provincial coinage, which was worth roughly one-eighth of Tyrian coinage.

讜讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗 讜讛专讬 讟注谞讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬转谉 讗讬砖 讗诇 专注讛讜 讻住祝 讗讜 讻诇讬诐 诇砖诪讜专

The Gemara challenges: And is it an established principle that all money mentioned in the Torah is a silver dinar of Tyrian coinage? But there is the case of one who admits to part of a claim that he has not returned a deposit or loan, where it is written: 鈥淚f a man deliver to his neighbor money or vessels to guard and it is stolen out of the man鈥檚 house鈥he cause of both parties shall come before the judges鈥 (Exodus 22:6鈥8). This teaches that the case is brought to a court, where the defendant must take an oath.

讜转谞谉 砖讘讜注转 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讛讟注谞讛 砖转讬 讻住祝

And we learned in a mishna with regard to one who admits to part of a claim (Shevuot 38b): The oath administered by the judges to one who admits to part of a claim is administered only when the claim is for at least two silver ma鈥檃, and the defendant鈥檚 admission is to at least the value of one peruta. If every sum of money mentioned in the Torah is referring to Tyrian coinage, how did the Sages arrive at the amount of two ma鈥檃 in this case?

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讻住祝 讗讜 讻诇讬诐 诪讛 讻诇讬诐 砖谞讬诐 讗祝 讻住祝 砖谞讬诐 讜诪讛 讻住祝 讚讘专 讞砖讜讘 讗祝 讻诇讬诐 讚讘专 讞砖讜讘

The Gemara explains: There, the halakha is derived from a juxtaposition, as the 鈥渕oney鈥 mentioned in the verse is similar to 鈥渧essels鈥: Just as the word 鈥渧essels鈥 indicates at least two, so too, 鈥渕oney鈥 is referring to at least two coins. And just as money is a significant item, i.e., silver ma鈥檃, so too, the vessels must be a significant item. Rav Asi, by contrast, is referring to a mention of money where there is no juxtaposition.

讜讛专讬 诪注砖专 讚讻转讬讘 讜爪专转 讛讻住祝 讘讬讚讱 讜转谞谉 讛驻讜专讟 住诇注 讘诪注讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讻住祝 讻住祝 专讬讘讛

The Gemara challenges: But there is the case of the redemption of second tithe, as it is written: 鈥淎nd bind up the money in your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:25). And yet we learned in a mishna (Ma鈥檃ser Sheni 2:8): With regard to one who exchanges copper coins of second-tithe money for a sela, Beit Shammai say: He may exchange the copper coins for the entire silver sela. This mishna indicates that second-tithe money, mentioned in the Torah, can be in the form of copper coins, and is not required to be in the form of silver coins. The Gemara explains that the verse states: 鈥淢oney,鈥 鈥渕oney,鈥 using the term more than once. This serves as an amplification. In other words, this addition teaches that second-tithe money can be in any coinage, including copper coins.

讜讛专讬 讛拽讚砖 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞转谉 讛讻住祝 讜拽诐 诇讜 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛拽讚砖 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 砖讞讬诇诇讜 注诇 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪讞讜诇诇 讛拽讚砖 谞诪讬 讬诇讬祝 拽讚砖 拽讚砖 诪诪注砖专

The Gemara challenges: But there is the case of consecrated property, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he will give the money and it will be assured to him鈥 (see Leviticus 27:19). And Shmuel says: With regard to consecrated property worth one hundred dinars, which was redeemed for an item worth one peruta, it is redeemed. Although the word 鈥渕oney鈥 is stated in the Torah, a copper peruta may be used. The Gemara answers: There too, there is a reason for this unusual halakha, as he derives this ruling from a verbal analogy using the term 鈥渉oly鈥 mentioned here and 鈥渉oly鈥 from second tithe (see Leviticus 27:14, 30). Consequently, one may use any type of coin in this case as well.

讜讛专讬 拽讬讚讜砖讬 讗砖讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬爪讗讛 讞谞诐 讗讬谉 讻住祝 讜转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讚讬谞专 讜讘砖讜讛 讚讬谞专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻专讜讟讛 讜讘砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诇讬诪讗 专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

The Gemara challenges: But there is the case of the betrothal of a woman, as it is written: 鈥淭hen shall she go out for nothing, without money鈥 (Exodus 21:11). And yet we learned in a mishna (Kiddushin 2a) that Beit Shammai say that one can betroth her with one dinar or with an item that is worth one dinar, and Beit Hillel say one can betroth a woman with one peruta or with any item that is worth one peruta. If so, shall we say that Rav Asi, who claims that all sums of money mentioned in the Torah are in Tyrian coinage, stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, even though the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel?

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讻诇 讻住祝 拽爪讜讘 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 讻住祝 爪讜专讬 讜砖诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 讻住祝 诪讚讬谞讛

The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: Rather, if this was stated, it was stated like this: Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: Every set amount of money stated in the Torah, i.e., when a specific amount is mentioned, such as the fifty shekels paid by a rapist (Deuteronomy 22:29), is referring to Tyrian coinage, and any amount of money set by rabbinic law is in provincial coinage.

诪讗讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 砖诇 讘谉 讜讻讜壮

The Gemara asks: If so, what is Rav Asi teaching us? We already learn all of these halakhot explicitly in the mishna: The payment of five sela for the redemption of a firstborn son, the thirty for a Canaanite slave killed by an ox, the fifty of a rapist and of a seducer, and the one hundred of the slanderer are all paid in the shekel of the Sanctuary, which is determined based on Tyrian coinage.

讜砖诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 讻住祝 诪讚讬谞讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 讛转讜拽注 诇讞讘讬专讜 谞讜转谉 诇讜 住诇注 讜诇讗 转讬诪讗 住诇注 讗专讘注 讝讜讝讬 讗诇讗 驻诇讙讗 讚讝讜讝讗 讚拽专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 住诇注 驻诇讙讗 讚讝讜讝讗

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rav Asi to clarify that payments mentioned in statements of the Sages are referring to provincial coinage, as that halakha was not taught in the mishna. As we learned in a mishna (Bava Kamma 90a): The Sages established that one who strikes another as an act of disrespect must give him a sela as a fine for striking him. And Rav Asi teaches: Do not say that this sela is a Tyrian sela worth four dinars. Rather, it is the sela of provincial coinage, which is worth one-half a dinar, as people commonly call a one-half dinar by the name sela.

讞谞谉 讘讬砖讗 转拽注 诇讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬讛 驻诇讙讗 讚讝讜讝讗 讛讜转 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara relates that 岣nan the wicked struck a certain man. He came before Rav Huna for judgment, and Rav Huna said to him: Go give him half a dinar, which is the fine imposed for such an action. 岣nan had

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Bekhorot 50

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 50

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讚讬谞专讗 讛讚专讬讬谞讗 讟专讬讬谞讗 砖讬讬驻讗 讚诪讝讘谞讗 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讝讜讝讬 讚诇 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 砖转讜转讗 讜讛谞讱 诇驻讚讬讜谉 讛讘谉 讛谞讬 注砖专讬谉 讜讞讚 谞讻讬 讚谞拽讗 讛讜讬

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one wishes to know how much to give for the redemption of the firstborn son, take the worn-out gold dinars of Hadrian and Trajan, which are sold at twenty-five dinars, and deduct from them one-sixth. And these that remain are the five sela that one must give for the redemption of the firstborn son, i.e., twenty dinars, as there are four dinars in a sela. The Gemara challenges: After deducting one- sixth from twenty-five, one is not left with twenty dinars, but twenty-one dinars less one-sixth [danka] of a dinar.

讗诇讗 讚诇 砖转讜转讗 讜讝讜讝讗 讜讛谞讱 诇驻讚讬讜谉 讛讘谉 讗讻转讬 注砖专讬谉 谞讻讬 讚谞拽讗 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 讚诇 讝讜讝讗 讜砖转讜转讗 讜讛谞讱 诇驻讚讬讜谉 讛讘谉 讚讛讜讬 诇讛讜 注砖专讬谉 诪转拽诇讬 讘诪转拽诇讬 讚讬谞专讗 讚讗讬谞讜谉 注砖专讬谉 讜转诪谞讬讗 讝讜讝讬 讜驻诇讙讬 讜驻诇讙讗 讚谞拽讗

Rather, deduct one-sixth and another dinar, and these that are left are for the redemption of the firstborn son. The Gemara challenges: But the calculation is still inexact, as this sum is twenty dinars less one-sixth of a dinar. Rather, first deduct one dinar, and from the remainder, i.e., twenty-four dinars, deduct one-sixth, and these that are left are the five sela coins that one must give for the redemption of the son. The Gemara notes that these are a weight of twenty matkalei of the small golden dinars known as matkalei, which are worth twenty-eight and a half dinars, and half of a sixth of a dinar, in Arabian silver dinars.

讗诪专 专讘讗 住讬诇注讬诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转诇转讗 讜转讬诇转讗 讛讜讬 讚讻转讬讘 注砖专讬诐 讙专讛 讛砖拽诇 讜诪转专讙诪讬谞谉 注砖专讬谉 诪注讬谉 讜转谞讬讗 砖砖 诪注讛 讻住祝 讚讬谞专

Rava says: The biblical sela coins, i.e., the shekels that must be given for the redemption of the firstborn son, are each three and one-third dinars in weight, not four dinars. As it is written: 鈥淭he shekel is twenty gera (Exodus 30:13), and we translate 鈥渢wenty gera鈥 as twenty ma鈥檃. And it is taught in a baraita: Six silver ma鈥檃 equal a dinar. If so, twenty ma鈥檃, which is equal to the sela of the Torah, is worth three and one-third dinars.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜讛诇讗 住诇注 砖诇 拽讚砖 讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖诪谞讛 驻讜谞讚讬讜谞讬谉

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita, which discusses the halakha of one who redeems an ancestral field from the Temple treasury. The Torah states that one who consecrates his field in the Jubilee year gives as its redemption, for each of the upcoming forty-nine years, fifty sela for each area fit for the sowing of a kor of barley seed. In this regard, the Sages have said that one gives a sela and a pundeyon, which is half a ma鈥檃, per year. The baraita notes a discrepancy here: But in the sela coins of the Sanctuary there are forty-eight pundeyon, which means that according to the statement of the Sages, the redemption for forty-nine years amounts to forty-nine sela and forty-nine pundeyon, i.e., fifty sela and a pundeyon, one pundeyon more than the sum required by the Torah.

驻讜谞讚讬讜谉 讝讛 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 拽讬诇讘讜谉 诇驻专讜讟专讜讟

The baraita explains: This pundeyon, what is its function? It is a premium [kilbon] for exchanging the sela into pundeyon. In any case, this baraita teaches that there are forty-eight pundeyon in the sela of the Torah, which is twenty-four ma鈥檃. This contradicts the statement of Rava, who said that the sela of the Torah is worth only twenty ma鈥檃.

讘转专 讚讗讜住讬驻讜 注讬诇讜讬讬讛讜 讚转谞讬讗 注砖专讬诐 讙专讛 讛砖拽诇 诇诪讚谞讜 诇砖拽诇 砖讛讜讗 注砖专讬诐 讙专讛 讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 专爪讛 诇讛讜住讬祝 讬讜住讬祝 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讛讬讛 讬讻讜诇 讬驻讞讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers that the baraita is referring to the period after the Sages added one-sixth to the coins, i.e., four ma鈥檃 to each sela. As it is taught in a baraita, with regard to the verse: 鈥淭wenty gera shall be the shekel鈥 (Leviticus 27:25): We learn from here with regard to the shekel mentioned in the Torah that it is twenty gera. And from where is it derived that if one wants to add to the number of ma鈥檃 in the shekel he may add? The verse states: 鈥淭wenty gera shall be the shekel,鈥 whereby the term 鈥渟hall be鈥 denotes an increase. One might have thought that one may reduce the number of ma鈥檃 in the shekel to fewer than twenty. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭he same is twenty gera鈥 (Numbers 18:16), i.e., it may not be fewer than that.

专讘 讗砖讬 砖讚专 诇讬讛 砖讘住专 讝讜讝讬 诇专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讘驻讚讬讜谉 讛讘谉 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 诇讬砖讚专 诇讬 诪专 转诇转讗 讬转讬专转讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注诇讜讬讬讛讜 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 诇砖讚专 诇讬 诪专 转诇转讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讚讗讜住讬驻讜 注讬诇讜讬讬讛讜

The Gemara relates that Rav Ashi sent seventeen dinars to Rav A岣, son of Ravina, a priest, for the redemption of the firstborn son. Along with the money, Rav Ashi sent him the following message: Let the Master send me back the extra one-third of a dinar that is included in the sum. Since according to Rava the sela of the Torah is worth three and one-third dinars, five sela amount to sixteen dinars and two-thirds, which is one-third less than the seventeen dinars he sent. Rav A岣 sent him in response: Let the Master send me the other three dinars that the Sages added to them, since after the Sages added to the sela of the Torah, five sela are equal to twenty dinars, three more than the seventeen Rav Ashi sent.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻诇 讻住祝 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 住转诐 住诇注 讚谞讘讬讗讬诐 诇讬讟专讬谉 讚讻转讜讘讬谉 拽讬谞讟专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讻住驻讜 砖诇 注驻专讜谉 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讻转讜讘 讘转讜专讛 住转诐 拽讬谞讟专讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 砖拽诇 讻住祝 注讜讘专 诇住讞专 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讜讻转讗 讚拽讗 拽专讜 诇拽讬谞讟专讗 转讬拽诇讗

搂 The Gemara continues to discuss the value of coins. Rabbi 岣nina says: Any silver shekel that is stated in the Torah but which is unspecified is referring to one sela. Additionally, any unspecified silver shekel mentioned in the Prophets is a silver litra, weighing twenty-five sela, and any unspecified silver shekel mentioned in the Writings is in centenaria [kintarin], silver weighing one hundred sela. This is the case throughout the Bible except for the silver of Ephron, where even though it is written in the Torah: 鈥淪hekels of silver,鈥 without specification, it is in centenaria, as it is written: 鈥淔our hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant鈥 (Genesis 23:16). This means that the silver was acceptable as shekels everywhere, and there is a place where they call a centenarius a shekel.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讘讬拽砖讜 诇讙谞讜讝 讻诇 讻住祝 讜讝讛讘 砖讘注讜诇诐 诪驻谞讬 讻住驻讛 讜讝讛讘讛 砖诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 注讚 砖诪爪讗讜 诇讜 诪拽专讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖讛讜讗 诪讜转专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讘讗讜 讘讛 驻专讬爪讬诐 讜讞诇诇讜讛

With regard to the worn-out dinars of Hadrian and Trajan mentioned earlier, Rabbi Oshaya says: The Sages wished to sequester all the silver and gold in the world because of the silver and gold of Jerusalem, i.e., that which was kept in the Temple treasury and was appropriated by gentiles and mixed with other silver and gold. They did not permit its use until they found a verse in the Torah indicating that it is permitted, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd robbers shall enter into it, and profane it鈥 (Ezekiel 7:22). This verse teaches that once robbers plundered the silver and gold it is profaned and does not retain its sanctity.

讜讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讛讜讬讗 专讜讘讗 讚注诇诪讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘拽砖讜 诇讙谞讜讝 讚讬谞专讗 讛讚专讬讬谞讗 讟讬专讬讬讗谞讗 砖讬讬讗驻讗 诪驻谞讬 讟讘注讛 砖诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 注讚 砖诪爪讗讜 诇讛 诪拽专讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖讛讜讗 诪讜转专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讘讗讜 讘讛 驻专讬爪讬诐 讜讞诇诇讜讛

The Gemara asks: And is Jerusalem the majority of the world such that that all of the silver and gold of the world should be prohibited due to a concern that it comes from Jerusalem? Rather, Abaye said: The Sages wished to sequester all the worn-out dinars of Hadrian and Trajan because of the coins of Jerusalem, as these coins contained a large quantity of the Temple treasury鈥檚 gold and silver, until they found a verse in the Torah indicating that it is permitted, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd robbers shall enter into it, and profane it.鈥

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讻诇 讻住祝 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 住转诐 讻住祝 爪讜专讬 讜砖诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 讻住祝 诪讚讬谞讛

Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: Every sum of money stated in the Torah without specifying that it is in shekels is referring to silver dinars of Tyrian coinage, which have a high value. And every mention of coins in statements of the Sages is referring to provincial coinage, which was worth roughly one-eighth of Tyrian coinage.

讜讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗 讜讛专讬 讟注谞讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬转谉 讗讬砖 讗诇 专注讛讜 讻住祝 讗讜 讻诇讬诐 诇砖诪讜专

The Gemara challenges: And is it an established principle that all money mentioned in the Torah is a silver dinar of Tyrian coinage? But there is the case of one who admits to part of a claim that he has not returned a deposit or loan, where it is written: 鈥淚f a man deliver to his neighbor money or vessels to guard and it is stolen out of the man鈥檚 house鈥he cause of both parties shall come before the judges鈥 (Exodus 22:6鈥8). This teaches that the case is brought to a court, where the defendant must take an oath.

讜转谞谉 砖讘讜注转 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讛讟注谞讛 砖转讬 讻住祝

And we learned in a mishna with regard to one who admits to part of a claim (Shevuot 38b): The oath administered by the judges to one who admits to part of a claim is administered only when the claim is for at least two silver ma鈥檃, and the defendant鈥檚 admission is to at least the value of one peruta. If every sum of money mentioned in the Torah is referring to Tyrian coinage, how did the Sages arrive at the amount of two ma鈥檃 in this case?

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讻住祝 讗讜 讻诇讬诐 诪讛 讻诇讬诐 砖谞讬诐 讗祝 讻住祝 砖谞讬诐 讜诪讛 讻住祝 讚讘专 讞砖讜讘 讗祝 讻诇讬诐 讚讘专 讞砖讜讘

The Gemara explains: There, the halakha is derived from a juxtaposition, as the 鈥渕oney鈥 mentioned in the verse is similar to 鈥渧essels鈥: Just as the word 鈥渧essels鈥 indicates at least two, so too, 鈥渕oney鈥 is referring to at least two coins. And just as money is a significant item, i.e., silver ma鈥檃, so too, the vessels must be a significant item. Rav Asi, by contrast, is referring to a mention of money where there is no juxtaposition.

讜讛专讬 诪注砖专 讚讻转讬讘 讜爪专转 讛讻住祝 讘讬讚讱 讜转谞谉 讛驻讜专讟 住诇注 讘诪注讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讻住祝 讻住祝 专讬讘讛

The Gemara challenges: But there is the case of the redemption of second tithe, as it is written: 鈥淎nd bind up the money in your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:25). And yet we learned in a mishna (Ma鈥檃ser Sheni 2:8): With regard to one who exchanges copper coins of second-tithe money for a sela, Beit Shammai say: He may exchange the copper coins for the entire silver sela. This mishna indicates that second-tithe money, mentioned in the Torah, can be in the form of copper coins, and is not required to be in the form of silver coins. The Gemara explains that the verse states: 鈥淢oney,鈥 鈥渕oney,鈥 using the term more than once. This serves as an amplification. In other words, this addition teaches that second-tithe money can be in any coinage, including copper coins.

讜讛专讬 讛拽讚砖 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞转谉 讛讻住祝 讜拽诐 诇讜 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛拽讚砖 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 砖讞讬诇诇讜 注诇 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪讞讜诇诇 讛拽讚砖 谞诪讬 讬诇讬祝 拽讚砖 拽讚砖 诪诪注砖专

The Gemara challenges: But there is the case of consecrated property, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he will give the money and it will be assured to him鈥 (see Leviticus 27:19). And Shmuel says: With regard to consecrated property worth one hundred dinars, which was redeemed for an item worth one peruta, it is redeemed. Although the word 鈥渕oney鈥 is stated in the Torah, a copper peruta may be used. The Gemara answers: There too, there is a reason for this unusual halakha, as he derives this ruling from a verbal analogy using the term 鈥渉oly鈥 mentioned here and 鈥渉oly鈥 from second tithe (see Leviticus 27:14, 30). Consequently, one may use any type of coin in this case as well.

讜讛专讬 拽讬讚讜砖讬 讗砖讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬爪讗讛 讞谞诐 讗讬谉 讻住祝 讜转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讚讬谞专 讜讘砖讜讛 讚讬谞专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻专讜讟讛 讜讘砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诇讬诪讗 专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

The Gemara challenges: But there is the case of the betrothal of a woman, as it is written: 鈥淭hen shall she go out for nothing, without money鈥 (Exodus 21:11). And yet we learned in a mishna (Kiddushin 2a) that Beit Shammai say that one can betroth her with one dinar or with an item that is worth one dinar, and Beit Hillel say one can betroth a woman with one peruta or with any item that is worth one peruta. If so, shall we say that Rav Asi, who claims that all sums of money mentioned in the Torah are in Tyrian coinage, stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, even though the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel?

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讻诇 讻住祝 拽爪讜讘 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 讻住祝 爪讜专讬 讜砖诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 讻住祝 诪讚讬谞讛

The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: Rather, if this was stated, it was stated like this: Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: Every set amount of money stated in the Torah, i.e., when a specific amount is mentioned, such as the fifty shekels paid by a rapist (Deuteronomy 22:29), is referring to Tyrian coinage, and any amount of money set by rabbinic law is in provincial coinage.

诪讗讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 砖诇 讘谉 讜讻讜壮

The Gemara asks: If so, what is Rav Asi teaching us? We already learn all of these halakhot explicitly in the mishna: The payment of five sela for the redemption of a firstborn son, the thirty for a Canaanite slave killed by an ox, the fifty of a rapist and of a seducer, and the one hundred of the slanderer are all paid in the shekel of the Sanctuary, which is determined based on Tyrian coinage.

讜砖诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 讻住祝 诪讚讬谞讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 讛转讜拽注 诇讞讘讬专讜 谞讜转谉 诇讜 住诇注 讜诇讗 转讬诪讗 住诇注 讗专讘注 讝讜讝讬 讗诇讗 驻诇讙讗 讚讝讜讝讗 讚拽专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 住诇注 驻诇讙讗 讚讝讜讝讗

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rav Asi to clarify that payments mentioned in statements of the Sages are referring to provincial coinage, as that halakha was not taught in the mishna. As we learned in a mishna (Bava Kamma 90a): The Sages established that one who strikes another as an act of disrespect must give him a sela as a fine for striking him. And Rav Asi teaches: Do not say that this sela is a Tyrian sela worth four dinars. Rather, it is the sela of provincial coinage, which is worth one-half a dinar, as people commonly call a one-half dinar by the name sela.

讞谞谉 讘讬砖讗 转拽注 诇讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬讛 驻诇讙讗 讚讝讜讝讗 讛讜转 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara relates that 岣nan the wicked struck a certain man. He came before Rav Huna for judgment, and Rav Huna said to him: Go give him half a dinar, which is the fine imposed for such an action. 岣nan had

Scroll To Top