Bava Kamma 97b (צז:) — the Talmud in English

Rav said:

He gives him a coin that is current at that time.

That is, since the debt was established to be repaid in currency, he must repay it with currency that is currently in circulation, because the currency that was in use when the merchandise was lent is no longer considered currency here.

And Shmuel said: He can say to him, “Go and spend it in Meishan!”

That is, there is a place called “Meishan” where this currency is still in circulation; therefore, he may repay him even with currency that has been disqualified here.

Rav Naḥman said: Shmuel’s statement stands to reason

where

there is

the lender

a route

a possible route

to travel to Meishan.

But

if

he has no route,

meaning that he cannot travel to Meishan,

not

does Shmuel’s statement stand to reason.

Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman

from the words of the baraita in the Tosefta [Ma'aser Sheni, chapter 1:

One may not redeem

second-tithe produce

with money that is not in circulation.

How so? If one had Kuzbiyyot Jerusalem coins,

old coins from Jerusalem that were minted in the days of Bar Kokhba,

or coins of the earlier kings, one may not redeem

second-tithe produce with them.

This implies that

if the coins were

of

kings

of later times,

when they are

similar to those of the earlier kings,

that is, they resemble the coins of the earlier kings in that they are not in circulation [except that the coins of the later kings are in circulation elsewhere, whereas those of the earlier kings are not in circulation at all],

one may redeem with them!

And this indicates that one may redeem with them in every circumstance, even if he has no way to travel to the kingdom where they are in circulation, as the case involves Jerusalem coins, and not everyone is able to reach Jerusalem.

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman said to Rava:

Here, with what are we dealing? With a situation in which the kingdoms do not enforce restrictions against one another,

so that one may redeem with the old coins.

And the Gemara challenges this:

Rather,

according to your statement,

when Shmuel said

that if he has a route to Meishan, he can say to him, “Go and spend it in Meishan,” he was speaking

when the kingdoms do enforce restrictions against one another.

But this is difficult:

How can he bring them there,

how can he bring them to Meishan, when the kingdoms enforce restrictions on the use of the currency they have disqualified, and if they find them in his possession, they will confiscate them?

The Gemara answers:

He can bring it there with difficulty,

as he can conceal them, because they do not search for them,

as they do not inspect,

as they do not search through people’s vessels; only

if they find them

only then

do they enforce the restriction.

Therefore, if he has a route to Meishan, these coins are useful to him; but if he has no route there, he has no use for them here, since he can display them only discreetly, and not publicly.

Come and hear

a proof from a baraita that we learned:

One may not redeem with money of here,

that is, with Jerusalem money,

when they

the money itself and its owners

are in Babylonia.

Since the Jerusalem money is not useful in Babylonia.

And

likewise, one may not redeem with money

of Babylonia when it

is currently

here,

in Jerusalem.

Only with money

of Babylonia when it is in Babylonia may one redeem.

In any event, it teaches: One may not redeem with money of here [

of Jerusalem]

when it is in Babylonia, although ultimately he intends to ascend there!

For ultimately, these coins are intended to be taken up to Jerusalem!

And from here it is proven that money is considered to be in circulation only in its own place, and it is insufficient that there is a possibility of spending it in Meishan! The Gemara answers:

Here, with what are we dealing? With a situation in which the kingdoms enforce restrictions against one another.

The Gemara is perplexed by this interpretation:

If so,

if the case is one in which the countries enforce restrictions and do not allow coins to be transferred from place to place, money

of Babylonia when it is in Babylonia—for what is it fit?

Why is it suitable for redeeming second-tithe produce? They will not be able to take it up to Jerusalem, since in Jerusalem they enforce a restriction against spending it there!?

The Gemara answers: It is suitable,

it is fit for that purpose,

as one can purchase an animal with it and take it up

and bring the animal up

to Jerusalem.

The Gemara now raises a difficulty concerning what we learned: “And not with money of Babylonia when it is here [in Jerusalem]:

But wasn’t it taught: They instituted that all money should be in circulation in Jerusalem, because of this?

all

the money should be in circulation in Jerusalem, because of this.

Rabbi Zeira said: This is not difficult.

Here it is referring to a time when the hand of Israel is dominant over the nations of the world,

and they instituted this ordinance.

Here it is referring to a time when the hand of the nations of the world is dominant over one another,

and they prevent the transfer of the coins.

The Sages taught: What is a Jerusalem coin?

Written on it is

“David and Solomon” on one side, and “Jerusalem, the Holy City,”

written on it

on the other side.

And what is a coin of Abraham our forefather?

Written on it is

“An old man and an old woman” [

meaning Abraham and Sarah]

on one side, and “a young man and a young woman” [

Isaac and Rebecca]

on the other side.

Rava asked Rav Ḥisda:

According to Rav, who holds that when one lends merchandise to another against currency and the currency is disqualified, he gives him currency that is currently in circulation, what is the halakha concerning

one who lends to another against currency, and its value was increased,

meaning that the value of the currency was raised,

what is the ruling?

He said to him: He gives him currency that is current at that time,

when he repays his debt, even though it is worth more.

He said to him: Even

if they increased the value of the currency

by a nefya,

which is a substantial amount?

He said to him: Yes!

He said to him: Even by a tartiya,

meaning that they increased its value by the measure of a large sela?

He said to him: Yes!

And Rava was perplexed:

But the produce has become cheaper,

for since the currency increased in value, the price of the produce purchased with that currency decreased, and it follows that the increase in the value of the currency is considered interest!

Rav Ashi said: We examine it: If

indeed

because of

the increase in the value of

the currency the produce became cheaper,

then it is interest, and

we deduct it from him,

reducing the payment accordingly.